How much faith do you need to become a buddhist? Faith in hell and heaven, Karma, rebirth, other realms etc. because all of them can't be proved via scientific method. If you say that you can see them by yourself, how do you know that it is not an illusion like when we have a lucid dream. Thanks

In hardcore ('supramundane') Buddhism, it is taught the cause for the generation of faith is your personal experience of suffering or dissatisfaction with ordinary worldly life. To quote:

Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for
faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.
Upanisa Sutta

~

And what is the noble search? There is the case where a person, himself being subject to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeks
the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Nibbana. Himself being
subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing
the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement,
seeks the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, undefiled,
unexcelled rest from the yoke: Nibbana. This is the noble search.
Ariyapariyesana Sutta

In addition, the scriptures explain hearing the True Teaching is a cause of faith.

Faith, too, has its nutriment; it is not without a nutriment. And what is the nutriment of faith? 'Listening to the True Teaching,'
should be the answer.
AN 10.61

The hardcore scriptures explain individual people are drawn to eachother due to the individual genetic (dhatu) composition of their bio-psychology (nama-rupa). For certain individuals, hearing about unknowable things in Buddhism will turn them away from Buddhism therefore the purpose of Buddhism will never be achieved by anyone on the planet Earth (since craving for future lives, similar to how many Christians are interested in living forever, is contrary to the path to Nibbana).
Therefore, on the hardcore level, faith in external hells and heavens, karmic-rebirth, other realms etc, is not required, which is why in the 1st three sermons attributed to the Buddha, which gave rise to many enlightened beings, these things were not mentioned at all.
If you say that you can see them by yourself, yes, in hardcore Buddhism, this is considered to be an illusion like when we have a lucid dream. To quote:

Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There
he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height.
He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop
off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer
skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to
say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it,
observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing
it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void,
without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree?
In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any
mental fabrications that are past, future, or present; internal or external;
blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing
them, observing them, & appropriately examining them — they would
appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there
be in fabrications?
"Now suppose that a magician or magician's
apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and
a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately
examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately
examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for
what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a
monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that
is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle;
common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, &
appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without
substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?
Phena Sutta

In conclusion, if the mind can see clearly the illusionary nature of all mental phenomena & sense objects of consciousness, it should be already enlightened (therefore does not require to ask questions about faith in Buddhism).


Integration of Body and Mind Upon asking about over-watching Youtube, I wondered if this activity was detrimental because it was merely sensory without much cognition. Buddhism usually promotes seemingly either attention (mindfulness), action (compassion), or even contemplation (analytical meditation).

Therefore, I am wondering whether Buddhism considers that activities relying solely on the senses and the body cause detriment? Do only activities with a cognitive or mindful component bring benefit?

Also, I feel vipassana is divided between bodily observations as the body itself and feeling, and mental observations as mind and dhammas. Is this seemingly complementary approach linked explicitly with integration of body-mind?

Thank you

I don't think mere "cognition" is necessarily helpful.

And Buddhism might regard "cognition" as merely another sense, the 6th sense -- i.e. with the "cognition of thoughts" being objects of the mind, comparable with the "seeing of sights" being objects of the eye.

Examples of mere cognition might, I suppose, include watching videos, reading books, arguing online, doing cross-word puzzles...

What might be more helpful is "directed" thought, purposeful, intentional -- and preferably with a motive which aligns with Buddhist values and morality (e.g. beneficial, harmless, liberating).

I think that's related to "energy" -- i.e. that's a type of cognition which is associated with, from which derives, a self-sustaining energy.

I don't know of a canonical reference to justify this answer, though.

This article -- The Seven Factors of Enlightenment -- implies there may be some connection between "energy" and "purposefulness":

  The third enlightenment factor is viriya, energy. It is a mental property (cetasika) and the sixth limb of the Noble Eightfold Path, there called samma-vayama, right effort.

  The life of the Buddha clearly reveals that he was never subjected to moral or spiritual fatigue. From the hour of his enlightenment to the end of his life, he strove tirelessly to elevate mankind, regardless of the bodily fatigue involved, and oblivious to the many obstacles and handicaps that hampered his way. He never relaxed in his exertion for the common weal. Though physically he was not always fit, mentally he was ever vigilant and energetic. Of him it is said:

    Ah, wonderful is the Conqueror,
    Who e'er untiring strives
    For the blessing of all beings, for
    the comfort of all lives.

  Buddhism is for the sincerely zealous, strong and firm in purpose, and not for the indolent (araddhviriyassayam dhammo nayam dhammo kusitassa). The Buddha {etc.}

And "mindfulness" ought to be helpful -- that is assuming that "mindfulness" means not just "attention" but "remembering the Dhamma".


Annatta and taking responsibility I'm a bit confused about "not self". How do you take responsibility for your actions if you don't see them as your actions but just a process happening? For example if you're an alcoholic part of the process of healing if you go down the AA route is the importance of admitting to yourself that you are an alcoholic and stand up in AA meetings and say "I'm an alcoholic"

But Buddhism would seem to say there is just alcoholism (or whatever the issue is) happening and it's not happening to a self.
I'm just beginning to become aware of some very entrenched personal emotional issues regarding relationships stemming from childhood etc and in order to find a way to heal I need to admit I have a problem and seek help but wouldn't the Buddhist view be - it's just stuff happening, passing and arising and not self?

Sure it passes and arises but the same pattern of issues continue to pass and arise and definitely feel like they are happening to me for many many years causing a lot of havoc and unhappiness in my life.  How do I integrate the Buddhist view into my life and take responsibility for what is occurring at the same time without kind of denying stuff by saying "it's not self"

How do you take responsibility for your actions if you don't see them as your actions but just a process happening?
A medical doctor has more than one medicine, for example one to make you vomit and another to stop you vomiting, one to make blood clot and another to stop blood clotting, and so on.
With various medicines which they can use, the point of being a doctor is knowing when to use them, how to use them skillfully, what (purpose and symptoms) to use them for.
Similarly I think there are several Buddhist doctrines, some maybe seem contradictory, and it's good to know when to use them.
Firstly I guess in Buddhism there's the notion of doing things "skillfully" -- see for example Does 'kusala' (skillful) also mean 'wholesome' and 'morally good'?
I assume that, broadly speaking, a "skillful" action (or view) is one which tends towards the cessation of suffering, whereas unskillful is the opposite (tends towards suffering).
If you were an alcoholic then I think you might think you have (cling to) several reasons for being alcoholic, for example:

I like alcohol
I am not alcoholic
I am an alcoholic
My mother and father were alcoholic
My friends are alcoholic
My being alcoholic hurts no-one but myself, it's my personal right to drink like this
Nobody else cares about me, I might as well drink like this
It makes me feel good

I think that any or all of these could be considered "views" or "self-views" (and/or possibly conceits).
If views like this are a reason why you're alcoholic (remain attached to alcohol), then Buddhist doctrine such as,

This is not mine,
This is not me,
This is not my self

... could be a helpful remedy (perhaps a prescription to take whenever you find views like the ones listed above).
More generally I think that Buddhism teaches than any "view of self" at all is a cause of dukkha -- How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
Conversely though there's a lot of Buddhist doctrine which encourages "taking responsibility":

Everyone seems to recommend sila (virtuous behaviour) as the basis or first part of the Threefold Training (and, possibly, the only part of the training that's essential for laypeople).

The Buddhist doctrine of kamma teaches that each person is "heir to their own action":

I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'.

Schools of Buddhism tend to emphasise personal responsibility, in contrast with (for example) the notion of a saviour deity (some forms of Christianity, for example, might teach that people are "saved" by God and not by their own efforts).

Buddhism has Right Intention and Right Effort as factors of the Noble Eightfold Path

Suttas teach that one should "be islands unto yourselves":

Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

How do I integrate the Buddhist view into my life and take responsibility for what is occurring at the same time without kind of denying stuff by saying "it's not self"?
Obviously a teacher might help. I find it extremely helpful to interact with (to see and converse with, learn from) people who set a good example.
Without my being a teacher though, to try to begin to answer your question here and now, I think that Buddhist doctrine can be summarised as:

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.

It's important to know that things cease ("things" including views, causes, and effects).
They arise and cease. Cease, and maybe arise again. Things arise because of causes, conditions. If that's a recurrent pattern (see also samsara) then you may want to change that by controlling the causes.
One of my friends had PTSD after (among other things) having been attacked, and bleeding in the shower. She subsequently had "flashbacks" (i.e. vivid unwanted memories, reliving the traumatic event), maybe dissociative disorders, and so on. The (non-Buddhist) therapy which she reported as having been most effective (antidote to flashbacks) was "mindfulness": e.g. when in the shower, remain conscious of being presently in the shower, of what you could see and feel now, and so on.
I mention that as an illustrative example because "mindfulness" (albeit maybe a different kind of mindfulness) is a feature of Buddhist "therapy" too.
I'm just beginning to become aware of some very entrenched personal emotional issues regarding relationships stemming from childhood etc and in order to find a way to heal I need to admit I have a problem and seek help but wouldn't the Buddhist view be - it's just stuff happening, passing and arising and not self?
Maybe?
I think my view is that if it's pathological, if it causes suffering, then you ought to (it's your responsibility to) do something about it if you can -- and so to seek help perhaps (as well as taking responsibility).
I think there's some dichotomy in the doctrine: on the one hand, Buddhism attempts the salvation of sentient beings, on the other hand an enlightened view avoids attachment to the view that there is "a being".
admitting to yourself that you are an alcoholic and stand up in AA meetings and say "I'm an alcoholic"
I think "I'm an alcoholic", meaning that I can view myself as a habit-forming creature. My view (my summary of my experience) is that if I start to drink alcohol then I'll tend to do the same (drink alcohol) again and then again; ditto if I start to smoke, start to read, start to bicycle, etc. (most any other activity).
Being alcoholic isn't "who I am" though: it's not essential, it's a habit I can change or get rid of, grow out of, be and do without, drop, put aside, or (hopefully) "make like a palmyra stump" as the suttas put it.
It's maybe part of "what I am" though (if I resumed the activity I expect I might find it habit-forming again): so when the occasion to think about it arises, then I now try to avoid it (and to the extent that that avoidance is now a "skillful virtue" that is maybe no longer a cause for remorse).


