How to handle torpor? I've been practicing concentration for a while, trying to reach access concentrataion. In the beginning of my practice my mind was very noisy (as I guess anyone else), after a while I began to calm down and thoughts began to slow down enough for me to see the way to concentration. I experienced how tracking the breath and taking in all the texture really changes the state of my consciousness and feels like plunging to a deep water. It seems that this is a window to a wide world I really want to explore.

In recent sittings I've been finding myself calming down very much to the point of not focusing on anything at all. No thoughts, no breath. I guess there's still thoughts and activity but my mind is not in tune to any of them in particular. While this can fell quite good, I think its retarding my practice.
I notice that its now hard to track the breath in the same way, its like the mind is being lazy and wants to slip into the comfort of being dull. There's no texture to the breath and it now feels more distant.

What can I do to overcome this state of torpor and inject some clarity into the practice?

Take your finger off the trigger. Take your foot off the accelerator.

Just sit but with a quiet still silent mind.

Don't attempt to watch the breathing.

The Buddha did not teach to watch breathing.

The Buddha taught to abandon craving.

Every impulse to watch breathing is craving. When this impulse arises, abandon it, realise it, drop it, let it go.

When you stop trying or craving to watch breath and have a silent mind, Anapanasati (which means 'mindfulness with breathing' rather than 'mindfulness of breathing') can naturally take its natural course. 'Mindfulness' means 'to remember to keep the mind' free from craving.

When the mind stops trying to watch breathing, the mind will be free from the thought of 'trying'. Not trying actually makes the silent mind more clear, more sensitive.

Do we need to make an effort to hear a sound, to smell a smell or to see an object? if not, why does an effort need to be made to know/feel the breathing, when the mind is naturally silent?


Is there a major translation error in MN 10? I have noticed the following translation in MN10:

And again, monks, a monk, when he is walking, comprehends, ‘I am walking’; or when he is standing still, comprehends, ‘I am standing still’; or when he is sitting down, comprehends, ‘I am sitting down’; or when he is lying down, comprehends, ‘I am lying down.’ So that however his body is disposed he comprehends that it is like that.
https://suttacentral.net/mn10/en/horner

I find this in all translations of Ven Sujato and Ven Thanissaro's translations as well.
But when I checked the Sinhalese translations, I can't see this was translate as "i am".

Furthermore, when a mendicant is walking they know: ‘I am walking.’

  Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu
  gacchanto vā ‘gacchāmī’ti pajānāti

From my very little understanding of Pali, "gacchāmi" means "I am walking" because the verb conjugation -mi is only used for first person singular in present tense, hence the "I am" is optional. The subject is optional.

Similarly, "gacchasi" means "you are walking" but "you are" is optional because the verb conjugation -si is for second person singular in present tense. The subject is optional.

Similarly, "gacchāma" means "we are walking" because the conjugation -ma is for first person plural in present tense. The subject is optional.

However, for "gacchati" which means "he/she/it is walking", and "gacchanti" which means "they are walking", a subject is not optional and must be clearly specified because it is not obvious from the verb conjugation who it is referring to.

Of course, in continuing conversation, third person subject (singular or plural) may be omitted, if it was explicitly stated in the previous part of the conversation i.e. implied. At least, I guess so.

Please see here.


Why the nature of things is such as it is? Namaste. My question is

Why the nature of things is such as it is?

I think that the question cannot be answered, because it points outside the grasp of our mind, but I am interested in possible deep evidences pro or contra.

Thanks.

When you say the nature of things i am assuming you mean things being:

1.Impermanent (anicca)

2.Suffering/Dissatisfaction/Dis-Ease (dukkha)

3.Non Self (annatta)

1.Why is the nature of things impermanent?

Because conditioned phenomenon is constantly in a state of flux.Why?Because something causes this to happen than this causes that to happen then that causes that to happen then...and so forth.

2.Why is the nature of things suffering/dissatisfaction/Dis-Ease?

Because the conditioned phenomenon keeps changing.(impermanence).And we keep grasping at it.What happens when you try to hold on to something that keeps moving and your adamant about staying put.You hurt yourself.You stress yourself.Let go.

3.Why is the nature of thing Annatta?

I can not answer this.It just IS.

Both Samsara and Nibbanna are devoid of an Ego.Both conditioned and the unconditioned have no permanent self/Ego.


Sakkāya-Ditthi and Self-View It's mentioned in many references that when someone becomes Sotāpanna (= stream-entrant = Person-who-has-seen-Dharma) then the first three fetters (saŋyojana) are dropped.

My question is, if the first fetter which is self-View (sakkāya-ditthi) is dropped, then who is going to be Sakurdagami = Once Return, Anagami = non-returning and Arahant, or how can he focus on the path as his self-view is already dropped by that time.

And also when Anagami person is to become Arahant, he is supposed to drop the last three fetters which are conceit (māna), restlessness (uddhacca),ignorance (avijjā). And if someone has already dropped the self-view then how he can drop the conceit (mana) (the eighth fetter) as it's a subset of the self-view.

The answers like: "It's partially dropped, etc" are not correct as that's not how it's defined (if not it's mistaken).

And there are many places in Tripitaka, that Buddha mentioned as I to refer him self, so does the Buddha still has self-view?

And in Khemaka Sutta this is clearly explained that even Anagami person has I am feeling and desire, which is a subset of self-view.

  "Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower
  fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a
  lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am'
  obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of
  arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates:

Do you still believe that Sakkaya Ditti means Self-View ? or is it a mistake?

In my understanding, there is no controversy here at all. The explanation can be very simple:

Before stream-entry, someone can think: "I am this body" or "I am inside this body" or "I am the perceiver of all my experience" or "I am the decision maker of all my actions" or "I am my memories" or "I am the thinker of thoughts".

With stream-entry these mistaken views are abandoned. Body is just body. Experience is just experience. Actions are just actions. Memories are just memories. Thoughts are just thoughts. They are not "I", there is no "I" in them, nor is "I" doing them.

At the same time, after stream-entry there are still remaining hangups to be abandoned. Particularly, there are still some habits of getting drawn to pleasant experiences and avoiding unpleasant experiences, once those are abandoned there remains anxiety about not being perfect enough (udacca-kukucca), once that is abandoned there is pride of being perfect (mana). Having these issues does not require identifying anything as "I". Even without thinking "I am this" or "I am that" there are states of attraction, aversion, anxiety, or pride.

You are asking, how is it possible that someone could keep working on these issues without thinking "I am body", or "I am inside body" or "I am the thinker of thoughts" or "I am the doer of actions" etc.?

From my experience, working on them does not require thinking in terms of "I". Instead, what's required is to see "body as body", "feelings as feelings", "thoughts as thoughts" etc. - as explained in Satipatthana. When there is such seeing, there is observation: "here is a thought conducive to dukkha" and "this thought conducive to dukkha should be abandoned" and "this thought conducive to dukkha has been abandoned" - as you can see this can happen without any I-making.

At the same time, even after abandoning explicit I-making (thinking in terms of I) there is still deep-lying residual habit or intuition of assuming that "I" is the decision-maker of actions and the experiencer of experiences. As explained in the suttas, this will linger for a long time and requires very intensive and deep meditation practice to be abandoned.


Doubts and Meditation I am usually filled with common doubts (not necessarily doubts towards the dharma). My mind keeps forming thoughts that say: "Maybe things are like this! Maybe things are like that!" without much certainty.

I wonder: Does meditation help with such doubts, namely by preventing them from arising? I noticed when I am concentrated in meditation, on the breath, that thoughts rarely arise, and that I'm focused on sensory perception rather than this type of speculation.

Hence, does meditation remedy such hesitation and doubtful thoughts? If so does it do so by preventing them from arising? Or, does it do so by another mechanism.

Thank you.

You can practice the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness:

  These, bhikshus, are the four focusses of mindfulness that are to be cultivated for the abandoning
  of these five mental hindrances.

(Satipaṭṭhāna) Nīvaraṇa Sutta

Also,

  one understands and sees, as it really is, one’s own benefit,

  one understands and sees, as it really is, others’ benefit,

  one understands and sees, as it really is, the benefit of both

(Nīvaraṇa) Saṅgārava Sutta

One also can try developing the 7 Enlightenment Factors to overcome it. See: Āvaraṇa Nīvaraṇa Sutta

Wise attention can be used to overcome dought:

  Bhikshus, no other single thing do I see, on account of which unarisen doubt does not arise,
  and arisen doubt is abandoned, as on account of this, bhikshus, namely, wise attention.

  Bhikshus, through wise attention, unarisen doubt does not arise, and arisen doubt is abandoned.

Nīvarana,pahana Vagga

Also, do not feed dought. See: (Nīvaraṇa Bojjhaṅga) Ahara Sutta

Also see: Nivarana and Vicikiccha by Piya Tan


What are the Core Teachings of Buddhism? I asked, What is the core teachings of the Buddha, ( As I do Know ) There was no modern traditions then. I know that there has been a Buddhist Council gathered to try an reach the core understandings. I Hoped that some may know this, an may even have insight on what they reached an what has been decided on.

I find that some traditions and methods tend to confuse and distract away from what little teachings I could find.

You can find the core teachings of Jesus by reading the Bible, There is no Buddhist Bible. Im so far unable to find a english Pali Canon to read.

To me when people say I must have a tradition to know what the teacher says its like saying you can't explain jesus's teachings cause its to hard with out traditions. You dont have to be catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Evangelicalism, or even Baptist to simply look up the text an see for your self what he taught, without the dogmas and doctrines to keep you ensnared into a rigid form of the faith an blind to what it means. This examples shows how some traditions an customs keep you from the truth an keep you distracted away from the teachings.

