I am looking to learn about the philosophy of Tibetan Buddhism. Does anyone know the proper order in which to learn the texts? I love the Tibetan tradition - Palyul Vajrayana is specifically the one I'm in.

I would like to learn more about it, but the amount of texts available is just mind-boggling. I'd like to learn Abidhamma, the Lam-rim, and other texts that Tibetan masters have written.

However, many of these texts (of the few that are translated) depend on the knowledge of other Buddhist concepts to be understood. For example, for the Diamond Sutra - I needed understanding of form and emptiness, and still I do not fully understand it because I do not have an understanding of what Dhammas are in Buddhist philosophy.

I know there are resources at fpmt that deal with this specifically. And, if anyone wants to take a look, here they are:

http://fpmt.org/education/programs/basic-program/#12

However, I am ignorant as to what percentage of philosophical understanding this covers, and how much pre-requisite knowledge you need.

TL;DR: Looking for a list of books by teaching that you'd find in a Shedra environment.

If you know such a list, please answer!

Thank you

Incidentally, Palyul is my hometown monastery; when weather is good I meditate in their stupa park (not the real Palyul, a branch).

As Palyul is Nyingma, their main ngondro text is "The Words of My Perfect Teacher" by Dza Patrul Rinpoche, plus "A Guide to The Words of My Perfect Teacher" by Khenpo Ngawang Pelzang. Although these are considered "beginner" texts, if you study them carefully and do not rush, you will get much value. Especially the second one is very dense and actually not a beginner text at all.

If you feel like you are ready for a complete lamrim, Kangyur Rinpoche's commentary on Jigme Lingpa's Treasury of Precious Qualities, is a refresher text used by lamas getting ready for their final exams. It packs the whole teaching in one volume. (Volume 2 covers tantra but that's completely useless without a live teacher)


What happens after the great doubt of koan practice? I read that koan practice is meant to create doubt.

But what happens when the koan has been passed? Does doubt end, or begin again, or get literally "shattered"?

Does the practitioner experience a moment of hope?

Andrei's answer is pretty spot on, but I think you need a little background on koan practice to really get the gist of the kind of doubt it's referring to.    Say you are given the Mu koan.  You might sit with that for a couple of months.  During an interview with your teacher, he might ask what mu is or to show it to him.  You might say "it's emptiness".  Ding!  He rings the bell.  Wrong answer.  You go back to sitting.  You go to him again and say something like "thoughts stopping".  Ding!  Back you go.  "No mind?"  Ding!  "Everything is one."  Ding!  "The cypress in the garden."  Ding, ding, ding!

The whole time this is going on, you are getting frustrated.  Your hope is getting crushed.  It seems like everything you say is wrong.  All your theories are dashed.  Even what you take to be subtle observations aren't the answer your teacher is looking for.  Your mind has no refuge.  You have nothing to hold onto.  It's all not this, not this!  That is great doubt.  And it's visceral.  Mumon even likens it to swallowing a hot ball of iron.

But if you practice, you will eventually come tottering into a place where insight is possible.  You might say something to your teacher, something you take to be completely outlandish or that you don't even understand yourself, and he'll pass you on your koan.  On some occasions, you may even get a pretty clear, momentary glimpse of the blue sky through the clouds.  But most of the time, and I don't mean to disappoint, but even after "answering" your koan, you'll walk away feeling just as confused as ever.  The doubt comes slamming back down on your head and back to the cushion you go...just this time with a different koan.

Koans are like holes knocked into a wall with a sledgehammer.  Every one that you answer does a little damage.  Some might even let a little light through.  But over time, if you smack it enough, it will eventually fall over.  Only then is anything really shattered.  It's best not to have hope.  Hope is a temporary refuge.  Better to come at that wall with the full force of your doubt.


Personal practice regarding stream entry Have experience when notting  the thoughts  as impermanence disappears the body and thoughts  together  .But still  there's somebody looking at and it goes into a  cloudy space. What is this experience?Is it stream winner?