Help to identify origin/history of a statuette of the Buddha? Can anyone help me identify this please? I can not find one the same, and would love a bit of history on him.

Small buddha bought on eBay -- stated "possibly from China", he was not sure

I'm looking to try and age or authenticate my Buddha. This is on bottom -- again I can not find one the same, only full circle ones.

Any ideas? Any help appreciated greatly in my search of his history.

Looking at the way the robe is set, It does not look like a Mahayana Buddha's statue. It seems it is Theravada Buddha. It is possible from Sri Lanka or Myanmar. I may be wrong. By the way, it is a good choice.


Is one intention better than the other? Intention that is good will have a good result and bring happiness, bad intention will have a bad result and suffering as a result. But many things have been experienced in life, one thing can be experienced many times in different situation, condition and time. These all together with one's habit will give rise to different kind of intentions only for one action. The first intention will be followed by the second or maybe the third.

Normally intention that first comes up is closely related to someone character/behavior, realizing this he corrects his mistake. Along with this correction, there will be another intention over two previous intentions.

In that case, is one intention better than the other?

Each intention is it's own Karma. Whether one intention is better than the other depends on the purity of the intention. In other words, if it's defiled by greed, hatred and ignorance.


Is radiating loving kindness increase attachment? In the early stage, it's said that radiating loving kindness to opposite sex can potentially arouse lust. While I'm not sure if the person who we radiate loving kindness to can have their lust aroused, is radiating loving kindness in any stage of practice by any means can increase the attachment to that person? What is the proper way to do this?

Lovingkindness, good-will (metta): Near enemy – attachment/lust; far enemy – hatred
Compassion (karuna): Near enemy – pity; far enemy – cruelty
Sympathetic joy, Appreciation (mudita), joy at the good fortune of
others: Near enemy – comparison,hypocrisy, insincerity, joy for
others but tinged with identification (my team, my child); far enemy
– envy
Equanimity (upekkha): Near enemy – indifference; far enemy – anxiety, greed

Practicing loving kindness towards the opposite sex does not increase attachment or arouse lust. But if you are a lustful person, you can easily mistake the counterfeit near enemy as the loving kindness and as a result arouse lust and increase attachment in you.

So if you have an urge to make physical contact with someone or chat up and winover, you should avoid practicing loving kindness towards them until you are skilled enough to identify the counterfeit from authentic Metta.


Can bodhisatta reborn as mara Sometime i read that the current mara is a bodhisatta. It seems hard to believe a bodhisatta can be reborn as mara, who oftens damage buddhism.

There are two types of bodhisatta, the comfirmed one by a Buddha which will surely become a Buddha, and the not comfirmed yet, maybe mara is the later who can still return to normal being.

So, can a bodhisatta, comfirmed or not, reborn as mara?

Bodhisatta was under the influence of Mara. However, he defeated Mara when realising  Nibbana. (ie. Defeating ten Mara)


Jhana practice and Dry insight practice together Is it possible that a meditator uses jhana practice and dry insight together?

I mean: not combined in the same meditation session, but clearly in separate, distinct meditation sessions.

Both meditation practices have their own benefits (and disadvantages), so I wonder if it wouldn't be favorable to use the strengths of both.

It could be in any order:

  "There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquillity...Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight...Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight..." ~ AN 4.170 ~


Are there no Buddhas from other universes that are equal to our Buddha? Buddha said "nowhere between the lowest of hells below and the highest heaven above, nowhere in all the infinite worlds that stretch right and left, is there the equal, much less the superior, of a Buddha. Incalculable is the excellence which springs from obeying the Precepts and from other virtuous conduct." - Apannaka Jataka

Are there no Buddhas from other universes that are equal to our Buddha?

There can only ever be one fully enlightened Buddha (Sammasambuddha), like our Buddha Gautama, at a time.
The next fully enlightened Buddha is called Metteyya.


5th precept missing from 8fold Path? I can find the first 4 precepts explicitly listed in the 8fold Path- but not the 5th precept regarding intoxicants. Am I missing it in there somewhere? I am wondering if it was a later addition to the tradition.

There is an interesting relationship between the first four precepts and the fifth precept.

For e.g. from the Kalama Sutta (quoted below), we can see that the fifth precept is not included. You can find a similar grouping of the first four precepts in the Sigalovada Sutta as the four vices. It also appears in this way in the Sankha Sutta.

But there's a reason for this. Consuming intoxicating substances is by itself not a vice or evil act (unlike killing, stealing, telling lies and sexual misconduct), but it can cause you to become heedless and violate the first four precepts.

In this sense, the fifth precept is only there to support the first four precepts (and the rest of the training).

From the Kalama Sutta:

  “A greedy individual, overcome by greed, kills living creatures,
  steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same.
  Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?” “Yes, sir.”

  “A hateful individual, overcome by hate, kills living creatures,
  steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same.
  Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?” “Yes, sir.”

  “A deluded individual, overcome by delusion, kills living creatures,
  steals, commits adultery, lies, and encourages others to do the same.
  Is that for their lasting harm and suffering?” “Yes, sir.”

From the Sikkha-Dubbalya Sutta:

  "Monks, these five are things that weaken the training. Which five?
  The taking of life, stealing, sexual misconduct, the telling of lies,
  and distilled & fermented beverages that are a cause for heedlessness.
  These five are things that weaken the training.

Please see this question for more info on heedfulness (appamāda).


What is the difference between non-self and emptiness? Non-self (anātman) and emptiness (śūnya or śūnyatā) are very similar aspects of the Truth of Suffering. So similar that they are hard to distinguish apart. What is the difference between them? (Or what is purpose to have them as separate characteristics?)
Update: I did not specified that answers should be from Mahayana perspective, assuming that Theravada have the same list of 16 Aspects of Noble Truths, but it seems that Theravada list is quite different (see Visiddhimagga). And for some reason most answers was from Theravada perspective. I don't want to disregard Theravada explanations, and welcome them. But in Theravada, it seems, that suññata and anatta are never enumerated in the same list. Thus they don't imply distinction, and it's is quite possible that they are just synonyms (as pointed out by Unrul3r).
I will quote Abhidharmasamuccaya for more context:

What are the general characteristics of suffering? They are the
characteristics of (1) impermanence (anitya), (2) suffering (duḥkha),
(3) emptiness (śūnya) and (4) non-self (anātma).

Thus it's established that these are different characteristics.
Further Asanga provides some elaborations:

(3) What is the characteristic of emptiness (śūnyatā)? It is the
non-existence (abhāva) of a certain thing, there. To see
(samanupaśyanā) in this way is emptiness. Again, it is the existence
(bhāva) of another thing, there. In this way there is true knowledge
(yathābhūtajñāna). This is called emptiness perceived by penetration
(avatāra). True knowledge denotes the informed meaning. What is the
meaning of the non-existence of a certain thing, there? It is the
non-existence in the aggregates, elements and spheres of a self or
anything whatsoever belonging to a self of permanent, durable,
eternal, immutable nature. In this way is their emptiness. What is the
meaning of the existence of another thing, there? It is the fact that
there is non-self in the aggregates, elements and spheres. It is the
nonexistence of the self, and the existence of the non-self. It is in
this sense that the Blessed One has said: ‘Existence is the true
knowledge of an existent thing; non-existence is the true knowledge of
a non-existent thing.’
(4) What is the characteristic of non-self (anātma)? It is the
non-existence in the aggregates, elements and spheres of the
characteristics postulated in the theory of the self (ātmavāda) as a
result of the nonexistence of the characteristics of a self in the
aggregates, elements and spheres. This is called the characteristic of
non-self. For this reason the Blessed One said: ‘All things (dharmas)
are without self.’122 Furthermore, the Blessed One has said: “(i) All
of that is not mine, (ii) nor ‘I am’ nor my self”.123

So in light of this, what is the difference?

As I understand, Mahayana's shunyata (noun, because shunya is adjective) includes all Three Characteristics of Existence, as well as Nirvana (sometimes counted as the fourth!)

In this sense, Shunyata is the all-encompassing view, and as close as it gets to Ultimate Truth, while Anatta is but one aspect of this truth.


What does Buddhism say about the existence of a self? Anatta and Sunyata doctrines from the Tripitaka and later Mahayana/Parjnaparimata sutras both have mentioned "not-self" or "empty of self" doctrines. I am still a bit confused, though, even after extensive reading and practice. Does Buddhism, in general, ever deny the fundamental existence of a self...or does it simply state to not identify with it?

And if the "not-self" or "emptiness of inherent existence" doctrines stress non-identification with the aggregates (name and form)...then who would be the one or the "I" doing the non-identification? Would the aggregates not be identifying with themselves if there was no actual "I?" Or would there be someone/something deeper than the aggregates?

Thank you to all~.

The 'self' is a temporary & changing 'idea' or 'assumption' the ignorant mind makes in relation to different experiences. Each separate idea of 'self' is formed by the process of becoming.

For example, a young child first develops ideas of self, such as "my mother; my father" & "I like this food". As the child gets older, it develops ideas of self such as: "I am American"; "I am Buddhist"; "I do not understand anatta"; " I disgree with anatta", etc. Before any experience of Buddhist teachings occurred, there was never the self-view of: "I do not understand anatta". The idea "I don't understand anatta" only occurred after having a sense experience of Buddhist literature.

All things are not a 'self' because any idea of 'self' is an 'assumption' and is 'suffering'. Thus, the scriptures have the saying: 'there is no self to be found; all there is is suffering arising & suffering ceasing'. This is because the arising of self-view is considered to be, in reality, the arising of suffering.