So that is why Im asking with out traditions. What Texts can I find that are in english to read, that would help me. Or if a tradition must be needed, then what is the closest to exactly how Siddartha taught would help me get started in that direction.

Hopefuly This time I can say what I intended on my own question.

I want to know what Siddhartha taught.

Well yes, don't we all want to know that. :-)
Though it may seem a bitter pill to swallow. :-/

Some Wikipedia articles FYI:

Early Buddhism includes a timeline showing the "where and when" of the various schools
Pre-sectarian Buddhism is an article about "the Buddhism of the Buddha himself". You might not find it interesting/satisfying, but that's life! :-) It says,

  The information on Buddhism in the period before the rise of the early Buddhist schools is based on accounts of Buddha's life and teachings in the scriptures of the Theravadin Pali Canon, and the surviving portions of the scriptures of Sarvastivada, Mulasarvastivada, Mahisasaka, Dharmaguptaka and other schools, most of which are only available in a Chinese translation. Some individual scriptures found in Nepal, however, are composed in Sanskrit. Recently the Gandhāran Buddhist Texts were recovered from Afghanistan. The central body of sutras in these texts is so similar that they are considered to be different recensions of the same text.[15] The accounts in these individual scriptures might be tainted by the particular philosophies of those schools or by translation issues. However, since various recensions of these texts (from various schools) are available, comparisons can be made, and conclusions drawn, to filter out the most obvious of these taints.[16]

So perhaps you can see why people are interested in the "Pāli Canon":

  The Pāli Canon (Pali: Tipitaka) is the standard collection of scriptures in the Theravadan Buddhist tradition, as preserved in the Pāli language.[1] It is the first known and most complete extant early Buddhist canon.[2][3]

  It was composed in North India, and preserved orally until it was committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately four hundred and fifty four years after the death of Gautama Buddha.[a]

Re. the comment saying that "comparisons can be made, and conclusions drawn" about "different recensions of the same text ... (from various schools)", one example of people trying to do that is this document (which I tried to summarize in this answer): to do that they read and compare several 2000-year-old documents written in antique languages and scripts, and that document's bibliography references 50 other papers. And all that is just to analyze one sutta, and even then it's not "canonical".

So, inferring what pre-sectarian Buddhism was, using the current (sectarian) literature is a complicated job, for scholars of Buddhism.

It (i.e. the Buddha's dhamma) is a question which also interests practitioners of Buddhism: who are perhaps meant to discover an answer for themselves, by practice, and via teachers.
Early Buddhist schools seems to be a more detailed history of "early Buddhism", from the time Siddhartha died until their Legacy which includes "the Theravāda school" and "various Mahāyāna traditions".

All the above is to say that it's difficult to be sure of exactly what the historical Buddha taught: especially if you try to disregard Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana because they didn't exist in his time.

I hope the above helps to begin to explain some history about why/how/when/where there are different schools.

Your question about the "core teachings" is partially answered by the answers to this other question, What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? Apparently (or allegedly) those are teachings which all the schools agree on.


Implementing Emptiness Practically What is the manner in which those meditating on emptiness actually bring their contemplations into a practical, experienced form? In other words, how does insight (on emptiness) become effective in every day life?

Your question is a good one. If I understand it correctly you are referring to the process of "bridging" your experiences in seated meditation into the time between such meditation sessions. You recognize that there is such thing as focusing one's meditation in a certain way (on emptiness) and it's not clear how to bring that focus to one's daily activities. If that isn't your question I apologize. If that is what you are asking then it's important to understand some of the practical aspects of focusing on emptiness. Focusing on emptiness is not necessarily the same as meditating on emptiness nor is it the same as realizing emptiness.

Focusing on emptiness is using the idea of emptiness as taught by the Buddha to change the way you see your self and your life.

Focusing on emptiness can be described as keeping impermanence always in mind. In other words, whatever you see/hear/taste/smell/feel/think ALONG WITH the organs you use in order to see/hear/taste/smell/feel/think are going to die (or end) REAL SOON! That type of reflection has the PRACTICAL effect of doing two things. First, it causes an increase in awareness of the precious little time we have in this body. And second, it creates an ambivalence towards things that waste that time.

In other words, when you come into awareness of death you start to realize the futility of grabbing onto things you experience with the senses and you also realize the limitations of those organs you are using to perceive objects. This creates dispassion and eventually revulsion for these habits of grabbing onto such ephemeral, unrewarding objects. The nature of all objects of the senses is to burn unto death (as taught in the Fire Sermon [SN 35] among many other sutras). When you meditate on emptiness you are focusing on that truth within all objects of your life and all aspects of what you call your "self" (those organs of perception).

You don't actually need to "sit" for meditation to "meditate" on emptiness in the way I am describing. "Sitting" actually makes it easier to see into this component of fire/death within all objects and without sitting, perceiving objects of everyday life in this way takes even more courage, determination, persistence and most of all, faith in the dharma (+the Buddha & the Sangha). But even if you sit and experience the jnana states sequentially the meditation on emptiness must continue in the same way at each new state. Even the jnana of "nothingness" (one of the highest states experienced by the body) must be seen with using this meditation on emptiness; that is, 'this state is temporary, it too shall pass, it too is on fire.' That is why Sariputta would describe his experience of the jnanas as (forgive my paraphrasing): 'And then the first jnana assailed me, and then the second jnana assailed me . . .' etc! [I will look for the reference to this sutra and add it later, it's in the SN]. The mind as an organ of perception is on fire/subject to death/empty and so, the appropriate practical response to the experiences it delivers is the same: dispassion, revulsion & eventually release.


Why is Buddhism a venture of a limited few? This question is further to my last question on Nirvana and evolution, and considering the answer... If we believe the Buddhist cosmology to be true and Nirvana as an evolutionary next step, then why is it that very few people actually tread the path to it?
Considering the world religious demographics only 7% of worlds population follow Buddhism and of those who call themselves Buddhists maybe just 1% actually want or strive towards Nirvana.
Is intense suffering an inevitable step to begin striving towards Nirvana? If Buddhist understanding of the human condition and psychology is true, why do only a limited few humans want or strive towards Nirvana? If Buddhist cosmology is true, why do humans not en masse go on the Buddhist path?

The Buddha once asked himself much the same. And in his question, we catch a glimpse of why there are a limited few. Indeed, the Buddha first thought that there were none:

SN6.1:1.4: “This principle I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of reason, subtle, comprehensible to the astute.
But people like attachment, they love it and enjoy it.
It’s hard for them to see this thing; that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination.
It’s also hard for them to see this thing; that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.
And if I were to teach this principle, others might not understand me, which would be wearying and troublesome for me.”

Fortunately for us, Brahmā Sahampati swooped to the rescue, proclaiming:

SN6.1:5.5: “Sir, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the Holy One teach the Dhamma!
There are beings with little dust in their eyes. They’re in decline because they haven’t heard the teaching.
There will be those who understand the teaching!”

So the Buddha looked and saw that there were indeed a few with little dust in their eyes.
It's not so much the intensity of suffering that inspires one on the path. It is the sheer inevitability of suffering in even the smallest relishing. Everybody else is looking exhaustively for exceptions to the understanding that:

MN1:172-194.26: ...relishing is the root of suffering,

There are no exceptions.


Trying to Meditate Longer I am currently meditating thirty minutes per day. I wonder whether I should meditate an hour instead or meditate for thirty minutes twice.

Basically, I meditate on compassion and after thirty minutes I'm not generating much of anything. I just sit there moving about on my chair, wondering about the time, etc.

Does this saturation after thirty minutes occur because I have always meditated this amount of time before? Or is it because I'm just not ready yet? In other words, are we used to whatever amount of meditation we're usually doing?

If this is so, would it be better to just always try to sit an hour if I'm capable? Should I just meditate as long as I can sit, whatever the quality may be?

Joggers or long distance runners didn't just start out running for hours. They build up their stamina slowly and steadily over time. So use the same approach for meditation. Build it up gradually and don't settle for the 30-min achievement. It's probably too short for any significant deep absorption state anyway. There're advanced meditators who immerse themselves in deep absorption for days.


Does morning and evening chanting follow a set pattern in the Theravada tradition? I attended a meditation event that included morning and evening chanting at a Theravada monastery/temple. It was a wonderful event but I couldn't follow the chanting book as it was written in Lao characters. I recognized some basics like taking refuge and eight precepts, but other than that I was lost. Does morning and evening chanting follow a set pattern or does each monastery just pick out what they like? If it is a set pattern, what might it include? I'd like to print out some in Pali/English if possible. Thanks for any help.

I don't know anything about the chanting services in Laos unfortunately. I do know about the general chanting services done in Thailand though, which might be similar although the Thai chanting I'm familiar with doesn't have the refuge and precepts as part of the chanting service itself.

If you want to check out a general Thai service book here's a good one. You can download the chanting book as a PDF and some sections have the Pali and English on seperate pages while some have the English underneath. I especially like this chanting book because it has the little arrows to indicate the chanting melody. You can also hear recordings of Monks chanting out of this particular book here if you go to the upper right and switch the category to chanting.


Illegitimate children this is the situation:
a children is born from fornication years ago when the couple were young, years passed the guy married. the women gave the child for adoption. Now the women brings up the child (who is an adult now) to the guy who is happily married. What does the Buddhist texts or teachings say about the illegitimate children born from fornication?,
Is there anything  that mentions this?

Buddhism concerns itself with the behaviour of people rather than birth status. Refer to MN 98.
In other words, an ethical person who was an illegitimate child is regarded to be superior or happier than an unethical person who was a legitimate child.