No one can tell if you are, or not a stream enter-er but yourself.  Buddha even gave tools if you wish to proclaim yourself one.   Buddha gave about 60 or so definitions for stream enterer.  From my observation of sutta, stream enterer can be achieved thru one of 5 majors groups;

views + conducts
views + advancement of mind (wisdom or meditation)
views + letting go of 3 fetters
views + advancement of mind + coducts
Views only

(IMO) Almost like one can clime corperate ladder to be come a CEO thu different depts such as from Engineering, Finance, accounting etc..  But one your are in high level, rout options get narrower (none returners are pretty much about views + letting go of fetters)

Some interesting facts about stream enter:

Unshakeable confidence in 3 gems (Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha) + keeping 5 precepts are the most spoken quality of stream enterer.
Aññā-Kondañña was the only stream-enterer who had only confidence in 2 out of 3 gems + views.  He became a stream enterer (anna means eyes, seeing, sights etc.  another name for stream enter-er) after Buddha finished his first sermon and there was no Sangha right at that time.  Sangha came right after that when Buddha ordained 5 ascetics.  (Aññā-Kondañña became an arahat a few days later at the end of second sermon.)
Those who let go of first 3 fetters are also called stream-enterers.  Interestingly, confidence in Buddha and Dhamma is indirectly put into number 2 instead of first and foremost quality when you use fetters to proclaim stream enterer.   A direct view would be, letting go of doubt in Buddha and Dhamma.
For men (women) in carpenter village, Buddha explained stream-enterer as those with confidence in 3 gems + generosity (without greed which defiles heart, letting of gifts, open handed, taking pleasure in giving etc..  No 5 precepts was mentioned to them.
Practicing in 8 folds path. Another interesting one.  When Buddha asked ven Sarriputta about which of those who sat in front of them were stream enterers, he said those who practice 8 folds path. Tho faith or confidence in 3 gems were not mentioned by ven Sariputta, but in another sutta, those who "sit near and listen" is a characteristic of those who have faith.  so stream enterers have confidence in 3 gems + walk the 8 folds paths.
Confidence in 3 gems + understanding of dependent origination (or 5 skandhas, or 6 sense gates) or understand the raise and fall.
confidence in 3 gems + understanding of 5 sensual pleasures (causal, inability to sustain, deliciousness of it, drawbacks, and nisarana-method to get away from it.)
Views only.  those who only believes that 5 skandhas or 6 sense gates are not permanents, thorn, boils, nest of diseases etc.,  have stepped out of ordinary person and into a noble one.  in mid-flight of entering a stream enter if you will.  Buddha guaranteed he would not die until realize stream entry.
There is correlation between 5 precepts and confidence in 3 gems.  As if someone whom you believe told you the well is poisoned, you automatically stop drinking for it without being told.
maybe more definition which I have missed.  Please let me know.

Bottom line, (IMO) i think stream enterer has spectrum which Buddha tried to explained it in different lights but as I study further of other stages of enlightment such as once or none-returner, seems like the only option is lettering of fetter to make an advancement.


How to deal with distractions during meditation? When meditating on the breath, after a while the sensation of my eyes not being closed properly appeared. This then turns into vibrating, and my eyes feel like they are literally moving. I tried refocusing on the breath but this is a very difficult sensation to ignore. Does anyone have advice?
Other sensations I feel are the opening of my eyes, if I do not pay attention to them. This sometimes happens, but mostly doesn't. This is also extremely distracting, as I feel like I should focus on keeping my eyes closed.
Many thanks.

Close the eyes properly?
Usually there appear various sensations like ie;

posture not being straight
legs not being very comfortable
odd sensations in the face or body
itching, numbing etc
wanting to adjust posture etc

Usually when some odd sensation appears, it distracts you from the breath but if you were to switch your focus to the sensation the perception of breath would distract you from the sensation.
So there is not that much you can do as you will get distracted either way, so i try to do as little as possible.
Eventually the distracting sensations will change & subside, so you can just observe that arising, persisting and cessation in that.
What i do is aknowledging that ie 'a painful bodily feeling has arisen' and just observe it distracting me whilst maintaining focus on the breath and whatever else is going on.
When distracted just acknowledge that a distracting feeling, thought or perception (however it appears to you) has arisen and go back to breath. Keep observing the arising, persistence and cessation of both perceptions (breath + distraction) whilst reapplying the focus and keeping it connected to breathing.
One can't really do anything about various thoughts, feelings & perceptions claiming focus so one just aknowledges their arising, persistence and the cessation.
I don't necessarily take note as in verbalizing thoughts as is taught by ie Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu but i do it occasionally. I don't think it's a mistake to do it but i think it is eventually somewhat distracting and is not something you do in the 2nd jhana but it's ok up until that point if one finds it useful to keep focused.
I tend to be less "hands on" in general and tend to stay mindful of the arising, persisting & cessation of thoughts feelings & perceptions by applying mind to something and keeping it applied without intentionally giving rise to thoughts.
If i notice particular hindrances then i drop the perception of breathing to counter the hindrance lest it can be well countered by the perception of breath (ie general restlessness).