This is why there is no real self or even a temporary self because what unenlightened people call a 'self', the enlightened mind views as 'suffering'.

When enlightened minds use the words "I" and "mine", they regard such words as mere worldly social conventions rather than a temporary self.

People will refer to the Ananda Sutta about Vacchagotta to answer your question but this is invalid since here the Buddha refused to comment on the matter of self because Vacchagotta was confused & bewildered and incapable of understanding.

Some quotes below:

  There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
  has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
  self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is
  the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
  of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
  touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
  arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is
  inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That
  feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated,
  dependently co-arisen.

  Parileyyaka Sutta

~~~

  Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This
  is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.

  Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,
  when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'

  It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
  away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.

  Vajira Sutta

~~~~

  Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are
  cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts. That monk
  still might use such words as "I," Still perchance might say: "They
  call this mine." Well aware of common worldly speech, He would speak
  conforming to such use.

  Araha.m Sutta

~~~

  "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
  self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
  Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used
  to have now not exist?'"

  Ananda Sutta SN 44

So why is 'self' viewed as 'suffering' or as a 'disease' rather than viewed as a 'self', even as a 'temporary self'?

This is because each arising & creation of 'self' is based in craving and craving is suffering.

For example, once a child's mind is developed enough to manufacturer ideas of 'self', it manufacturers ideas of 'self' based on what it craves. These cravings are suffering or frustrations.

For example, the five aggregates of the child crave for food due to hunger, so the child manufacturers the thought: "I want food" which leads to habitual thoughts: "I like this food".

Or the child feels the fear & terror of loneliness and manufacturers the thought: "I want my mother", which leads to habitual thoughts: "I love my mother".

When the child grows older, it craves to succeed at school or sport, due to the fear of social failure. It manufactures the ideas: "I must succeed" or "I am good at sport". The child now views itself as "I am sportsman", "I am a student".

Then later the young adult has sexual craving, which is suffering & frustration. The young adult, pushed by the suffering of sexual craving, obtains a partner and develops the self-view: "I am a boyfriend"; "This is my girlfriend", "I am a husband", "This is my wife".

This is why each idea of self is considered to be, in reality, merely suffering. All ideas of 'self' are produced by some form of craving, however gross or subtle.


what is the purpose of the Buddhist marriage ceremony? A fundamental tenet of Buddhism is freedom from attachments. If that is so, what is the purpose of the Buddhist marriage ceremony? It seems to be a contradiction, a celebration of attachment within a philosophy that avoids attachment.

Buddhism has teachings for both monks & laypeople. If there were no lay people with worldly attachments, the monks could not be supported with food & other requisites.

Marriage is praised for laypeople, as follows:

  In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the
  East by their children, show their compassion:

  (i) they restrain them from evil, (ii) they encourage them to do good,
  (iii) they train them for a profession, (iv) they arrange a suitable
  marriage, (v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to
  them.

  Sigalovada Sutta

~~~

  Husband & wife, both of them  having conviction,  being responsive,
    being restrained,   living by the Dhamma,   addressing each other   with
  loving words: they benefit in manifold ways.  To them comes bliss.
  Their enemies are dejected    when both are in tune in virtue. Having
  followed the Dhamma here in this world,   both in tune in precepts &
  practices, they delight in the world of the devas, enjoying the
  pleasures they desire.

  Samajivina Sutta


Does chanting have a practical and exclusive benefit? Other chanting answers tend to explain tradition, but this question only concerns practicality.

Are the benefits of chanting exclusive, or can your practice easily be full and productive using other techniques?

For example, I don't sit lotus for any special reason. Simply to maximize stability and lessen distraction while meditating. Could someone develop a great practice sitting in a chair instead?  I would guess they could, without necessarily missing something important.

On the contrary, if someone wanted to understand and fully benefit from Buddhism by becoming a master scholar, yet without putting in serious time meditating, I can't see how they'd even really achieve understanding let alone full benefit.

So which is it in this case? Is chanting just one of many paths of practice that is good, but not the only way?  Or is it something fundamental such that omitting it is necessarily a detriment?

(if it matters, I most often study metta meditation personally, but often sit with diverse groups where chanting is done)

It is an antidote for the Hindrance of Sloth and Torpor

  (3) RECITATION. If, Moggallāna, that drowsiness still would not go away, then, Moggallāna, you
  should recite in detail a teaching that you have learned.

  It is possible that when you do so, that drowsiness
  would go away.

Pacalā Sutta

It starting point to builds concentration also take you to the final goal of liberation.

  he himself recites the Dharma in detail to others, just as he has heard it, just as he has mastered
  it in theory.

  Bhikshus, just as the monk recites the Dharma to others, he knows the goal and he knows the
  Dharma,
  he knows the goal and he knows the Dharma.

  Knowing the goal and knowing the Dharma,

  gladness arises in him;

  because of gladness, zest arises;

  because of zest, the body becomes tranquil;

  when the body is tranquil, he feels happy;

  a happy mind becomes concentrated.

  This, bhikshus, is the third ground for liberation where the unliberated mind of a monk, dwelling
  heedful and exertive, finds liberation;
  or where the mental influxes, not wholly destroyed, become wholly destroyed, where the unattained
  unsurpassed safety from the yoke is attained.

Vimutt’āyatana Sutta


Food that is chanted over with verses In the Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta (Sn1.4 and SN7.11), the Buddha went to get alms from the brahman Kasi Bharadvaja, who hinted that monks like the Buddha, should also work hard by plowing and sowing, in order to earn their meals.

To this, the Buddha responded with details on how he plowed and sowed, and reaped the fruit which is deathless.

Kasi Bharadvaja then heaped up milk rice from a large bronze serving bowl, and offered it to the Buddha, who said:

  What's been chanted over with verses shouldn't be eaten by me. That's not the nature, brahman, of one who's seen rightly. What's been
  chanted over with verses Awakened Ones reject. That being their
  nature, brahman, this is their way of life. Serve with other food &
  drink a fully-perfected great seer, his fermentations ended, his
  anxiety stilled, for that is the field for one looking for merit.

What does this mean? Is food chanted over with verses not good for consumption?

Does that apply to the chanting of all religions?

The next part of the sutta baffles me:

  "Then to whom, Master Gotama, should I give this milk-rice?"

  "Brahman, I don't see that person in this world — with its devas,
  Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its royalty & common people
  — by whom this milk-rice, having been eaten, would be rightly
  digested, aside from a Tathagata or a Tathagata's disciple. In that
  case, brahman, throw the milk-rice away in a place without vegetation,
  or dump it in water with no living beings."

  So Kasi Bharadvaja dumped the milk-rice in water with no living beings. And the milk-rice, when dropped in the water, hissed &
  sizzled, seethed & steamed. Just as an iron ball heated all day,
  when tossed in the water, hisses & sizzles, seethes & steams, in the
  same way the milk-rice, when dropped in the water, hissed & sizzled,
  seethed & steamed.

  Then Kasi Bharadvaja — in awe, his hair standing on end — went to the Blessed One

Why is it that this milk rice can be consumed only by a Tathagatha or a Tathagatha's disciple?

But then, in the earlier part, the Buddha said that the Awakened Ones would never eat it. Why is this the case?

Why did the milk rice hiss, sizzle, seeth and steam when dumped into the water?

Why was Kasi Bharadvaja in awe, on seeing that?

Initially food was not offered but only offered after the person was impressed by the teaching. Therefore this offering is like remuneration, i.e., what an actor might get for an act. The Buddha's intention in preaching is not for worldly gains, so in this case it is not suitable for the Buddha to accept it.

Also when there is a living Buddha, it is said what is offered to the Buddha is not suitable for consumption by other beings. The Buddha with his power of determination destroyed the food so that another being may not consume it as it would have been detrimental to the consumer.

Generally when you put milk rise into a stream it does not fizzle and destroy itself, so anyone seeing such phenomena would be in awe.


Did the Buddha teach the four noble truths to laypeople? Sometimes I see comments like, "the Buddha never taught the four noble truths to laypeople".

Is that so?
If so, why didn't he?
Aren't the 4NT the best, most succinct and most helpful, part of the Dhamma?
Isn't that difficult to reconcile with the teacher's not having a "closed fist"?

I know that the first sutta was only to the five wanderers (who were not house-holders); but doesn't the Kalama sutta, for example, warn against greed -- and the precepts, and suffering, all in one sentence?

  And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering.

Isn't that the first two or three noble truths right there?

So if someone says that he didn't teach the 4NT, are they (more specifically) saying that he didn't teach the noble eightfold path?

But the noble eightfold path is a.k.a. the three trainings. And he definitely taught virtue, so ... is it saying that he didn't teach wisdom nor concentration? So is it saying, and is true, that he didn't teach e.g. meditation to laypeople?

Can lay people be enlightened at all -- if so, how without the 4NT?

And is it true to say that the 4NT are certainly taught to laypeople now? Even to children? I'm surprised to find that they're not mentioned in the introduction to the Jataka Tales (here and here), though it does summarise Dependent Origination. I don't remember such a book in detail but I imagined that the 4NT would be included in any kind of popular introductory book, such as one that mentions the four sights.

This answer says that the 4NT is part of the doctrine shared by all schools of Buddhism. Is it true to assume that every Buddhist in every country (including lay people) knows what the 4NT are?

Ugga, a rich layman, said in a sutta of the aṭṭhaka-nipātā (AN 8.22):

  With confident heart I paid homage to the Buddha. The Buddha taught me step by step
   (anupubbikakathā), with a talk on giving, ethical conduct, and heaven. He explained the drawbacks of sensual pleasures, so sordid and corrupt, and the benefit of renunciation. And when he knew that my mind was ready, pliable, rid of hindrances, joyful, and confident he explained the special teaching of the Buddhas: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. Just as a clean cloth rid of stains would properly absorb dye, in that very seat the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in me: ‘Everything(suffering) which  is arise by the origins(samudaya), has an end.’ I saw, attained, understood, and fathomed the Dhamma. I went beyond doubt, got rid of indecision, and became self-assured and independent of others regarding the Teacher’s instructions. Right there I went for refuge to the Buddha, his teaching, and the Saṅgha. And I undertook the five training rules with celibacy as the fifth. This is the second incredible and amazing quality found in me.