Right understanding of Dāna I'd like to understand the Buddhist view of Dāna better. I've read the Vaccha Sutta and it seems to say that gifts are best given to the most worthy. By comparison, in Christianity, the idea seems to be that one should do "for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine" source

Am I understanding correctly that the Buddhist view and Christian view of giving are very different? Is there a general concern for the (unworthy) poor in Buddhism? Thank you for helping me to understand this.

In Buddhism the merit created is greater if you give food to a monk when compared with giving to a prisoner for example, it doesn't mean you should not help the prisoner, it means that you create more merits by helping pure and enlighted beings to survive, there are many stories on the dhammapada about it.

Think as if you are helping the Sangha to survive, so they can benefit inumerous beings, the impact in the world is bigger and so the merit earned.


What did Buddha say about dysfunctional families for novice practitioners? What did Buddha say about dysfunctional families for novice practitioners? What advice did he give for novice practitioners in order to have a good practice as being a novice such impediments as a dysfunctional and painful family can impact practice in a negative manner? What precautions should one take? Should one go no-contact, is that skillful?

Elsewhere, Buddha has mentioned that one cannot repay the debts of the parents and even in the Mangala Sutta it is mentioned that one should be helpful to relatives. However, if being in contact with dysfunctional families makes us lose our faith in ourselves and makes us angry and hateful all the time, this is a huge impediment to practice especially as a novice. I know that one should learn to have compassion for these people and see them as afflicted by delusions. However the transgressions are so huge and the fact that I am a novice makes me feel guilty that I cannot feel the compassion. I have tried Metta meditation and also analyzing them using the 5 ways to overcome hatred. At this point nothing is helping. I am just filled with this ball of anger and hatred inside me constantly. I am afraid that I am generating more negative mind-states by being in contact with this dysfunctional system. There is a lot of dysfunction and its so painful, to the point that I am losing my self-esteem and have started doubting my worth as a human -being. There is constant lies, manipulation, slandering... I am losing my faith in myself as a human being.

All advice to deal with this situation from the Suttas, and practical advice from personal experiences, will be appreciated. Please remember, this is for a novice. High spiritual ideals like compassion etc are great, but they are not helpful for me right now.

I can only agree with Dhammadhatu's last paragraph. Get yourself going first, for  if you are suffering inside you cannot help others and your inner rescources will become less and less. This is not about being selfish but I call it enlightened self interest.
Now, the Dhammapada is largely addressed to monks, but I think some of the quotes are still good reminders and something to strive for.
To quote from the Dhammapada:

  Verse 160: One indeed is one's own refuge; how can others be a refuge to one? With oneself thoroughly tamed, one can attain a refuge (i.e., Arahatta Phala), which is so difficult to attain.

_

  Verse 61: If a person seeking a companion cannot find one who is better than or equal to him, let him resolutely go on alone; there can be no companionship with a fool.

and lastly verse 43, which targets your issue and echoes Dhatus last point:

  Verse 43: Not a mother, nor a father, nor any other relative can do more for the well-being of one than a rightly-directed mind can.

Apart from Buddhism, I can also recommend REBT (Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy) by Albert Ellis who was the "father" of cognitive behavioral therapy. Especially Windy Dryden published countless books in how to overcome obstacles (search on Google Books, I learned most of it through Book reviews there). One of the most important hallmarks in REBT is self acceptance, and if possible other and world acceptance, where you differentiate between personhood (or supposed "self/other worth") and the doer. Basically "condeming the sin but not the sinner". It would definitely help with your self esteem issue you raised. On YouTube, Albert Ellis is also to be found. There are old lectures, but still on point and have a no non-sense approach which I like and is usually quite rare to be found in comparison to Buddhism, where lectures and talks go up to 2-3 hours with a lot of non-sense and rambling.


How to extend the counter-part sign? What even is this? As I'm learning to master the first jhana one must do two things, master the five masteries & be able to extend the sign. For the masteries,

• Mastety Of Adverting
 ×Turning your attention & focus on any jhana factor after! anywhere,time or place

• Mastery Of Attainment
  × Entering jhana concentration quickly, Anytime you wish

• Mastery of Resolving
×Staying in the absorption for as long as one wants.

• Mastery of Emerging
× Emerge from The Jhanas Quickly

• Mastery Of Reflection
×Looking at & learn each thing you did to enter each jhana factor.

Please tell me if I'm incorrect. Now for extending the sign. I don't truly understand how to do such a thing, or even what it is. Here's a passage from the book I'm reading.

  The perfecting of the first jhana involves two steps: the extension of the sign
  and the achievement of the five masteries. The extension of the sign means
  extending the size of the counterpart sign, the object of the jhana. Beginning
  with a small area, the size of one or two fingers, the meditator gradually
  learns to broaden the sign until the mental image can be made to cover the
  world-sphere or even beyond (Vism. 152-53; PP.158-59).

Can someone please elaborate for me please. I need to understands what the counter-part sign is & how to extend it. Is it a mental image you have? So a kasina ot any other mental image you form?

From my own meditation experience... For what it's worth...

Usually, when meditation is going well, you feel very comfortable and can relax, your level of concentration grows. Concentration on what? On nothing really, just on sitting and being in the moment. At some point even the breath stops being important, it's more like you no longer get distracted from sitting and staring at your own "raw" mind...

When that happens, it feels almost like you start tripping. I'm sorry for using a highly contemporary comparison, but I can't come up with a better image for what happens at that moment. At least in my experience, I start floating into some altered state of mind... While staying firmly in the present moment, without losing my concentration... In this state of mind I "see" feelings as "shapes" and "colors". It's hard to describe, because that "seeing" is not really visual, the shapes are not really shapes and the colors are not colors. They are feelings. But they are much more "loud" and "thick" than our normal feelings, they have more structure and differentiation so to speak. I believe this is the so-called "counterpart sign".

No two people have the same experiences, but when your get in touch with your deep subconscious emotional mind, you will experience something strange. This something, whatever it is in your case, will start small and then grow and expand. Then you have a choice to either keep relaxing and going deeper into that, or hold on, or come back out. In my experience, when I go deeper I eventually fall into something like a dream state.

In this dream state I lose sense of time, and I don't really have control, but there is still a sense of something going on, and I feel that, and it is good. Sometimes there is a feeling of some mental knots getting untied. Sometimes there is a feeling of resting. Sometimes there is a feeling of opening. Sometimes there is a feeling of sweetness. It also serves as a kind of reset button, meaning, when you "wake up" you feel much refreshed, more grounded, well-rested, balanced, and calm.

It's not really that magical. It's rather similar to a moment when you're falling asleep.

So my answer to your question, "how to extend the counterpart sign" is: "by relaxing into it, by relaxing deeeeep into the present moment".


How is the exterior suffering? How is the exterior suffering?
In this Sutta series from SN 35.144 it says the following.
Eye etc. and its objects are impermanence, not-self, and suffering.
I understand all except that eye etc and its objects are suffering. For instance, if my eye arises as a result of a physical object, how is the physical object suffering?
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.144/en/sujato

I see that the translation in your link interprets the Pali word dukkha as "suffering". Other translations have it as "painful" or "stressful" or "unsatisfactory". Whatever word we use, the point being made about external phenomena is that they are not going to make us happy. The gorgeous potential romantic or sexual partner, the object my eye rests upon, may inspire in me a pleasurable feeling, but that happiness is not going to last. That happiness is not a support for the freedom from suffering that the Buddha is teaching us about.
Because they are notself, because they are impermanent, they cannot provide lasting happiness, though we tend to think they will. Instead, we'll end up discovering the things we see (hear, touch, smell, taste, think of) will disappoint us. They'll change, or disappear, causing us to suffer.


What does dogen's genjo-koan mean? What does the genjo-koan means? Especially:

  To study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to
  forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad
  things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well
  as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of realization
  remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.

and

  A fish swims in the ocean, and no matter how far it swims there is no
  end to the water. A bird flies in the sky, and no matter how far it
  flies there is no end to the air. However, the fish and the bird have
  never left their elements. When their activity is large their field is
  large. When their need is small their field is small. Thus, each of
  them totally covers its full range, and each of them totally
  experiences its realm. If the bird leaves the air it will die at once.
  If the fish leaves the water it will die at once.

  Know that water is life and air is life. The bird is life and the fish
  is life. Life must be the bird and life must be the fish.

  It is possible to illustrate this with more analogies. Practice, enlightenment, and people are like thi

What does it mean to say that these are life and that there's no realisation?

Dogen is pointing to emptiness. When the self drops, you realise you are one with the ten thousand things, and there is no more I and them. Enlightenment, path, etc are no more than concepts.

The Heart Sutra:

  "Shariputra, form does not differ from emptiness, emptiness does not
  differ from form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is
  emptiness form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses,
  consciousness. "

And:

  "Therefore, in emptiness no form, no feelings, perceptions, impulses,
  consciousness. No eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
  no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no object of mind;
  no realm of eyes and so forth until no realm of mind consciousness. No
  ignorance and also no extinction of it, and so forth until no old age
  and death and also no extinction of them. No suffering, no
  origination, no stopping, no path, no cognition, also no attainment
  with nothing to attain. "

http://www.kwanumzen.org/wp-content/uploads/Heart-Sutra-in-English-text1.pdf


Do enlighted people cry? Did the Buddha ever cry? What is the Buddhist view on crying? I don't remember hearing or reading about the Buddha ever crying. Is crying a consequence of "lack of understanding" of the ultimate reality?

Crying can be caused due to both physical and mental reasons.
Physical reasons:

Irritation in the eyes.
Sickness affecting the eyes.
Side effects of strong medication or extremely spicy food.