Can the Buddhism.SE site function as "the Sangha" for me? I don't have access to a Sangha just now, and I do frequent this very well conceived and helpful site. Recently I was writing a comment about no longer being a programmer because it was too isolating for my nature ("square girlfriend" = computer screen, ha ha) and I thought: gee, I am staring at a screen now... and for many hours today...

But it is vastly different to be reading and writing with other people (ahem) than to just do an induhvidual activity like programming. Right? I am actually interacting, but somewhat ansynchronously. So I still use and develop some of my Hetaira Archetype skills (more effortful and challenging with only text to interpret and reply by).

Does asking and answering Questions here count as taking refuge in (and providing) The Sangha?

Sangha means different things to different people.

Some people who "take refuge in the sangha" are referring to all the enlightened beings who have ever lived and their refuge is in being inspired by the example of such beings.

Some are referring to the community of ordained monks and nuns and they look to the monastic community for teachings of the dhamma and guidance in their practice.

Some are referring to all followers of the Buddha's teachings not only the enlightened and ordained ones. It's more of a "fellow travelers along the path" concept.

From Wikipedia, "Some scholars have noted that sangha is frequently (and according to them, mistakenly) used in the West to refer to any sort of Buddhist community." The point being there is not one particular thing that is understood to be the sangha that one takes refuge in.

To really answer your question, we'd have to know what you mean by a sangha. But from the context of your question, I'm guessing you mean a community revolving around Buddhism where you can learn and interact with others.

Here is what I'd like to think we're practicing here on Buddhism.SE. It's from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha:

  "Then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by appropriate conduct and, having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.

It's a great and wonderful thing that we have a format to try our hand at explaining the dhamma to someone else. It's a great opportunity and a deep responsibility to try our best to get it right. This is a good place. :)

But that said, I don't think it's wise to fully feel that one is taking refuge here as a sangha and depending heavily on it for learning. There are a lot of potential drawbacks. It's very democratic and that can sometimes result in unsound answers getting voted up. We welcome all traditions but that can result in such a mixture of views being expressed it can be confusing to newcomers to Buddhism. This answer to a question about the benefits of sticking to one tradition is a good explanation for what I'm getting at.

As great as the site is, it's not a solid substitute for learning from a teacher or at a center or in some manner of a structured program. It's not the same as walking into a physical location and feeling the quiet, calm, and peace of a space that is dedicated to meditation; even if you have to travel some distance for that experience occasionally. It's a great complimentary practice, but structured learning and meditation (whether local or online) in a particular tradition may offer the depth of the teachings and support for your particular practice that can't be offered in a short answer, democratic, Q & A format community.


Law of attraction to reach enlightenment? This may be a crazy question. But just out of curiosity when we do law of attraction method they say that we can attract money, success or something.

Can we attract enlightenment like that???

So in law of attraction we visualize something that we have already got it. Let's say if I wanna be an actor, I visualize myself as an actor getting an award. And the whole universe will work in a way to make me as an actor.

So similarly when I can visualize I have already got enlightenment, do I attain enlightenment.

Sorry if I have mistakes in my question. But just thinking out of the box with this concept.

"Law of attraction" is, by its meaning, total Dhamma and all works on that. It's the "law of attraction" that keeps one in the wheel, and that of escape, with faith into liberation as alternative attraction. For one once attrated by what is worthy to give in, one has already designed ones deliverance.

Without such as right imaging not much success, yes. Where ever one feels attracted to, what ever one nurishes, to that one falls and vici-versa.