After listening anupubbīkathā ("step by step"), some listeners can enlighten dhammacakkhuṃ ("dhamma eye"), i.e. from the Sāmaññaphalasuttaṃ (DN 2):

  So King Ajatasattu, delighting and rejoicing in the Blessed One's words, rose from his seat, bowed down to him, and — after circumambulating him — left. Not long after King Ajatasattu had left, the Blessed One addressed the monks: "The king is wounded, monks. The king is incapacitated. Had he not killed his father — that righteous man, that righteous king — the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye would have arisen to him as he sat in this very seat."

You can find more results by yourself by researching the words dhammacakkhu and anupubbika.

There are many places like that in the tipitaka: so the Buddha did exactly teach the four noble truths to the lay.

The required questions are:

What is anupubbīkathā?
Why Buddha often taught anupubbīkathā to a lay?
Why the first saṅgāyanā monks have to separate anupubbīkathā as many partitions?
Why some people think Buddha never taught meditation to a lay?

 1. What is anupubbīkathā?

Anupubbīkatha:

In pāli canons, it is the sequential teaching or teaching step-by-step. It can be a story or history. See the search results from tipitaka and atthakathā.
In tipitaka context, it is a single-time teaching of the
entire instructional sequence. It is the very long sutta which
describes a buddhist practitioner's procedure, for example:

The single-time teaching of Nidhikaṇḍaṃ (Kp 8) (with some commentary)
Plus Uposathasuttaṃ (AN 3.70) (with some commentary)
Plus Sāmaññaphalasuttaṃ (DN 2) (with some commentary).

You can see that is over long to orally recite.

 2. Why Buddha often taught anupubbīkathā to lay?

Buddha taught anupubbikathā to everyone, not only lay, because every practitioner must practice step by step. No one can practice without sequence like a fog -- see Kīṭāgirisutta (MN 70, number 238):

  Mendicants, I don’t say that enlightenment is achieved right away.

However for a newbie lay who is genius,  buddha taught him from the beginning step to the end in single time -- such as single-time teaching of Kp 8 plus AN 3.70 plus DN 2 (as referenced above).

You can see that is over long to orally recite.

That's why we can't find the single sutta of anupubbīkathā, in tipitaka context, or even in atthakathā as well. So, in atthakathā comment of anupubbīkathā:

  Anupubbīkathā is sequence of teaching and commentary of dāna subjects then sīla subjects then heaven subjects then practitioner's procedure.

But the buddha and teacher taught a shorter and more complex sutta to the insider lay man and lay woman (upāsaka and upāsikā), because they have enough ability and knowledge to learn the higher level, e.g. Dānasutta (AN 7.49). You can see that sutta is shorter and more complex, included only charity and the Path. It is anupubbīkathā, but it is not the meaning of "anupubbīkathā" word in the context like AN 8.22.

 3. Why the first saṅgāyanā monks have to separate anupubbīkathā as may partitions?

The first saṅgāyanā monks chose "anupubbikathā" words to avoid the over long of sutta. Because most lay people at that time didn't have much knowledge for enlightenment, the buddha had to teach them very long suttas (maybe longer than a DN sutta) and mix many contents to let them enlighten as sotāpanna, or trust to dhamma. So, if the first saṅgāyanā monks didn't separate it to be many smaller sutta, it would have been too long and unable to study by oral recitation.

The evidence from netti vicayahārasampāta:

  Herein, the Lord Buddha advises one of keen faculties with advice in brief; the Lord Buddha advises one of medium faculties with advice in brief and detail; the Lord Buddha advises one of blunt faculties with advice in detail.

 4. Why some people think Buddha never taught meditation to a lay?

Because they are misunderstanding of anupubbikathā. And they don't know how to read teaching as four noble truth, because they never memorize Nettipakarana, or never attained any professional knowledge, ñāṇa, from tipitaka-memorizer and jhānalābhī school, such as Pa-Auk.

Every noble one must enlightened four noble truth, but it is not every ordinary people can discover the noble truth from tipitaka. People who can understand the noble truth from tipitaka must deconflict every uncleared word of tipitaka. This is not feasible for people who can't memorize tipitaka pali and netti, because it needs nirutti-paṭisambhidā to deconflict the whole tipitaka.

For the example from VN Mahāvagga by assachi arahanta to sāriputta, who enlightened as sotāpanna:

  Ye dhammā  hetupabhavā (dukkha)          tesaṃ hetuṃ (samudaya) tathāgato āha
  tesañca yo nirodho (nirodha&magga)           evaṃvādī mahāsamaṇo.

  ‘Those things(suffering) which proceed from a cause,  of these the Truthfinder
  has told the cause(origin), And that which is their stopping (cessation&path)— the great
  recluse has such a doctrine.’”

Or in Sāmaññaphalasuttaṃ, which king Ajātasattu almost enlightened as sotāpanna, it is included vipassanāñaṇa part (brief dukkha), pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇa+cutūpapātañāṇa (extended dukkha), āsavakkhayañāṇa (samudaya+nirodha), and all practitioner's procedures in this sutta are magga.

All above is the example of how to read the noble truth in tipitaka.


Happiness for laypeople I'm right now working on an application for increasing happiness in everyday life, inspired by practical teachings in Buddhism about happiness for laypeople.

My question is: What did the Buddha say about happiness for laypeople?

I have found these Sutras helpful:

Sigalovada Sutta
Dighajanu Sutta

What else did the Buddha say about happiness for laypeople?. (Is there a compilation of teachings regarding this?)

Grateful for help and with kind regards,
Tord

There is a handy list of linked suttas at this link IV. The Happiness Visible in This Present Life

P.A. Payutto's A Constitution for Living is most excellent & includes the sutta reference for each list.

The Maha-Mangala Sutta is an excellent sutta.


Does love mean crime? I really know what does love means even my prior question was also "What does love means?" but as I'm going through. When I tried to let person know I'm loving then it gets angry at me so how love conquer anger/hate when I found person hates me. Neither has affection nor kindness towards me, no respect for my feelings towards that person. So is this love crime that I found someone who I Iove hates me after knowing I'm loving that person. I don't know what's their psychology or perspective of love. So I've question that is love crime?

Swapnil,

Love does never conquere anger and hatred but is actually the reason of it.

Look how angry you are, aren't you? And why?

Love is simply greed and it's not proper to blame another trader of not taking your deal, or?

Of course it's not a crime perse, but actally the reason for all crimes in this world.
To deal unfair, in cases where others do not like to trade with this dangerous item, lead also often to direct "love-crimes"

That is why the Buddha and wise people taught and teach, "Suffering comes from what is dear" and to make best nothing neither dear nor put anger into it.

And since no being loves any thing more as him/herself, on should not harm others and derive them from their beloved.

(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains.)


Overwhelmed feeling when visiting Temple Is there a reason why I get this overwhelmed feeling and want to cry when I visit the Temple?

Do you like the Temple? Is it beautiful in your eyes? Judging by your response, it sounds as if it is very meaningful to you. I know that when I visit my local Zen center, entering the meditation hall causes such a reaction (along with a deep feeling of peace).

Crying is a natural human response to many situations and stimuli. This article offers a socio-biological reason for the crying response.

Interestingly, at least according to Wikipedia, crying in Buddhism is considered unskillful, as it indicates clinging/attachment.


Meditation object: Use color seeing when eyes are closed Sometime when I started to meditate (eyes closed) I can see some waves of colors (yellow, blue, gray). Is this a good meditation object to concentrate one those colors?.

I feel like it is quite easy to concentrate on the color than another object (Breath, feelings, etc). Is this a bad practice?

The wildmind website does list seeing colours as one of the signs of progress. So you should obviously find that encouraging. However it does caution

  But it’s best not to pay much attention to those lights or they will
  turn into a distraction and slow your progress.

This accords with my own experience. While various strange things during meditation is fascinating, too much fascination will mean that you are not focusing on whatever your object of meditation actually is (breath, visualisation etc...). Absolutely dig around in them and have a little investigate but ultimately return to the practice you are doing. Just my experience of course.


Attachment to other people and beings? How does one live a life with multiple relationships (family, girlfriends, friends, pets, etc) while not being attached to them(being aware it will end eventually and therefore do not dwell in Dukkha when such thing happens)?

Thank you very much! :)

I quote from here is a short and blunt answer. This answer does not mean renounce your family but merely teaches a way to have less mental attachment to them. The problem is of one's mind, not of the world.

  § A woman came to Wat Dhammasathit to observe the precepts and
  meditate for a week, but by the end of the second day she told Ajaan
  Fuang that she had to return home, because she was afraid her family
  couldn't get along without her. He taught her to cut through her
  worries by saying, "When you come here, tell yourself that you've
  died. One way or another, your family will have to learn to fend for
  themselves."


How to understand a patient's coma status in Buddhism My friend was healthy and normal. There was a sudden bleeding in her brain due to an AVM and went through a serious brain surgery. Now around 3 weeks she is in a coma status. How can I understand this in Buddhism. Does she hear us? Can she feel what is going on? Is she in pain? Thank you.

Whether a person can hear, see, smell, taste etc. while in a coma is probably a question for medical science.

From a Buddhist perspective, it can be seen as a case of senses being shut off as in when you are in deep sleep. Only Bhavaanga Cittas(life continuum) are present in deep(dreamless) sleep.

Alternatively, it could just be a case of the patient not being able to respond in anyway. Here's such an instance.

The situation is probably different from patient to patient.