Mental reasons:

Sadness(obvious sadness and the sadness disguised as compassion), depression, aversion to pain, fear
Clinging to happy/pleasant/joyful states of the mind.

Assuming that this question is aimed at the 2nd category, it is highly unlikely that a fully enlightened being would cry as they no longer become sad or cling to pleasant states of the mind.
Arhanths only have Kiriya Cittas. Those are of 3 types.
i. Consciousness turning to impressions at the five doors
(panca dvara-avajjana) accompanied by feeling of indifference(Upekkhā).
ii. Consciousness turning to impressions at the mind-door
(mana dvara-avajjana) accompanied by feeling of indifference(Upekkhā).
iii. Consciousness of the genesis of smile (hasitoppada
citta) accompanied by joy(Pīti).
Hasita(a smile which slightly reveals the tips of the teeth) is their reaction to joy. If they ever cried, there should be another called the Assuppada citta. But there isn't! :)


Is there a Buddhist 'noninterference' concept? There's a stub Wikipedia article which says only,

Noninterference (Buddhism)
Noninterference is a Buddhist concept and practice which relates to the idea that all things are impermanent, with a resignation to events beyond human control.[citation needed]

Is there such a concept in Buddhism? If so does this concept have other names?
Is it true that this Buddhist concept applies only to "events beyond human control"?
The question occurred to me when I was trying to answer the question about "what do buddhists religious texts say about the environment?"
I tried to look it up because I got the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that maybe Buddhists would agree it's better not to be greedy, but that even so they may not go out and campaign or lobby against greed, or argue in favour of preserving the environment, or indeed argue about anything else.
My guesses (my attempts to answer this question myself) were:

I suppose that 'right speech' might be an argument for non-interference: don't say something unless you think it will be welcome.

Maybe non-attachment too would tend towards non-interference: perhaps I cannot try to promote some political view, unless I am attached to it. Maybe the Buddhist practice is that if the world doesn't seem to be as I'd want it to be then I should change my own view and not try to change the world.

Maybe non-self might tend towards non-interference: "who am I to interfere?" ... or "why am I doing this, there are only two motives for doing something, i.e. greed and aversion, and both/either of these motives are wrong" etc.

If it's true that it applies only to "events beyond human control" that perhaps that means hoping that some 'higher powers' (devas or bodhisattvas) will act.

I didn't find "noninterference" at all in a search of accesstoinsight.org
Google suggests it might be a concept in Chinese Buddhism (so, Taoist-derived, perhaps?).

I'm sorry if this question feels like I'm trying to make you write a Wikipedia article. The reason I'm asking is that I did have a feeling that non-interference might be an established practice.
Conversely can you give some examples of when this 'noninterference concept' would be wrong?

I think you already answer your own question by mentioning impermanence. Why act upon something that will slip away between your fingers anyway, without anyone having the slightest control. Phenomena both mental and physical are uncontrollable and ungovernable. Interfering with them will not bring anything good out of it. Interfering with phenomena will bring suffering in the end. When i use the word interfere here i mean after the 7th link in Dependent Origination where craving, attachment and becomming happens. That will only lead to suffering.

Instead non-interference is what one should practice meaning observing phenomena arising and passing away. The practice of insight meditation is your answer. As you mention yourself one should work on oneself and develop oneself instead of trying to change the world. Interfering with e.g. politics, environmental protection etc. will only treat symptoms since the root cause are Greed. Only that can be reduced by working on ourselves trying to develop the mind.

Let me try to give another example. One is sitting in insight meditation and observing phenomena. One is not mindful for a moment and the mind gets sucked into the maelstroem of e.g. a mental formation. Then when mindfulness returns one will see that suffering is gained through interfering with phenomena. When seeing that over and over the mind naturally begins to let go and just observe phenomena without interfering, engaging them.

I dont know if this answers your question. I think the term non-interference might not directly be found in the texts under that name but its a derivative from the practice of insight meditation or a result of the impermanent nature of phenomena.

By the way i think its good that you mentioned the doctrine of Anatta. Everything just becomes problematic when an I, Me of Self is added to the equation. This have also been discussed recently. Take a look at this question here. You might be able to take the same perspective here that when adding an experiencing, permanent entity or Self to the equation then suddently you have "someone" that interferes.

Lanka


Has any pilgrimage customs formed in North America? In Asia there are the 8 pilgrimage locations based on places the historical Buddha did things.

Has any North American Buddhist organization, sangha, or the like created a list of pilgrimage destinations?

Anyhow, the BNS specifically mentions rules for travel #37, I haven't figured out if this means one is supposed to go on a pilgrimage.

It's been a while since I asked this question, here is what I learned since then.

In ancient China, there was a system of itinerant monks who went from monastery to  monastery. You couldn't stay forever, but you could stay a short amount of time at any monastery. Travel could be dangerous, so the rules were in place to discourage recklessness.

In Japan, after political consolidation, it became safe to travel all over the place. Since temples were popular destinations, this created demand for lodging and restaurants at temples. Some of these still exist. The restaurants were vegetarian restaurants and served vegetarian temple food. Both in Japan and China, they followed Mahayana and were not conflicted about it.

In the US, you can find some faint echos of these pilgrimage traditions, like Hsi Lai Temple, in Hacienda Heights has/had a restaurant. I haven't found any that offer short stays for pilgrims.

What we do have in the US is a retreat system, where people travel to a retreat center for a week or two for housing, food and organized activities. These are too numerous to list here. It isn't quite like stupa pilgrimage in India, because there isn't anything special about the location.

Speaking of special locations, in the US, the closest thing we have to religiously significant locations are the Stupas, such as the The Great Stupa of Dharmakaya. In Hawaii there are Japanese temples built in the traditional style and Ling Yen Temple in Canada, but I think it is safe to say we are no where near the scale of temples you find in Asia.


Is it possible to share merit to all beings like Angels, hungry ghosts, animals etc I read stories in Petavatthu which describe how people offer donations to the sangha and transfer the merit to their deceased relatives who are born as hungry ghosts, so that they can get alleviate the suffering experienced by the hungry ghosts. In the same way, is it possible to share merit to other beings like Angels, animals, etc, because I haven't come across this in the texts.

Not sure Dhammadhatu's answer is direct answer for this question.
So sharing merit (telling your good merit) to animals doesn't work because they (almost every of animals) do not have any mind to understand good merit and eventually not able to be happy/together with you about your merit. So they will not share the effect of being happy/together of good merit.
Angles (frequently gods in Buddhist literature) may have little chance to know/care about your good merit since their lives are more about consuming the effects of good karma instead of cultivating good karma and sharing merit of others. There might possibility that some lower angels (gods) wandering on earth or living like human among us who can be shared our good merit but it is not so strong effects like on hungry ghosts because it is greatly differ in terms of necessity.


Skillful ways to induce Rapture and Pleasure in meditation The fifth and six steps in Ananpansati, talk about training ones' self to be sensitive to these feelings,  how can a mediator do this and avoid the dangers of getting caught up in them?

If the meditator is trying to "induce" rapture & pleasure, as taught by some meditation teachers, the meditator is already caught up in them.

Buddhism is not the same as the consumer culture, where pleasure is easily obtained.

True rapture & pleasure are a reward for right morality & noble selflessness (non-attachment).

The quality of mind & mindfulness described in the Anapanasati Sutta is as follows:

  There is the
  case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor for awakening
  dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on
  cessation, resulting in relinquishment. He develops analysis of
  qualities as a factor for awakening... persistence as a factor for
  awakening... rapture as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on
  cessation, resulting in relinquishment... serenity as a factor
  for awakening... concentration as a factor for awakening... equanimity
  as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on
  dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment.


Are theravada monks allowed to stay in lay people's house? A theravada monk would like to stay in my house for one night. I live with my parents, but  we don't have special room for guest. Should I suggest him to stay in monastery near my house?

Sankha's answer is technically right from an orthodox point of view, but may not be a correct interpretation of the texts. The word the Buddha used is "sahaseyya", which means "sharing a place to sleep", so the rules quoted about roofs and walls are not literal translations, they are extrapolations based on the commentary.

The origin story is what makes me think this rule should be considered less strict; in it, Anuruddha goes to stay in a rest house (āvasathāgāra) and is invited by the owner to sleep in a "bed that is within" (mañcakaṃ abbhantaraṃ). Now, I understand that the commentary gets into an explanation of how even a seven-story palace is considered "sahaseyya", but following the story, it seems likely that the point is not to stay in the same bedroom as the woman. The room where Anuruddha stayed, by the language used, seems to have been an inner room in the rest house that belonged to the owner herself; when he spent the night with her there (teaching her the dhamma, no less), he caused controversy, and instigated the rule - though it seems clear he never laid down, which would be necessary to break the rule.

If Anuruddha had stayed in the outer room, he ostensibly would not have instigated the rule (provided there were no women staying there).

There are other reasons, however, for not staying in a lay person's house, especially that of a person of the opposite gender, and the strict interpretation of the rule is probably for the best - to keep monks in line and to keep lay people from becoming too intimate with the monks, leading to problems on both sides.

My reason for giving this answer is to reassure you about the monk's intentions - many Theravada monks have no problem with staying in the same building as a lay woman, as long as they are not in the same room. I don't personally think it is a good idea, but I'm not convinced that it is breaking any rule, especially in modern times, where our lives are lived inside single buildings that can even house multiple families.