What is the meaning of 'two truths' in the Manorathapūraṇī? In the Manorathapūraṇī (a later-day commentary), it is written:

  duve saccāni akkhāsi sambuddho vadataṃ varo sammutiṃ paramatthañca tatiyaṃ nupalabbhati

  The Awakened One, best of speakers, Spoke two kinds of truths: The conventional and the ultimate. A third truth does not obtain.

  tattha: saṅketavacanaṃ saccaṃ lokasammutikāraṇaṃ paramatthavacanaṃ saccaṃ dhammānaṃ tathalakkhaṇan ti

  Therein: The speech wherewith the world converses is true On account of its being agreed upon by the world. The speech which describes what
  is ultimate is also true, Through characterizing dhammas as they
  really are.

  tasmā vohārakusalassa lokanāthassa satthuno sammutiṃ voharantassa musāvādo na jāyatī ti

  Therefore, being skilled in common usage, False speech does not arise in the Teacher, Who is Lord of the World, When he speaks according to
  conventions.

  (Mn. i. 95)

Is this saying worldly people understand dhamma different to enlightened people & that worldly people do not understand dhammas as they really are but only how they imagine them to be?

I am not sure for this quote's quality because my english is terrible. However, this is the easiest way to answer on mobile phone.

  Realities - There are two realities - apparent and ultimate. Apparent reality is ordinary conventional truth (sammuti-sacca). Ultimate reality is abstract truth (paramattha-sacca).

  For instance, the smooth surface of the table we see is apparent reality. In an ultimate sense the apparent surface consists of forces and qualities or in other words, vibrations.

  For ordinary purposes a scientist would use the term water, but in the laboratory he would say H2O. In the same way the Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka resorts to conventional usage such as man, woman, being, self, etc., but in the Abhidhamma Pitaka He adopts a different mode of expression. Here He employs the analytical method and uses abstract terms such as aggregates (khandha), elements (dhātu), bases (āyatana), etc.

http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_1.htm


What are the different meditation types & how to do them? I know there are many types of meditation, but can someone help clarify the following questions on meditation:

- What types of meditation is essential for the practice & why?
- How do those types of meditation work (like what am I suppose to be doing)?
- Why do we do meditation (why is it such an essential thing)?

If you also have any extra information to add, it would be well appreciated!

(And if possible, please cite sources in the Pali Tipitaka for your answer)

Metta to all!

You will want to memorize and think about the Dhamma a lot to develop insight, motivation and conviction. Then one would split thinking into two and constantly try to entertain themes which are good, being sensitive to the mind, adjusting to accommodate the various hindrances and contemplating a lot.

Id advice you to do your own learning and get mastery of the 4 nikayas first but you should also use commentary where it makes sense and have a general idea of origin & points of controversy.

here are various perception developments; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kZxstsAvjhj9Svc47RUKRIyKQMuHMD4adIvr_7pp2uI/edit

here on factors of enlightenment;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18b57EkdwyqsmER1dS5MPqpeWSjj82A7qvqYlXrhkCPQ/edit

here on anapanasati meditation;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hRy-g6o8yKsDQnR6_sbBbY5ZVpDbQ5-_LURXqwxS7YU/edit?usp=sharing

here on dhamma terminology;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NHDYCBjXLKwCxEUqbqvk7ui9fPfUx6oKxibjXcEH2CM/edit?usp=sharing

here on hindrances;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qVz1XtntivxPRsxycsrH0_sgILcMbcghdpxoKuxlLYo/edit?usp=sharing

It is best to find some teachers and experiment a lot.


What is the Sutra where The Buddha says that he has taught only a fraction of what he knew I read somewhere (don't remember where) that the Buddha mentioned, that he has taught only a fraction of what he could discern with his eye of wisdom (about existence). Does anyone know which Sutra describes this?

That sutta (or, at least, one of those suttas) is sometimes summarized as "a handful of leaves".

Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves

  "In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, etc.


Must I continue a relationship with my abusive parents? My parents were physically and mentally abusive to me as a child. As an adult, they have never recognized what they have done to me and even try to guilt me into having a relationship with them that I do not want. I practice often, but I can’t make myself feel a forgiveness that I do not feel at this time. In the buddhist view, am I wrong if I choose not to have a relationship with them?

I wrote an extensive answer for the question: How should a Buddhist approach honoring parents who abused them?

In summary, you are not wrong if you choose to not to have a relationship with them. Love is something earned. Core on-going relationships require the maintenance of on-going wholesome qualities from both sides. In Buddhism, parents have the duty of being compassionate towards their children & protecting their children from harm.

Naturally, it is up to your judgment, but if your parents insist you have relationship with them, you can honestly communicate to them your reasons for your reluctance. Note: this may be very hurtful to them; even though such hurt is self-made by them.

Buddhism teaches family relationships have four necessary qualities: (i) honest straightforward communication; (ii) training in self-improvement; (iii) patience/forbearance; and (iv) unselfishness.

Therefore, the 1st step is honest straightforward communication. The 2nd step is self-improvement, that is, your parents' willingness to recognize what they have done (which may be difficult for them).

Most of all, keep in mind, your parents acted as they did due to ignorance/not-knowing. Their minds were controlled by ignorance. Buddhism teaches ignorance an element in nature; like a disease, sickness or blindness people can have.


Best books & articles for practicing jhanas Which are the best books and/or articles for practicing the jhanas?

Have a look at:

Bhante Vimalaramsi
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Forest Dhamma
Forest Sangha Publications
Buddhist eLibrary
Manual of Mindfulness of Breathing


Does anyone know the origin of the Buddhist Prayer of Forgiveness? Buddhist Prayer of Forgiveness

  If I have harmed anyone in any way either knowingly or unknowingly
  through my own confusions I ask their forgiveness.

  If anyone has harmed me in any way either knowingly or unknowingly
  through their own confusions I forgive them.

  And if there is a situation I am not yet ready to forgive
  I forgive myself for that.

  For all the ways that I harm myself, negate, doubt, belittle myself,
  judge or be unkind to myself through my own confusions
  I forgive myself.

I love this prayer. It is found on many sites on the Internet as the Buddhist Prayer of Forgiveness. Can someone guide me to the origin i.e the sutta where this prayer can be found?

According to this Google search the first appearances of this text on the internet is in 2001.

And (among those earliest references) this says,

  Actually, the origins of this prayer are unknown. Sylvia Boorstein shared with me that she learned a prayer almost exactly like this one—a Jewish prayer—as a child.

I think that may be right -- it seems to me similar in structure to the Serenity Prayer, for example.

Also I think that "forgiveness" doesn't show up as a major theme in the Pali canon (but it's central to Christianity, e.g. "the forgiveness of sin"). This search doesn't return many results.

Reconciliation, Right & Wrong explains a difference between forgiveness and reconciliation -- to the extent that they do talk about reconciliation, I think that's mostly in a monastic (community) context, and along the line of confessing one's own transgression and admitting a fault, to avoid repeating the mistake: and I think you'd do that in person i.e. say it to someone else, not say it silently in prayer.

The other side of the coin that is promoted in the sutta is the Akkosa Sutta, where an insult isn't forgiven because it isn't accepted.

And Wikipedia's article about Forgiveness (which talks about "reliious views" of forgiveness, starting with Judaism) says,

  Buddhism places much emphasis on the concepts of Mettā (loving kindness), karuna (compassion), mudita (sympathetic joy), and upekkhā (equanimity), as a means to avoiding resentments in the first place.

The one kind of Buddhist text that this does remind me of is the Metta Gatha.

By Googling for khama gatha I found some slighty similar texts, for example in this Gatha Book:

  ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS ( KHAMA YACANA)

  Kayena vaca-cittena Pamadena maya katam
  Accayam khama me bhante Bhuripanna tathagata.

  If, due to neglence, I have done some wrong by body,speech, or mind
  Forgive me of that offence, O Bhante, Perfect One of vast wisdom.

... and these Daily Buddhist Prayers:

  Rectification of faults

  Kāyena vācā cittena
  Pamādena mayā katam
  Accayam khama me bhante
  Bhuri pañña Tathāgata

  Kāyena vācā cittena
  Pamādena mayā katam
  Accayam khama me dhamma
  Sanditthika akalika

  Kāyena vācā cittena
  Pamādena mayā katam
  Accayam khama me Sangha
  Supatipanna anuttara
  Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!

  If due to negligence I have done
  Some wrong by body, speech, or mind.
  Pardon me that offence, Bhante!
  Perfect One of vast wisdom.

  If due to negligence I have done
  Some wrong by body, speech, or mind.
  Pardon me that offence, O Dhamma
  Visible and immediately effective.

  If due to negligence I have done
  Some wrong by body, speech, or mind.
  Pardon me that offence, O Sangha
  Practising well and supreme.
  Excellent! Excellent! Excellent!


To what level can be said that Buddha 'followed' the dzogchen? The Dzogchen-tradition first appeared in the first half of the 9th century. According to tradition, the Dzogchen teachings were brought to Tibet by Padmasambhava in the late 8th and early 9th centuries.

Dzogchen is the understanding that enlightemeht cann't be found outside a person, but is immediatally present in a persons mind and consciensness.

When I read it like that it seems te me that Buddha was actionally a Dzogchen (avant la lettre). But if so (i'm not sure) why is there a different separate tradition born?

Dzogchen is the understanding that enlightenment can't be found outside a person

Not the best definition - most other schools would agree with this - doesn't make them Dzogchen.

Dzogchen (Dzog-pa Chen-po) means Ultimate Completeness or Great Perfection. Dzogchen is the understanding that everything is already perfect, everything is the way it is for objective reasons, the world at large is in balance, there is a great harmony behind everything whether we see it as good or bad. All so-called "problems" are just manifestations of higher-level principles at work, which by themselves are not problems. With this understanding, why look for Enlightenment? What other Nirvana do you need?