Sounds during meditation When I practice meditation I focus on the rising and falling of my abdomen and if any thoughts or sensations arise I note them and continue focusing in the breath but I notice that I'm very sensitive to sound. I am acutely aware of all the sounds going on around which is a never ending cacaphony of nearby people, traffic, wildlife etc. I was using earplugs for a long time because I found it too distracting but I decided to stop using them and now I am finding the sounds very much in my awareness a lot of the time and I can't seem to focus on my breath. So I note "hearing hearing" but like how long am I suppose to keep noting hearing ?  If I sit for an hour and the sounds keep capturing my attention do I just keep noting hearing hearing every few seconds in the same way I do for thinking thinking?

Distraction one of the two main obstacles in meditation (the other is dozing off or even falling asleep). Many people get distracted by sound.

It's normal and as long as you keep getting distracted you have two choices:
1) keep sitting there, and keep bringing your attention back to your meditation object
2) quit meditating.
3) change your meditation. (headphones, change in meditation object etc. see below)

There is no expected time limit within which you are supposed to stop being distracted. Distraction happens.

From the way you describe it - you don't just note the distraction and then get back to meditating. You are also getting annoyed at yourself. So note that too.

Patience. Patience. Patience. Remember that this is all part of the course & that as you are not living on a mountain somewhere, your conditions are not ideal. So be patient with yourself. I'll repeat myself again: be patient with yourself.

One alternative is that when you don't meditate with plugs (which I do think an excellent idea, btw), is to meditate on sound instead. That way the distraction has become the object. This may change the meditation dynamic.

Good luck. And remember: the fact that you are still regularly sitting there is in itself an achievement. Don't be too hard on yourself. And perhaps read something by Pema Chodron? She's very good at reminding us of being kind to ourselves.


How to completely be aware of each moment? How can I be completely aware in each and every moment, even working, walking, or talking? Is "continuous breath awareness" is an answer?

You can still be aware of the breath. In case of working it is more easy to see the expansion and contraction nature / sensation of breathing process. In which case it might be an idea to look at your chest or abdomen for rising and falling sensation.

When you walk, talk or do anything else you need mindfulness to do the task right. In Buddhism this awareness is not too tied to being aware of what you do. What needs to be done is to be aware of the arising and passing of sensation (phenomena what is felt) with equanimity. In the case of breath any sensation pertaining to the breath like expansion contraction or touch at the upper lip or nose or length will be sufficient.


Buddhist councils and government involvement? In my country (Sri Lanka) government is about to bring out a new set of laws to govern Buddhist councils. This kind of a law has never existed in my country and being a Buddhist country there is some speculation about why only one religion is effected by this new law.

There are some fears from monks about government trying to shut up the religion & it's power over people even though some are ready to examine the whole thing and come up with modifications.

There is a line about putting the "Monk imposers" in jail. And some fear this might be a bate to take down Buddhist organizations and Monks who speak against injustice.

The public literally has no clue about what to say or do. Most likely people will oppose it and there is a big potential that this might lead to some serious outbreak of violence and religious conflict.

Here are some links from news web sites about the whole thing:

Amendment of laws on Buddhist temples will take decision making power away from Maha Sangha
New laws

So far it is very dreadful.

What should be the response to this kind of a law in any country?

How to deal with government involvement in religion?

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

Sangha - Business is Sangha - Business and laymen - business is laymen business, yet lay people do not conduct to any precepts that keeps them stay away from Sangha business and of course the views of laypeople had since ever an impact on the behavior of the Sangha, at least many of the Vinayas rules have been formulated after laymans critic (it this was proper).

But Sangha needs to conduct on staying away of what ever laymen business. Doing different is a heavy fault, Sanghadisesa 13. Yet, how could Sangha even come in certain situations like you mentioned is not having violated the Sg13 at first place? Do they leave in dependency on certain people or groups? They do and so they have their problems which will not and before they do not give up there comfort they gain within this dependency. But they would, in line of there defilement not be able to do and simply live a live according to Vinaya.

It is in no means intended by the Buddha that the Sangha seeks for coalition with lay peoples interest and totally against any independency if worldly institutions would act as regulation.

The reality, how ever looks different, since the Sangha at large is merely unable to act and move in those days already and there have been lot of positive interventions of Kings and wordily leaders through the history.

One might not forget, although it looks wonderful that there are countries with thousands of monks and thousands of monasteries, that this is actually a sign of strong corruption of the Sangha, or let Atma say, of most.

If Atma takes the country where he dwells he would say that 95% of what ever communities, monks, monasteries are far away form the heir of Dhamma-Vinaya and the institutions are at large means for a livelihood, nothing else. Livelihood needs regulations and with that such things like monk-passports, licenses, allowances... start to grow.

At least there is as big tendency of desire for governing from monks and even more strong by laypeople, of both have interests in becoming and material gain.

In this world of defilement and darkness, there is no way that such as Sangha survives, and it is sure, as far as Atmas awareness can reach, that this is the last generation of holy life within Buddhas institution called Sangha. That does not mean that its physical appearance will disappear, no, it will even grow, but its ways and purpose is gone.

Governments even have no other chance as to hardily regulate everything since there are less monks who stick either simply with Vinaya or have certain own virtue already. All they will do is making politics and oppose the state. They would not dear to leave a place where the conditions are no more given for a holy life.

The most harmful action is if Sangha uses people to fight each other or to make propaganda. If the Sangha carries out correctly they would not even give certain statements but simply act in sphere of there possibilities. At least they have no rights at all and do not hold rights but at the moment they start to do so, they are subject and object of all problems and quarrels.

Even in old times, it has been on invitation and guidance of great kings who had not so much dust in the eyes, that councils take place. Today the time of real Sangha councils are gone. If there would be a meeting in line of Dhamma and Vinaya, it would be the last meeting. Where ever Monks meet today, they are no more interested in correct each other but simply on how to maintain "harmony" so that the corrupt movement can go on and livelihood can be done without disturbing each other.

There have been in the past, always small particular Sanghas, which earned rightly the respect of the leaders. For example the forest tradition in Thailand which is differently treated in all aspects. But for the large, the folk Buddhism institutions, there will be no future without been strictly governed since both, the intention and the fruits of it are of worldly interest.

As for somebody involved as a citizen in such a matter, Atma would point back to the first line: Look simply of is your own business and do not get involved, do not take position aside of simply precepts and doing what is virtuous.

To be able to live a kind of live is not a matter of right but a matter of past deeds (merits) and of conduct one sticks to. There is no more safety of all that stuff, if one does not hold any right or weapon and anybody who tells different did or do not live such a live.

So there is nothing to fear for those who walk the right path and stay independent by letting go, but of course all reason to fear for those who took, take and like to take the instruments of the Buddha as a worldly means.

Atma would on this occasion remember on 1. on the reminder of King Asoka:

That the True Dhamma Might Last a Long Time

and 2. on the urgency to practice, things are not for sure and you don't know if town and forest will be on fire tomorrow or you even live that long. So don't waste your time with politic, Upasaka Theravada and stay far away for any protesting monk and monks who make even sight signs of interests in world and politic! They are poison and dangerous, not even as dangerous as lay people can be, for the Dhamma as well as for the worlds normal harmony.

If you have certain possibilities to influence others, like family and friend, lead them generosity, virtue, discernment. No need to care of things out of your range. You'd better develop gratitude in regard of those holding power and give you many possibilities they would not need to give you our they would have the power to take it from you.

  Danger is born from intimacy,
    society gives birth to dust.
    Free from intimacy,
    free from society:
    such is the vision of the sage.

  Who, destroying what's born
    wouldn't plant again or nourish
    what will arise:
    They call him the wandering,
    singular sage. He has seen the
    state of peace.

What did the Buddha and all his disciples give up fist, when they entered the holy life?
Home, clan, tripe, country, king, family... Show be even a hand full of monks or laypeople in your country or in other countries who have gone that far.

Dhamma is about to demount the pole and demount the flag. Yet, not long time ago foolish people even created such as a Buddhist flag. People have no sense at all today and Buddhism is at large nothing but national socialism, of interest of becoming and being and social means to get have a large support by those who actually do not understand the way of Dhamma.

So in that regard, if you like to play a sample, give up the flag and give up to make a label like that of a particular school your identity. That would how you would act for the sake of peace.

Nobody is able to govern you, if you do not identify here and there. And when the rulers of certain territory like to bind you, if you are not attached to it, what hinders you to walk on?

Government trying to get those who have worked out independency for themselves under control try something that does not work, they could only cut of there own possibilities to get taught a way the real liberation. Its like if people think they can put certain monks under TOS. The are fools. In such groups, what they have, are corrupt monks. Look where ever you find a certain Buddhist State online. Its all the same. Those who like to carry flags will met together with those seeking refuge in flags. They live in their own made prison, yet still there is an opening in their protective castle:

Your Temple, your palace and your borders

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


Lethargy: Short Versus Long Sessions I have roused myself to meditate, but I am experiencing lethargy and drowsiness throughout the whole session, drowsiness which doesn't cause me to sleep but which I perceive helplessly. My question is should I:

a) continue to merely watch my hazy thought process as long as I am not sleeping

b) reduce the length of my sessions so that the time spent in meditation is devoid of drowsiness.

I've done a session of 30 min, and am wondering whether to reduce it to 15 or 20 min.

Thank you.

For a 30 minute session, my recommendation is to continue to merely watch the hazy thought process (as long as there is not sleeping). Hopefully, after a while, the haziness will clear, like dawn fog clears eventually as the sun rises.


Question about the contrast between Buddhist statements and Christian doctrine In the Christian Bible (especially in the Book of John), Jesus often talked about Himself as using phrases like:

  I am the light of the world
  I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved
  I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Now Buddhism seems to point more on emptiness and nothingness etc.