In what sense can we say that Buddha 'followed' the Dzogchen? The idea is, that after his Enlightenment, Buddha has awakened to the view of the Great Perfection. So his "internal state" (if we can speak of a state of a non-abiding Buddha) was not different from Dzogchen. But of course he understood that most people are driven by their emotions, attachments, illusions to a large degree - so they can't enjoy the Great Perfection as is. Therefore he taught them the path to clean their minds of the taints, until they get lucid enough that they can "awaken" (budd) to the Great Perfection.

The reason it's a separate tradition is because most Buddhists obsess over the path of purification - they can't seem to accept the simplicity of the result. So the various schools of Buddhism have evolved around the various practices of discipline, wisdom, and meditation. The schools that focus on the result are primarily Zen and Dzogchen.

But even Zen and Dzogchen agree that realization of completeness is not the end of story - this is only the right view - and then there is cultivation of the right view in practice of daily life.


Shaking REM and movement i Wanted to know what kind of experience i had today while i meditated.

I meditated after a long time and it lasted 1,5 hours. I started shaking after a while, then twitching my eyes, REM and after some time i started moving.. It was n a rythm. sometimes sideways, sometimes down towards the floor and so on. And when i wanted to stop my meditation i came back to my first position, then shaking, eyemovement, twitching and back to normal. Did something like this happen to anyone? Is it a good or a bad sign?
Thanks :)

In short this can be due to:

past fabrications surfacing rapidly and creating uncommon experiences
perhaps less likely but a possibility is Piti which sometimes create vibrating and / or pulsating experiences

Also see: eye movement during meditation, I get rapid eye movement as soon as meditation starts

These experiences are neither good nor bad. Also do not get attached or averse to them. In additions concentrate on the task at hand than giving importance and distracting your self when there experiences do arise in your meditation session.


How and when should a child be introduced to Buddhism? My son will be four soon.  I would like to introduce him to Buddhist philosophy, and some meditation practices.

However, stillness is, at this point, completely foreign to his personality :)

My wife is Christian, and has taken him to church a few times, but not regularly, or recently.  She and I are okay with sharing our differing beliefs with our son.

I'm not active (or aware of, really) any local Buddhist groups, and, unfortunately don't even meditate regularly anymore.

Still, I think meditation, and an understanding of the philosophies, would be very helpful to my son, and I'd like to get him involved as soon as is practical.

How do I best introduce him, both to meditation and Buddhist philosophy?  At what age is he likely be ready for either?

I have a daughter who is nearly 4 now. I first took her to the local Buddhist Centre when she was about a year old on a family day that we organised. The Buddhist practice involved running around the shrine room and shrieking. Someone said at the time though that bring her at such a young age was auspicious and I'm enought of a romantic to lap this up. I took here again a few months ago and her Buddhist practice is much the same - running and shrieking. But we all enjoyed it and she's had a positive experience.

As far as meditation goes. Mmmmmmmm, She decided to have her first meditation a week ago. I think I timed 5 seconds. Better than I thought it would be. I have to say my local centre doesn't really teach meditation to people younger than 16 but I think that more of a guardianship issue rather than the impossiblity of younger children meditating. I've been in meditation sessions in festivals with 12 year old and they seem to get on fine.

I don't really have much more advice - just my own experience. I have to say though I agree with Richard Dawkins (though i have to say not in such strident terms) in that children should be old enough to chose the religion they belong to - not just inducted into it. However I believe that Buddhist ethics, Buddhist stories and a little bit of an understanding that's its OK just to be a little be quiet now and then, would be good for any child.

Generally being kind to yourself and kind to others is what I want my daughter to know and if that's in a Buddhist framework then fantastic. We are going to go on a Buddhist family retreat in North Yorkshire (UK) so we'll see how it all goes there. Wish us luck!


The Simultaneity of Cause and Effect The conventional Buddhist view of causality is that the present
negative and positive effects we see in our lives are a result of
negative and positive causes that we created in the past. So in order
to attain Buddhahood, which is the goal of Buddhist practice, it would
take lifetimes of painstaking efforts to replace all the negative
causes we’ve made with positive causes, while avoiding making
additional negative causes. Based on this view, the possibility of
attaining Buddhahood seems remote and almost impossible.
In contrast, Nichiren Buddhism teaches that the law of cause and
effect is simultaneous.

https://www.worldtribune.org/2017/11/cause-and-effect/
I side against it, which could even cover my slight antipathy toward Nichiren Buddhism.
If the effect depends on past causes, then doesn't the metaphor of a fire going out -- and going nowhere -- when the fuel runs out, only work when a cause can run out of effects, which, for me, hints at svabhava.
Does a cause running itself down only occur if it has svabhava? And what arguments are there for and against the law of cause and effect being simultaneous?
I have a "theory" that Nichiren Buddhism cannot help us in our "next live"; in deed, that mappo -- and Nichiren Buddhism -- condemns all to the Abrahamic hell, even as zen -- the monastic life -- may still be available. But I won't get into it.

Traditional Standard 日蓮仏教/ Nichiren Buddhism at Minobu Yama c.1280AD is about refinement and being kindly and nice and is quite based on The Teachings of The Buddha, & Guidance of 日蓮/ Nichiren Daishi, His writings, and careful consideration of The Lotus Sutra. Nichiren Buddhism is about the present and future, yet doesnot discount the past, and Nichiren Daishi didn't discount the past: Nichiren Daishi instructed that past karma could be 'expunged' through observance of The Teachings in The Lotus Sutra, conceiveably in present Lifetimes.
The Organisation of the text cited in the question is fairly recent, and the text cited isnot Nichiren Daishi's Teachings; maybe the article suffered in translation, since 'simultaneous' wouldnot typically be understood as 'within one lifetime', or, maybe some places actually would intend to say what it says. Standard Traditional Nichiren Buddhism is based on Teachings of The Buddha, And Traditional Nichiren Buddhism doesnotsay cause & effect are simultaneous in that sense. Interesting citation and good question.


What is observing the precepts in a Hinayana way or a Mahayana way? In Zen Mind, Beginners Mind Shunryu Suzuki says

  observing the precepts in a Hinayana way is violating the precepts in
  a Mahayana way

Can an one give an explanation of way he is getting at here and perhaps a concrete instance of when that might occur.

To avoid confusion - I base my understanding of the term 'Hinayana' on Andrei's answers to two different questions - this and that.

Hinayana way (or as Andrei puts it - level) refers to basic/elementary/foundational aspects of Buddhism. On this level precepts are central and students learn to follow basic discipline. The main idea is to work with one's own Karma - having a simple life protects one from difficult situations and clear-cut rules help in achieving that. However, this is not all that Buddhism offers. Once the foundations are understood, one can move on to more advanced teachings which can be called Mahayana-based (as Andrei pointed out, this can also happen in Theravada).

The main difference, as I understand it, is that it is the Bodhisattva Vow that is central in Mahayana level. Here, one is no longer worried about one's own Karma (like on the Hinayana level), but recognizes that there are countless beings who suffer and one wants to benefit them in the first place. One does not need a precept to know that killing or lying is bad. In every situation one has to be mindful and decide which action will bring more happiness or suffering to other beings. Sometimes lying is the right way to protect someone's life, sometimes eating enormous amounts of roast beef is the best way to make our auntie happy after she spent the whole day preparing this dish for her beloved family. No clear rules, rather guidelines and constant wish to benefit others.

I believe it all boils down to motivation - if you observe the precepts in fear of spoiling your own Karma - it is Hinayana level. If you are mostly interested in benefiting others - it is Mahayana. One view violates the other one.


What are the Devaputra / Devaputta? I have occasionally heard about the Devaputra (Sans.) or Devaputta (Pal.), particularly in regards to Mahayana, but haven't been able to find out very much about what exactly these are, as a category or class.

Presumably they are not the same thing as the sons (and daughters) of Devas in Hinduism (and in also Greek mythology), wherein they usually refer to the physical progeny of divinities, who are often have supernatural powers and are involved in heroic exploits.

What do Devaputra mean in Buddhist thought?

At least based on the Pali Canon and its commentary, devaputta are precisely what you state:  sons of devas with comparable divine powers.

For instance, the Pali Canon's Samyutta Nikaya's second chapter is entitled, "Devaputta Samyutta," and collects discourses involving the Buddha (or one of his disciples) engaging with a devaputta.  (You can find free, on-line translations of a few of these discourses at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html#sn2 .)  In his introduction to the Wisdom Publication edition of the Samyutta Nikaya, Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:

  The devaputtas, or 'sons of the devas,' are young devas newly arisen in their respective heavenly planes; devaduhitās, 'daughters of the devas,' are also mentioned in the commentary but none appear in this saṃyutta. The commentary says these beings are reborn spontaneously in the laps of the devas.... [I]t is surprising to find that several of [the devaputta] — or at least their verses — have already appeared in the Devatāsaṃyutta [which is the preceding chapter in which the Buddha engages with adult devas].... This suggests that the dividing line between the two classes of deities is not a hard and fast one, just as the dividing line between an adult and an adolescent is not hard and fast...  (Source: Bodhi, Bhikkhu, 2005-06-10. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, Kindle Locations 1285-1293. Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.)

Just to note, the referenced commentaries were likely written centuries after the Samyutta Nikaya itself, and thus have significantly less authority.  In addition, I know you expressed particular interest in Mahayana tradition and the Pali Canon is most closely aligned with the Theravadan tradition; nonetheless, this canon provides a basis for understanding much of the Mahayana cosmology.

I hope this helps,
Larry


Buddhism after death From what I understand the aggregates aren't self but now when a person dies and the material aggregates of his body dissolve then what remains who gets reincarnated ?.If there is no soul then what carries the information of this person to go to another life for example what defines that this is the person and not someone else do we have a serial number :) ?.

When the new material aggregates of the new body are born then they are different from the ones of the person who died .What defines that THIS person is in THAT body?.

According to SN 12.17, Eternalist have the view ‘The one who acts is the one who experiences’ and annihilationist have the view ‘The one who acts is someone other than the one who experiences.