Why is that?

Why didn't Buddhists say such things about themselves, as Jesus did?

Are there any Buddhists who also said things like, "I am the bread, the light, etc", like Jesus said?

The word 'Buddha' means 'Enlightened'. It is the Buddha that is the light of the world. Buddhism states there can be only one Original Buddha in a world-system (MN 115). Jesus was a new light for Judah but not for the world. Jesus brought light to the violent tribal hypocritical religion of Judaism but Buddha (obviously; probably) brought light to Jesus.

When Jesus came to Judah and taught new teachings, which were different to Judaism, such as: (i) forgiveness, (ii) non-violence, (iii) showing the other cheek, (iv) non-hatred, (v) universal love & mercy, (vi) deeds before faith; (vii) God is love, (viii) celibacy, (ix) wandering like a monk, (x) not thirsting again (xi) liberation from the world, (xii) a kingdom not of this world, (xiii) eternal life (not experiencing death), etc, these new teachings obviously came from Buddhism because they have no source in the pre-Babylonian-exile Old Testament. All of these teachings have direct parallels in Buddhism, including the idea that 'God (Brahma) is love', which the Buddha taught to Brahmans in the Tevijja Sutta.

The Buddha revolutionized the ancient spiritual world, such as the famous Hindu book called the Bhagavad Gita (300BC), which is about Krishna, who is very similar to Jesus, being a human incarnation of god. Although the Bhagavad Gita refers to god & its theistic, its more profound principles are very similar to Buddhism (such as giving up craving & attachment).

The Buddha did not 'give up his life' for 'sheep' because the Buddha taught: (i) to not sacrifice one's life for another (Dhp 166); and (ii) he was the teacher of gods & humans (rather than animals or 'sheep'). Unlike Jesus, the Buddha forbade the practise of miracles for the religious conversion of others (DN 11). Unlike Jesus, a Buddha must live the whole term of his natural life as a demonstration of his virtue, i.e., his social harmony.

Unlike Jesus, the Buddha did not wander around picking fights with the religious establishment. The fact that Jesus (supposedly) violently died on the cross & was (supposedly) killed by Jews resulted in a religion that perpetuated violence and engaged in revenge killing against Jews for 2,000 years, which ultimately influenced the 'Holocaust'. This cycle of revenge was not one-sided, with (wealthy) Jews also plotting for hundreds of years to destroy Christianity. In short, the (supposed) sacrifice of Jesus has not really brought peace to the world but the opposite. Where as practitioners of the Buddha's noble path are peaceful & don't engage in conflict with other religions.

The Buddha called himself the 'Spiritual Friend' or 'Noble Friend' because he showed people a path for individual freedom that was self-reliant. The Buddha said:

  Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable
  people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to
  develop & pursue the noble eightfold path. It is in dependence on me
  as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained
  release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release
  from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from
  death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress &
  despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress,
  & despair.

  Upaddha Sutta

In his first sermon & many other places, the Buddha described his teachings as 'light':

  'This is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering': such was the vision, the knowledge, the wisdom, the science, the light that arose
  in me concerning things not heard before.

  Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

The following phrase is found many times in the Buddhist scriptures about the 'lamp' of the Buddha:

  It is, good Gotama, as if someone were to set up something that had been knocked down, or to reveal what had been hidden, or to point out
  the right path to a man who had got lost, or to bring an oil lamp into
  a dark place so that those with eyes could see what was there — just
  so has the good Gotama shown me the truth in various ways!

And this, as Jesus taught (from Buddha):

  Open are the doors to the Deathless to those with ears.

  MN 26

As for the term 'emptiness', it means 'empty of self', such as found in the term 'kenosis' in  Philippians 2:7:

  Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to cling to, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a
  servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance
  as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death
  on a cross.…

Also Luke 17:33:

  If you cling to your life, you will lose it, and if you let your life go, you will save it.

To conclude, the Buddha is the true light of the world. The Buddha shows the path of the best wisdom & the best human ethics. Many, such as Jesus, obviously adapted the Buddha's teachings to try to make people free. However, the Buddha is the original & the best, as the Buddha said:

  Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things passionlessness is
  the best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the best.

  Dhammapada
  273


Feeling Tilted During Meditation Can anyone enlighten me as why I feels like my body is tilted around 30 degrees to the right during meditation?

This happens around 10-15 minutes after I've started.

I don't do any breathing technique, I just sit still.

There can be many specific reasons why this sort of thing happens but generally speaking it's because the body posture is only a conceptual entity in the mind, formed based on individual, momentary experiences. If for whatever reason your physical experiences are out of the ordinary, it is common for them to give rise to erroneous conceptualizations in the mind of how the "body" is situated, as the mind tries to relate the new sensations to old conceptualizations. Feeling like part of your body is bloated, twisted, tilted, or even disappeared are all commonly reported experiences.


Non-sentient beings and sentient beings At first I want to say sorry for my English, as it is my second language.
My questions:

Can non-sentient beings reach nirvana?
Can non-sentient beings be reborn?
Can sentient beings be reborn as non-sentient beings?
Will all beings eventually reach nirvana?

Thanks in advance for an answer.

Idk what u mean by Non sentient beings but maybe one can say that of plants as in they are according to Sutta 'alive but aren't percepient'.


What is Buddhism's view about debating teachings? What is Buddhism's view about debating teachings: should we accept teachings without question, or should we have our own internal and social debates about what we learn?

If we should debate, what is the correct way of doing it?

Another way to put your question (re-phrase) is... "Is criticizing other religions allowed in Buddhism?"

If that criticism is fair and aims to correct others, then it’s allowed and is a good thing to do. As it is mentioned above in Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta, Jainism is criticized by Supreme Buddha.

Supreme Buddha was one of the first crusaders against caste system, an apartheid evil ideology started by Aryans who used it to suppress indigenous Indian people. Lord Buddha was a social reformer and thoroughly criticized the animal sacrifices and discrimination of women which was common in the Hindu society.

A heartfelt touching discourse of Lord Buddha on animal sacrifice comes in the Sutta Nipata, Brahmana-dhammika Sutta. In this discourse, it is discussed about the ethical conduct fit for a Brahmin. Lord Buddha speaks respectfully of ancient Brahmins who rejected disdainfully the taking of life and never allowed their religious rites to be contaminated by the blood of poor animals. But corruption came upon, and they started the wicked practice of animal sacrifices to please gods. When the knife was laid on the neck of cow, the gods themselves cried out in horror, seeing that crime of ingratitude and insensitivity committed on an animal that was such a faithful worker, such a sustain-er of life, to humans.

In the Agganya Sutta, Supreme Buddha focuses on the Brahman idea from Wrig Veda that Brahmans came through the mouth of Maha Brahma/God; thus they are supreme. Lord Buddha questions the Brahmins as to how they can claim so when they see day to day that women in the Brahmin caste get pregnant, give birth, and take care of their children? Don’t they understand that they all came from the mother’s womb, not from the Brahma’s mouth?

‘One is not low because of birth nor does birth make one holy. Deeds alone make one low, deeds alone make one holy.’
– Supreme Buddha (Dhammapadha)


Who are this people in white, often attend to monks? I attended a dhamma talk last month by a Thai monk but English translation were also provided on site.
There was this westerner who is giving English translation but may not look like a full time monk? Although he was in white shirt, partial shaved head, but doesn't seem like wearing a rope.
Was wondering, how would they be addressed as in monastery? Or they are just layman working for the monastery?

Thanks.
Sadhu sadhu sadhu

He is probably an anagarika.

Anagarika, literally "homeless one", is a stage of practice between lay followers (upasaka) and novice monks (samanera). They usually wear white and act as part time or full time volunteers at monasteries or temples.

They observe the Eight Precepts and are able to handle money unlike novice monks and fully ordained monks (bhikkhu).


What are some entertaining/fictional movies, books, etc. about Buddhadharma or Buddha himself? What are entertaining/fictional movies, cartoons or books about Buddhadharma or Buddha himself?

Some movies with Buddhist concepts:

Cloud Atlas.
Little Buddha.
Kundun
The Dharma Brothers (Documentary)
The Buddha (Documentary)
Spring,Summer,Fall,Winter..and Spring.
Why has Bodhi-Dharma Left for the East.
Wheel of Time
Doin Time Doing Vippassanna (Documentary)
Angulimala
OK Baytong
Amongst WHite Clouds (Documentary)
Amrapali
My Reincarnation (Documentary)
The Holy Man (Comedy)
WHen the Iron Bird Flies (Documentary)
Milarepa
Nang Nak (Horror)It's a thai story about a hungry ghost whose still attached to her husband.


Husband and wife for hundreds of times of consecutive rebirth. How? In Theravada Buddhism, once a person dies he or she will be reborn immediately. Each person dies at a different time. How is it possible for a husband and a wife to meet again in the future consecutively for hundreds of times?

Husband and wife for hundreds of times of consecutive rebirth. How?

In AN 4:55 - The Same in Living, the Buddha visits a married couple in their residence. Here he is given alms food whereafter he gives a teaching to the householders.

Both householdes, Nakulapitā and Nakulamātā, asks the Buddha how they can remain together in this life and meet and be together in future lives as well.

The Buddha teaches: “Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives, they should have the same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity, and the same wisdom. Then they will see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives.”

Below is the quoted sutta.

  The Same in Living (1)

  On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling among the Bhaggas in Suṃsumāragira in the deer park at Bhesakalā Grove. Then, in the morning, the Blessed One dressed, took his bowl and robe, and went to the residence of the householder Nakulapitā, where he sat down in the prepared seat. Then the householder Nakulapitā and the housewife Nakulamātā approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, and sat down to one side. The householder Nakulapitā then said to the Blessed One:

  “Bhante, since I was young, when the young girl Nakulamātā was given to me in marriage, I do not recall ever transgressing against her even in thought, much less by deed. We wish, Bhante, to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives.”

  The housewife Nakulamātā in turn said to the Blessed One: “Bhante, since I was a young girl given to the young householder Nakulapitā in marriage, I do not recall ever transgressing against him even in thought, much less by deed. We wish, Bhante, to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives.”

  “Householders, if both husband and wife wish to see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives, they should have the same faith, the same virtuous behavior, the same generosity, and the same wisdom. Then they will see one another not only in this present life but also in future lives.”

  Both husband and wife are endowed with faith,
  charitable and self-controlled,
  living their lives righteously,
  addressing each other with pleasant words,

  Then many benefits accrue to them
  and they dwell at ease.
  Their enemies are saddened
  when both are the same in virtue.

  Having practiced the Dhamma here,
  the same in virtuous behavior and observances,
  delighting after death in a deva world,
  they rejoice, enjoying sensual pleasures.


Who were the wise in the Buddha's discourses? When the Buddha said: "Censured or praised by the wise?" In a few suttas, when talking about right actions, who exactly were those wise?

According to the commentaries:

  buddhādīhi viññūhi pasatthattā viññuppasatthāni

"The state of being praised by the wise, starting with the Buddha, [makes them] praised-by-the-wise."

In general, the word viññū just means someone with wisdom. The idea here is that the wiser the person is, the more likely they are to praise that which is worthy of praise and censure that which is worthy of censure.


Did Buddha ever get sick or injured? Specifically in his last life, both before enlightenment and after.

At least:

Before an enlightenment:

bodhisatta make himself suffering by dukkarakiriyā-practicing,
attakilamathānuyoga, in Mahāsaccaka-sutta.

  Aggivessana, it occurred to me, what if I pressed the upper jaw on the
  lower jaw, with the tongue pressing on the palate pushed out, expelled
  and burnt up thoughts in my mind. Then even while sweat was dripping
  from my armpits, I pressed the upper jaw on the lower jaw, with the
  tongue pressing on the palate pushed out, expelled and burnt up
  thoughts in my mind...etc.

It is a very long with many suffering, please, look inside the link by yourself.

After an enlightenment:

One sick,  some physical body suffering, found in
cīvara-khandhaka of vinaya-pitaka.

  [135] Tena  kho  pana  samayena  bhagavato  kāyo  dosābhisanno hoti.

  Next, the cause is when  buddha's body accumulating waste product.

Two more sicks found in D.N. Mahāparinibbāna-sutta, illness, and
hematemesis.

  But when the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon him. And the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.
  ...
  And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even hematemesis (lohitapakkhandikā), and he suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

Another, injure found in Vinaya Saṅghabhedakhandhaka.

  Tato   papaṭikā   uppatitvā   bhagavato   pāde   ruhiraṃ   uppādesi .

  Because of broken pieces of big rocks, blood bleed out at buddha's foot.

The conclusion appears in K.N. Apadāna, too. From here, buddha said foot-ache and headache, too. This is a long quote, please see inside the link by yourself.


Why didn't the Buddha write a book outlining his teaching? Perhaps with the exception of Laozi, most sages, founders of religion, & great thinkers from virtuous tradition do not leave us books authored directly by them. In most cases what we have is books written by their followers or commentators.
Some did say why they don't want to write. Did the Buddha say why he prefers oral transmission?

Thank you for the responses and historical references, it's hard to believe that the cause for not writing a book to be lack of written script or writing material, India wasn't that lacking, they even had some intriguing advanced mathematics compare to other civilization and writing did exist by the end of the Vedic period which aligns with Buddha time... But perhaps, as @Andrei noted the oral tradition was more advanced and the preferred method.
I asked because I thought maybe the Buddha, the same as other thinkers, saw writing as an incorrect way to transmit his message. For example, Socrates compared writing to dead painting as quoted below, but his view is not directly applicable to Buddhism and in a wider sense to Vedic oral transmission, because the method (i.e the oral transmission) is not about dialectic rather repeating the exact word and phrase. So, for an external observer is an excellent candidate for writing.

The painter’s products stand before us as though they were alive. But
if you question them, they maintain a most majestic silence. It is the
same with written words. They seem to talk to you as though they were
intelligent, but if you ask them anything about what they say from a
desire to be instructed they go on telling just the same thing forever

.

The four nikayas do not mention "writing". However they do mention "reciting" many times. One mention, in particular is quite interesting:

AN8.20:6.4: It’s impossible, mendicants, it can’t happen that a Realized One could recite the monastic code in an impure assembly.

In another sutta, the Buddha instructs:

DN29:17.1: So, Cunda, you should all come together and recite in concert, without disputing, those things I have taught you from my direct knowledge, comparing meaning with meaning and phrasing with phrasing, so that this spiritual path may last for a long time. That would be for the welfare and happiness of the people, for the benefit, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans.

What is notable about these and many other quotes is the amount of care mandated in transmitting the Dhamma. The transmission of the Dhamma goes beyond mere written duplication via Gutenberg printing press or mindless scribe. The transmission of the Dhamma requires transmission of pure understanding, with care taken to ensure the meaning and phrasing of what is spoken and heard. Specifically, what is required is:

AN2.126:1.3: The words of another and proper attention.

In my own experience, I have found that hearing, reciting and discussing the Dhamma to be far more powerful and effective than mere reading. I have found the eye to be fickle in its grasping as it flits from here to there seeing what it wants to see as it skims the written word. In contrast, hearing and reciting and discussing demand far more attentiveness. And although the Dhamma is available for reading, I myself study the Dhamma by listening, reciting and discussing. The difference in understanding is remarkable. I cannot say what the Buddha intended. All I can say is that reading is too superficial for me. Instead, I rely on hearing, memorizing and speaking the Dhamma in concert. And that oral tradition does indeed work for me. The oral tradition facilitates proper attention.


Sutra Study as Meditation? When studying the sutras should that be considered a form of meditation, if so what are the guidelines for sutra meditation?

For Theravada sutta study is considered part of the overall practice. It is an important part that goes along with practicing Sila and meditation. So I'm not sure if it is considered " a meditation" but it is a large part of the practice which includes more than just meditation.

Across time and location meditation has been stressed over sutta knowledge, or sutta knowledge stressed over meditation, but there is one Sutta I am failing to find in which the Buddha basically shows that one who listens to dhamma(aka learns the suttas) and practices is one who is developed in dhamma.

"And how is a monk one with a sense of Dhamma? There is the case where a monk knows the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions.[1] If he didn't know the Dhamma — dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions — he wouldn't be said to be one with a sense of Dhamma. So it's because he does know the Dhamma — dialogues... question & answer sessions — that he is said to be one with a sense of Dhamma. This is one with a sense of Dhamma.

"When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on delusion, he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates [lit: "weighs," "compares"]. Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.

"There are these five rewards in listening to the Dhamma. Which five?

"[1] One hears what one has not heard before. [2] One clarifies what one has heard before. [3] One gets rid of doubt. [4] One's views are made straight. [5] One's mind grows serene.

"These are the five rewards in listening to the Dhamma."


Avataṃsaka Sutra in Sanskrit I've recently begun reading up on the Avataṃsaka Sutra and was curious if anyone here is aware of any available Sanskrit text. Thank you.

You should be able to find it in the Digital Sanskrit Buddhist Canon. Unfortunately I don't have a Sanskrit IME to give you the direct link to the text, but doing a search should bring it up.


Anapanasati and Compassion I'm wondering basically whether anapanasati can result in as much compassion as metta. Though the focus is different, can these two meditations have the same potential for altruism? Does meditating on the breath produce as much compassion?

Basically, I wonder if -- in order to become altruistic and compassionate -- one has to focus on compassion as a subject, or if that is not necessary.

Thank you

Anapanasati, when practised properly, arises from compassion towards onself.

Therefore, when Anapanasati is fulfilled, the defilements end, peace occurs & the original compassion towards oneself remains; which then manifests outwardly in one's natural state of being.

To practise the Dhamma and Anapanasati successfully requires a great act love towards oneself.

This love will remain when the task is completed.

However, Anapanasati cannot be practised & fulfilled if we continue to engage in behaviours (kamma) that defile, enslave & weaken our self and others.


Homeless but not a monk Is it frowned upon in Buddhism to undertake homelessness without ordination? Let us presume that part of this homelessness also includes a focus on meditation, with mind and body able to work for oneself.

No there are many people who do it. It is accepted by Buddhists with respect. This is called Anagarika. There are much respected and famous Anagarika people.


Do monks HAVE to accept anything offered to them? Does a theravada abbott have to accept everything / anything that is offered to them? I'm referencing technology, things beyond requisites.

I know it is important for abbotts to set a good example and to create trust through their actions.

I can't speak to the Pratimoksha followed by Theraadans, however, according the the Pratimoksha of Mulasarvastivada (which I foillwed when I was a monk), there are certain items no monk can possess (e.g. a meditation mat made of black sheep's wool) - so if offered, one might accept it - but then turn it over to the abbot. Otherwise, the only other relevant vows concerned accepting what was offered in terms of food. I imagine these restrictions would be similar for Theravadans. As for technology, in my monastery, we had lots of teachings that had been digitized, for walkmen, MP3 players and computers were ubiquitous.
Hope this helps.


How Does Buddhism Handle Internal Conflict Few years ago, family put matrimonial ad in newspaper in India. We thought we selected nice person, but turns out he was abusive, unfaithful, and only wanted green card. Worse, he made me have miscarriage.