  "'The one who acts is the one who experiences [the result of the act]' amounts to the eternalist statement, 'Existing from the very beginning, stress is self-made.' 'The one who acts is someone other than the one who experiences'[2] amounts to the annihilationist statement, 'For one existing harassed by feeling, stress is other-made.' Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:

The Buddha teaches via the middle. So our view or the “Buddhist view” would be,

  ‘From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
  From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
  From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
  From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
  From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
  From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
  From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
  From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
  From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
  From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
  From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.’


Was Gautama Buddha's wife Yesodhara in any way instrumental in Him becoming a Buddha? Considering the story we know about the life of Buddha as Siddhartha and also considering that Yesodhara was Buddha's partner in His many previous lives, can we say that Yesodhara was somehow instrumental in Siddhartha becoming a Buddha?

OR

With or without Her being in His life He would have made it?

(Her pervious life with Buddha is in wiki article and here.)

I know this question is as such irrelevant to practice but I am trying to get around this idea called 'soul-mates' which is in pop-media.

I am trying to get around this idea called 'soul-mates' which is in pop-media.

The term 'soul-mates' doesn't make sense in ultimate reality as there are no souls to begin with. But if you simply interpret it as being the perfect husband and wife, it has meaning in Buddhism.

With or without Her being in His life He would have made it?

Once the Buddha Deepankara gave the prediction that the Bodhisatta is going to be a Buddha, it was going to happen one way or the other.
Yashodara Theri herself answers this question in her last words before she passed away.
“me saranam atthano” (“I am my own refuge”).

Nevertheless, she was the perfect wife to the Bodhisatta.

  The relationship between Yashodhara and Prince Siddhartha was long and
  deep-rooted. It had started many, many years ago at the time of the
  Dîpankara Buddha. At that time, the Prince (Bodhisatta) was born as an
  ascetic by the name of Sumedha. After an exceedingly long period of
  practicing the ten virtues, the Bodhisatta Sumedha had finally
  completed the eight requirements to receive the definite proclamation
  of Buddhahood from the Dîpankara Buddha. Yashodhara, at that time, was
  born as a noble lady by the name of Sumitta. She saw the Buddha
  Dîpankara give the Bodhisattva eight handfuls of white jasmine flowers
  and the definite proclamation that He would be a Buddha by the name of
  Gotama, of the Sakyan caste, in the distant future. Cutting off her
  hair, she aspired to be His consort and helpmate and to support Him
  actively in His quest for Buddhahood.

Since then she had been the wife of no other but him during the entire period(100,000 world cycles and four infinite periods).

Another example for a perfect couple is Nakula matha and Nakula pitha.


Would zen Buddhists agree with this quote from Chih-I? Would zen Buddhists agree with this quote from Chih-I?

Quoted in T'ien-t'ai Buddhism and Early Madhyamika p110

I've not read the original material, so am not sure where Chih-I makes these points (about the four alternatives) from. But they do seem to make sense to me, and (potentially) be what matters most about meditation etc.. But I have no means to really study tendai, only some local zen schools.

I think Zen Buddhists would agree. Tiāntāi had been hugely influential on Japanese Buddhism especially through it's Tendai iteration. Consider: Venerable Shinran was a Tendai seminarian, as were Venerables Nichiren & Eisai. Venerable Hōnen was also ordained as a Tendai priest. As we can see, many later schools/sects of Japanese Buddhism actually sprout from Tendai as their mother.

The above quote is from Mahāśamathavipaśyanā T1911.38.661c-662a.

A lot of this discourse is to-do with identification, suchness vs differentiation, real vs unreal, ultimate vs provisional, nirvāṇic vs worldly.

The book you are quoting from compares Venerable Zhìyǐ's round fusion with the Madhyamaka's teaching. it seems.

This seems relevant in light of that, from the Sinitic recension of Venerable Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā:

  All Buddhas either speak of self or speak of no self.  All dharmas’
  true aspect, within this, there is neither self nor no self.  All
  dharmas’ true aspect is defined as mental activity’s and spoken
  language’s ending.  There is no arising and no cessation, there is
  calm extinction, such is nirvāṇa. All is real, all is unreal, all is
  both real and unreal,  all is neither real nor unreal: this is called
  all Buddhas’ dharma.

(Āryanāgārjunasya Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Ātmaparīkṣā, T1564.23c16 : 諸佛或說我 或說於無我 諸法實相中 無我無非我 [etc.], section 18)

Compare the above with the Venerable Vimalākṣa's commentary on that section, for his or her Mādhyamikaśāstra, one of the three theses of East Asian Madhyamaka (三論宗 Triśāstravāda, "the School of the Three Treatises"), which would have been well-familiar to Venerable Zhìyǐ:

  Reply: Those who are attached to dharmas classify dharmas into two
  kinds, some being worldly, some being of nirvana. They say that the
  nirvana dharmas are calm and extinct, but do not say that the worldly
  dharmas are calm and extinct. In this treatise it is taught that all
  dharmas are empty in nature and have the characteristic of calm
  extinction. Since those who are attached to dharmas do not understand
  this, nirvana is used as an example. Just as with your assertion that
  the characteristic of nirvana is emptiness, with no characteristics,
  calm extinction, and no vain thoughts, so it is with all worldly
  dharmas.

  Question: If the Buddhas do not teach self, non-self, and the
  cessation of all mental activities and the cutting-off of ways of
  verbal expression, how do they make people understand the real
  character of dharmas?

  Reply: All the Buddhas have unlimited powers of skilful means, and
  dharmas have no fixed characteristics. In order to save all living
  beings, they may teach that everything is real, or they may teach that
  everything is unreal, or that everything is both real and unreal or
  that everything is neither unreal nor not unreal. If you search for a
  real nature of dharmas, you will find that they all enter into the
  ultimate meaning and become equal, with identical characteristics,
  which is to say no characteristics, just like streams of different
  colour and different tastes entering into a great ocean of one colour
  and one taste, which is to say no taste. At the time when one has not
  yet penetrated into the true character of dharmas, each one can be
  contemplated separately as unreal, existing merely by the combinations
  of conditions. There are three levels of living beings; superior,
  average and inferior. The superior person sees that the characteristic
  of dharmas is that they are neither real nor unreal. The average
  person sees the characteristics of dharmas as either all real, or all
  unreal. The inferior man, since his powers of perception are limited,
  sees the characteristics of dharmas as a little real, and a little
  unreal, regarding nirvana, because it is an inactive dharma and does
  not perish as real, and regarding samsara, because it is an active
  dharma, empty and false, as unreal. Neither unreal nor not unreal is
  taught in order to negate ‘both real and unreal’.

(Āryavimalākṣasya Mādhyamikaśāstre Ātmaparīkṣāparivartaḥ T1564.24a15: 有人說神。應有二種。若五陰即是神。若離 五陰有神。[etc.], translation Brian Christopher Bocking)

Furthermore, returning to the source text of the commentary above, we later have this, a passage Ven Zhìyǐ would have been very familiar with:

  Between nirvāna and
  this world there is not even a slight disparity. Between this world
  and nirvāṇa there is also not even a slight disparity. From nirvāṇa’s
  true apex towards this world’s apex, like this, there are two apices,
  like this, there is not the smallest sliver of disparity between them.

(Mūlamadhyamakakārikāyām Nirvāṇaparīkṣā, T1564.35c27: 涅槃與世間 無有少分別 世間與涅槃 亦無少分別 涅槃之實際 及與世間際 如是二際者 無毫釐差別, section 25)


What is Aarya dukkha Sacca? In buddhism what is aarya dukkha? And what’s the reason for it?
Dukkha is one of four noble truth. And as I heard it’s because of the impermanence. Can in permanence be the cause for the Dukkha? Is it true? Please provide practical situations when explaining.

EDIT:

According to some answers, the direct answer to this question is attachment (upadana). To be more specific my question is how attachment become the cause for the Noble Dukkha? Eg: If I like a car, its an attachment. And how does that become the cause for the Noble Dhukka.

EDIT 2:

According to the answer given by Brian,
When attached, you find something desirable and you don't want to let it go; you want to keep it for yourself, permanently. But the thing is, conditioned phenomena are in constant change, and those things will not stay the same or with you forever.
But imagine a prince, and a car he owns, It doesn't matter the conditioned phenomena (Saṅkhāra) he can maintain the car as it was. So what's the dukkha in that.
Please note: I'm just trying to sharp my question by providing examples, if I'm doing any thing bad, please let me know, as I'm new to this.

In the Pali suttas, the word "dukkha" is used in three different ways:

(i) Unpleasant/painful feelings, which are not "suffering". Refer to SN 36.6, MN 37, MN 38, MN 148 and countless other suttas that explain "feelings" ("vedana") in themselves are not suffering.

(ii) The inability of impermanent things to bring true & lasting happiness (refer to SN 22.59), often loosely translated as "unsatisfactoriness", which is not "suffering". Refer to SN 22.1, which clearly explains how change (vipariṇamanti) or impermanence itself is not "suffering".

(iii) Mental suffering from mental proliferating, which is "suffering". In the 1st noble truth, all "suffering" was summarised as "attachment" ('upadana') to the five aggregates, as follows: "saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā."

In summary, the "Ariya" ("Noble") perspective of what "Dukkha" is refers to "upadana" ("attachment"). It is not related to impermanence. Impermanence only contributes to suffering when impermanence is attached to as "I", "me" & "mine" (again, refer to SN 22.1).

  He does not assume the body, feelings, perception, mental formations &/or consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing, or as in the self, or the self
  as in.... He is not seized with the idea that 'I am
  the body... consciousness' or 'the body... consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with
  these ideas, his body... consciousness changes & alters, but he does not
  fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair over its
  change & alteration.

  SN 22.1


Are either of the two truths Truths (Satya)? Is it reasonable to call these truths, or would it be more reasonable to call them accurate statements from two different frames of reference?