Now, I wish to move on with my life. One minute my heart says I want family to put matrimonial ad in newspaper in India again, next moment my heart says I want to keep busy in USA, maybe I will find person I am meant to marry here.

I asked God to give me sign, a "Yes" or "No" as to whether we should put another matrimonial ad (of course we learned from last time, will be million times more careful), but literally, one hour I think "Yes", next hour I think "No".

What does Buddhism teachings say in this case. For past few months I have been torturing myself mentally just thinking of this.

It's important to understand that any amount of external situations happen which may not go your way. When it goes your way, you're happy and God doesn't come into the picture. And when it doesn't, sometimes God doesn't help. ;)

So the idea is to accept the external situation as it is, because it was never in your control. And keep living with the moments in life. If you let an external situation faze you out too much, you're lost.

Understand this fact. What we are in control of is ourselves, our internal reactions and responses to anything.

So whatever situation life brings you, just take it in the right stride and keep smiling and going. Simply accept it. There is no need to fear anything. Fear is ego's response to a threat on its existence.

Don't struggle with yourself. If you put an ad in the matrimonial page, don't expect things to go right. But don't expect things to go wrong either. Just let it be. Because the future is only imaginary if we think about it. So let the future be whatever it is. Have faith in yourself that you can deal with anything.

The way to deal with it is to introspect if you are ready, put the ad. And hope it goes right by analyzing the person clearly. Go with the flow. Because life is to be lived whatever the situation may be, sportively.

(PS: And please, don't expect a certain God, to help out whenever you are in trouble. That is simply wishful thinking.)


Who was the first buddha? If the number of buddhas is increasing, who was the first, and how did he become buddha without the dharma or a guru?

You asked a very intelligent question; but this is an intellectual quest that fallen into the category of the Ten Unexpounded Questions, I infer. It belongs to this group: Is the world eternal?. Discerning that question, it is asking Does the world have beginning/When does the world first appear; follow suit, Who was the first Buddha?

Since the Buddha withdrawn from giving answer to the Ten, usually that's the end of it. And then the classical way is to stress, Buddha's teaching is for ending suffering... for someone like wounded by an arrow at heart dying immediately... etc. etc. full-stop. Done.

But I think maybe you are interested to investigate a bit more...

The intellectual questions are confined by intellectual limitation. Intellectual limitation of procuring question or answer is limited in these four types:

This is (P)
This is not (-P)
This is also is not (P also -P)1
Neither this is nor is not (Neither P nor -P)2

Called Catuṣkoṭi, I prefer the name "Four-statements". Not a fifth statement can be procured by the intellect, except combining the four to make sub-sets.

A question asked from these Four-statements answered in the Four-statements, Buddha called it "game of the mind" (戲論). There are plenty of these examples in general teachings recorded in Agama Sutras; sophisticated examples in advance teachings recorded in such as Avatamsaka Sutra (the first Sutra spoken by the Buddha). For instant, if this same type of question asked by a Christian: Who created the world? Ans: God. Who created God? Ans (maybe:)): God's father. Who created God's father? Ans: God's grandfather... finally, one can only come up this answer to halt the question: God is Alpha and Omega (the beginning and end/no beginning and end). See? How horrible the mind can elicit gaming!

But, The Truth is beyond these Four-statements; beyond intellect, beyond the mind; can be pointed, yet not caged for display, like the finger pointing to the moon. That's the deepest teaching of the Buddha. Nagarjuna elaborated the teaching profoundly, for easy application, used one word: Emptiness (空).

OK. I'm diving a bit too much into the sea, giving too long an answer, a bit scary too, huh? Better is finding out by yourself :)

Now let's go headlong into your title question:

  Who was the first buddha?

The short answer is: 。 (silence)

Additional: The number of buddhas isn't increasing nor decreasing... etc., for this analogy is an extended fabrication constructed by the Four-statements.

Now let's deal with the next:

  how did he become buddha without the dharma or a guru?

I think the he you referred to Buddha Shakyamuni. First, the Dharma is constant and present, not created hence can't be destroyed; the word used to refer is suchness, or thusness. By the moment Prince Siddhartha realized full enlightenment, he embodied the Dharma, by embodied the Dharma he realized full enlightenment, called Buddha Shakyamuni.

Guru I think you meant teacher. Buddha's teachers are previous Buddhas, one of the most significant Gurus for our Buddha, would be Buddha Dipamkara. To be the Lord Buddha of the Three-thousand-world (三千大千世界)3, one has to receive the Mark (授記) from the previous Buddha. In Buddha Shakyamuni's case, the Mark was endorsed by Buddha Dipamkara4. When a Buddha is perfectly enlightened, worth to be the teacher of all humans and devas, opens the deathless gate for all, he is called a Samyaksambuddha, one who attained the pinnacle of enlightenment, Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi. My other post may provide more info.

There is another type of Buddha, he doesn't have a Guru [to endorse him the Mark], called Pratyekabuddha, or called self-awaken Buddha (獨覺佛). He realizes full enlightenment by discovering the Dharma by himself, contemplating the 12 Nidanas, during time there's no Buddha appearing. He doesn't teach nor forming Saṃgha to carry on any teaching.

Indeed your question is well formulated, involving understanding many Buddhist doctrines. My answer just serves as indications, it's for you to explore the richness of the Buddha Dharma, how Buddha sees cosmology, life, the world... etc. _/|\ _ (all-my-ten)

Footnotes:

1. From Chinese wording I think it made more sense to use also then and. Obviously putting and is violating logic.

2. It follows that the 4th statement should be treated same way.

3. Three-thousand-world has different definitions, I'm still not clear about the grouping of solar systems and galaxies how they referred to in Buddhist cosmology. My assertion is, either one galaxy one world, or one thousand galaxies one world. If it's the later, then 1,000 Milkyway-like star-clusters will be one Samyaksambuddha's teaching ground ~ huge classroom! Sources related to one 3TW presiding one Lord Buddha: Agama Sutras, Avatamsaka Sutra, Mahāprajnāpāramitāśāstra, Abhidharma-kośa, etc.

4. Sources: in the Sutras collected in one of the 12 Sutra-sections of the Chinese Canon, the Agama Section (which is equivalent to Pali Canon's Nikaya Pitaka); Diamond Sutra, Dharmagupta Vinaya (survived only in the Chinese Canon), Mahāprajnāpāramitāśāstra, etc.


What is the Buddhist perception of injustice, considering the law of Karma? Considering the notion of our future being the result of our actions in the past, is there any room for the concept of unfairness in Buddhist philosophy? What is the right/skillful view one should take when witnessing suffering in a loved one?

From my understanding, one should be compassionate towards the person and keep a calm mind as much as possible, but at the same time I find discomforting the idea that somehow, the present condition of a loved one has to do with his/her past actions, specially when considering more extreme examples of suffering without any apparent reason (e.g. childhood traumatic events, such as sexual abuse).

It's certainly been seen as a difficult question for Buddhists. I've heard it termed the Glenn Hoddle question after an ex-footballer used karma type arguments to explain disability - to quote

  You and I have been physically given two hands and two legs and
  half-decent brains. Some  people have not been born like that for a
  reason. The karma is working from another lifetime

He was sacked as England coach. However it is a difficult question and I will attempt a decent answer

Karma isn't cause and effect

Karma isn't just cause and effect - there is more going on. To quote the Sivaka Sutra

  Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view
  that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or
  neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,'
  then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted
  as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part
  of these ascetics and brahmans.

It's not as if someone lies in one life then is reborn as with a disability in the next. Sometimes the fruits of karma (action) are immediate, sometimes they are delayed, sometimes the fruits don't come to pass at all.

There is more going on than Karma

Also in Buddhism there is the concept of Niyamas which explains outcome dependant origination (the underpinning of reality). These being

kamma niyama: ("action") consequences of one's actions
utu niyama: ("time, season") seasonal changes and climate, law of non-living matter
bīja niyama: ("seed") laws of heredity
citta niyama:("mind") will of mind
dhamma niyama: ("law") nature's tendency to perfect

The above list is taken from here. So karma would only explain a fraction of someones present conditions.

Karma isn't blame

I guess the other thing to point out is that there is no concept of blame in any of this. The audio here is very interesting - a Buddhist nun discusses this exact issue with someone with seeing difficulties.

Even if someone's unfortunate circumstances were caused directly by their actions (which is no means as simple as that) then this wouldn't stop us feeling compassion for them. This would be true in this life or the next. If someone was run over because they didn't look both ways before crossing the road then it is a normal human response to feel compassion for them - Buddhist or not.

As I say though a difficult and interesting question. I hope that helps some.


Can Buddhism be harmful? There is the much talked about example of "zen sickness".

But I wondered can any buddhist theory or practice can ever be harmful to a human?

I'm looking for an answer from anyone, not necessarily a Buddhist perspective. Though, of course, I'd be dismissive of anything unreasonable.

i can say that Buddha was mindful of every word he said making sure they are beneficial to all beings.  However, there might be some thing that seems to be harmful in short term but actually good in long run.  For example, during Buddha's time, 500 monks committed suicide after contemplating unpleasantness of body and 5 skandha.  (Buddha often talked about the drawbacks of all things that create sensual pleasures).  Those monks took it over the top and felt disgusted by their conditions so they took the wrong way out.  Later, someone asked Buddha if he didn't see that coming, Buddha said those monks would have taken their lives anyway from past karma.  at least they got some true knowledge in dhamma while they were still here which would benefit them in the future.
So in short,  practicing Buddhism according to Buddha (8 folds path) is not harmful.