The truth, from the frame of reference of conditioned experience, is emptiness.

The truth, from the frame of reference of the unconditioned, is neither the condition of emptiness, nor the condition of non-emptiness, neither both nor neither.

.. In that a statement with regards to the ultimate is false from a conditioned frame, and a statement with regards to the conditioned is false from the ultimate frame, how can either one declare any 'satya'?

Prasangika-Madhyamika define a truth as whatever is not deceptive in that it appears the way it exists. The opposite of a truth is a falsity.

Ngawang Palden says:

  Ultimate truths necessarily are established in accordance with how
  they appear to the awarenesses to which they clearly appear.

  Conventional truths are necessarily falsities. The meaning of falsity
  is “deceptive,” and the meaning of deceptive is “discordance between
  the mode of appearance and the mode of abiding.”

Ultimate truths are truths because, in the perspective of the wisdom directly realizing them, they appear the way they exist (i.e. empty). On the other hand, conventional truths are falsities and not truths because they appear as inherently existent while they do not exist in this way. Thus, conventional truths are truths only in relation to ignorance. This is because ignorance conceive of them to exist the way they appear.

In Tsong-kha-pa’s Final Exposition of Wisdom by Jeffrey Hopkins, it says:

  In saṃvṛtisatya, saṃvṛti means that which obscures, or conceals,
  reality, and thus saṃvṛtisatya means "that which is a truth for
  ignorance".


What is the meditation benefits of jhana? What are the benefits of the 8 Jhana meditation? Can you list them? I have researched but maybe i haven't looked in the right place? What are some during meditation and after?

Jhana is supernormal happiness & also perfect mental clarity in the 4th jhana.

As supernormal happiness, those that reach jhana do not have to depend on anything sensual or worldly for happiness again, such as TV, movies, sex, drugs, music, alcohol, wife, husband, family, fame, money, etc. The mind becomes completely emotionally independent.

As mental clarity, it allows the mind to see more easily through the self-illusion. The self-illusion is the cause of all suffering, whether major or minor. Thus, jhana is the foundation for perfect insight.


How are the three marks of existence experienced through Samadhi meditation? Could dry vipassana & pure one-pointed samadhi type meditations just be different approaches to the same enlightenment?

If one attains the fourth jhana with one pointed concentration does one experience anatta? What about anicca & dukkha? How is sunyata related to anatta?

Is it really necessary to focus on non-consepts at some point in order for one pointed
(ekaggata) concentration to lead to enlightenment?

Are there scriptures that can help us understand this?

The question is loaded with erroneous doctrines that epitomise this other question.

There is no such thing as "dry vipassana". Since the suttas (SN 22.59) say vipassana results in dispassion & nirodha, obviously any vipassana-dispassion-nirodha will contribute to calmness & samadhi.
Vipassana means 'clear seeing'. Since 'vipassana' is 'seeing', it is 'non-conceptual'. When the Burmese teach the practise of "mental noting", such mental noting is not vipassana. Instead, it is a crude form of 'sampajjana'.
Samadhi means the mind is not distracted; which is the meaning of 'one-pointedness'. 'One-pointedness' does not mean have narrow awareness upon a tiny object or point.
Vipassana is a result or fruit of samadhi (AN 4.41; AN 11.2; MN 149). Samadhi & vipassana are not "two different approaches".
When the mind is not distracted, it naturally automatically knows the breathing.
When the mind naturally knows the breathing, it also naturally automatically experiences the breathing is impermanent and also experiences the body breathes rather than the self breathes. Seeing this not-self of the breathing is what the suttas mean by "alien". This is the beginning of vipassana.
"Dukkha" in relation to impermanence has a different meaning to "dukkha" as a noble truth. In relationship to impermanence, "dukkha" means "unsatisfactoriness", i.e., the incapacity of an impermanent thing to bring lasting reliable happiness.
Suttas about how vipassana is a result of samadhi include AN 4.41, AN 11.2 and MN 149.
In summary, the Buddha taught one path (Noble Eightfold Path) which culminates in samadhi and has two fruits (samatha & vipassana) that occur in tandem.

  Having thus developed the noble eightfold path... for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight.

  MN 149


Who is a Gandhabbha? Are gandhabbhas belongs to gods or demons? I tried to find details about them. But couldn't solve my problem. According to the Buddhas Teachings, I want to know whether Gandhabbhas are divine people or evil people.

A class of semi divine beings who inhabit the Catummaharajika realm and are the lowest among the devas. They are generally classed together with the Asuras and the Nagas. Beings are born among them as a result of having practised the lowest form of sila. They are said to be able to receive merits from humans.


Help locating a Jataka Tale In this interesting take on Buddhism and modern psychology via the Jataka Tales and the DSM, is this passage:

  The Jathka storyteller elegantly portrays the clinical picture of a
  monk (in Dummbala Katta Jathakaya) who had fear feelings, flashbacks,
  hyperaousal, avoidance and startling reactions. The monk named Marana
  Bhiruka Bikku fits in to DSM criteria of PTSD.

Can anybody locate the Jataka tale mentioned here? I tried but did not succeed, probably because of variations in transliteration.

It's Jataka #388 (Tuṇḍila Jātaka):

  "Something strange to-day," etc. The Master told this tale while dwelling in Jetavana, concerning a brother who feared death. He was born in Sāvatthi of good family and was ordained in the Faith: but he feared death and when he heard even a little moving of a bough, or falling of a stick or voice of bird or
  beast or any such thing, he was frightened by the fear of death, and went away shaking like a hare wounded in the belly. The Brethren in the Hall of Truth began to discuss, saying, "Sirs, they say a certain Brother, fearing death, runs away shaking when he hears even a little sound: now to beings in this world death is certain, life uncertain, and should not this be wisely borne in mind?" The Master found that this was their subject and that the Brother allowed he was afraid of death: so he said, "Brethren, he is not afraid of death for the first time," and so he told an old tale.

  http://sacred-texts.com/bud/j3/j3089.htm

The word is 'maraṇabhīruka' and it means 'one who is afraid of death'; it's not a name, just a description.


How does Buddhism deal with failure? I've developed over the years an attachment to social media, which I've many, many times tried to break. I'm starting to suspect it is because there's no problems when things go well, but when I fail, I automatically blame myself and get discouraged and give up.
For Buddhists, is there any specific view or attitude to adopt towards failure? Something that would allow one to cope with such discouragement? I feel many factors are involved.
Thank you

Why would you want to cope with those feelings?  Feeling bad about failure is the whole point!  It makes you less likely to do it again.  Embrace those feelings.  They are a gift that will help lead you to further success.


Impermanence and suffering in Buddhism I have an intuitive agreement with the idea that impermanence does mean that everything either is or ends in suffering.

But I am not sure it makes rational sense.

Can anyone explain the arguments for and against this characterization of dukkha?

E.g. perhaps something has innate value, is its own end, but only relative to some time and place, such that we are not separated from the value of it when it passes. Surely, one might cliam, that would mean it is not dukkha.

There is a convolution of meanings for dukkha which depends on context. One translation for dukkha is "unsatisfactoriness".

Of course, it is not stated there is no feeling of satisfaction or pleasure born of impermanent things, as that would be absurd. I just ate a big sandwich and I can tell you I don't feel hungry, I feel satisfied with respect to hunger. I also would be lying if I said it was a painful experience.

In the introduction of the Majjhima Nikāya translation, Bhikkhu Bodhi writes:

  The unsatisfactoriness of the conditioned is due to impermanence, its vulnerability to pain and its inability to provide complete and lasting satisfaction.

So, one may find satisfaction on conditioned things. But that satisfaction is doomed to be  be partial and/or temporary. Therefore, it is not satisfactory in its greatest sense; it's, thus, dukkha.


Were the Zen Patriarchs reborn? Was e.g. the 6th patriarch Huineng reborn? Was Dogen reborn?

I would think that Huineng wasn't (it's called the platform sutra for a reason) and Dogen was - though I don't know of anything he said to that effect

There are two implications to the question you ask:

If you imply that being reborn so that they can come back to earth to teach again like the Tibetan lamas, the answer is no. That is the path of a bodhisattva. The zen tradition is to gain enlightenment, instantly or gradually.

The second is that, have those patriarch reached enlightenment so that they will never be reborn? If you believe they were enlightened then they will not.


How does the 'Great Doubt' compare to doubt? A while back I heard something about the 'Great Doubt'. I think it is a Zen thing? Does anyone know what it is and how it might compare to the doubt that all human beings feel from time to time?

Many Thanks

I think Stephanie of Treeleaf puts it well:

  I used to feel very confused as to what set "Great Doubt," the virtue, apart from "skeptical doubt," one of the traditional Five Hindrances of Buddhism. I have since learned from my experience that skeptical doubt is more of an automatic resistance to things, a destructive tendency to pick apart and reject even what is good, that bats away and refuses to entertain anything that comes along and does not fit within parameters of what has been determined to be acceptable or true. Whereas Great Doubt is the presence of a question or questions that push us beyond the normal boundaries of our thought processes, beyond the answers that usually comfort and reassure us.

This matches my own experience. Regular doubt is based on fear. It is the lack of trust or courage to let go of our conceptual/emotional ground and to go all the way into the quest for Truth. In contrast, Great Doubt (Japanese "gidan" or "dai-gidan"; Chinese "yituan"/"dayituan") is suspending one's judgement and giving up all grasping to certainty, all attachment to preconceived notions - including one's assumptions about the nature of dharma, the goal, everything.

Regular doubt is the mind of "I know", the mind of calculation and negotiation, the "setting sun" mind, flat mind, logical mind, wavering mind.

Great Doubt is the mind of "only don't know", is the "beginner's mind", the ego-less mind, the "Great Eastern Sun", the vulnerable mind, the mind that is completely open, the mind combining the opposites.

Regular doubt is an obstacle on the path, Great Doubt is the door to Freedom.