  Those who have confidence in the quality of dispassion have confidence in what is supreme; and for those with confidence in the supreme, supreme is the result.

That's most importand, and yes. The related emotion is called pasada and pushed by samvega.

Yet one has no pure imagination of full awakening since there is no reference experiance. But once faced only a little of liberation, once a base for imagination has been seen, there is no way back. So it's not wrong to say: "one who has a (real) imagination of liberation, is as good as already delivered there".

Now it requires a path to be developed to see the quality for one self, starting with right view, goodwill for all beings, right conduct, effort...

The first step is to purify ones image of perfect virtue, after refuge into the three main imaginations, Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, all to lift ones qualities and gain better imagination of a healthy being:

The usual nimitta, better kammaṭṭhāna is "the Buddha", as object of perfect release, the first Meditation object. It starts all with this imagination: Buddhanussati, followed by the next anussatis, attractive reflection objects.

Once a certain stage was once reached, one can go on with a more pure object of attraction, on vimutti by non-craving, liberation, it self. upasamanussati

  "Among whatever qualities there may be, fabricated or unfabricated, the quality of dispassion — the subduing of intoxication, the elimination of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the breaking of the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, the realization of Unbinding — is considered supreme. Those who have confidence in the quality of dispassion have confidence in what is supreme; and for those with confidence in the supreme, supreme is the result.

So the beginning imaginations are:

Buddhānussati, dhammanussati, sanghanussati, silanussati (ones virtue), caganussati (ones generosity), devatanussati (qualities equal the Gods).

Details are found following the links.

(Note: not given for trade, exchanges, stacks or other bindings but for freedom from entertaining)


Difference between aggregates and clinging-aggregates? What's the difference between the five aggregates and the five clinging-aggregates?

For e.g. is the aggregate of form referring to the physical body, but the clinging-aggregate of form is a tainted mental model of the physical body?

From SN 22.48 (trans. Bodhi):

  “And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates? Whatever kind of form
  there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the
  form aggregate. Whatever kind of feeling there is … this is called the
  feeling aggregate. Whatever kind of perception there is … this is
  called the perception aggregate. Whatever kind of volitional
  formations there are … these are called the volitional formations
  aggregate. Whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past,
  future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or
  superior, far or near: this is called the consciousness aggregate.
  These, bhikkhus, are called the five aggregates.

  “And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates subject to clinging?
  Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present … far
  or near, that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the
  form aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of feeling there is
  … that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the feeling
  aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of perception there is …
  that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the perception
  aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of volitional formations
  there are … that are tainted, that can be clung to: these are called
  the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind
  of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal
  or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, that
  is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the consciousness
  aggregate subject to clinging. These, bhikkhus, are called the five
  aggregates subject to clinging.”

IN short, taking five aggregate as I,  me and myself is the clinging-aggregate.
As Arahant does not have self-identification they do not have a clinging-aggregate.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=23424&start=15


Knowledge as a bad thing In the Dhammapada there is a verse that says "To his own ruin the fool seeks knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness". Is there a distinction between wisdom and knowledge? It seems to me that seeking knowledge would be a good thing unless maybe you didn't do anything good with that knowledge. Please elucidate. Thank you.

I have attempted to examine the Pali in this verse. The key word appears to be 'ñattaṃ', which is said to mean 'intellectual faculty' rather than good knowledge (Ñāṇa).

  Ñatta
  (nt.) [nomen agentis from jānāti] the intellectual faculty,
  intelligence .

Therefore, this foolishness would not only apply to religion (such as religious people that seek worldly fame & material benefits from religion) but also to the worldly intellect in general (such as scientists, politicians & criminals that use their intellectual faculty to create harmful & destructive things & schemes).


Is there any school or institution dedicated to teaching Jhana? Is there any school or institution dedicated to teaching Jhana?

Teaching "Jhana" means:

Accepting students to learn only about Jhana
Proper courses and guidelines for student: step by step, from first Rupa Jhana to Four Arupa Jhanas, in Theravada Buddhist teachings (see Dhyāna in Buddhism)

It could be a monastery or public institution or school, which people can join by paying fees or free; but well disciplined and helping students to experience and acquire the capabilities to enter the state of various Jhanas above.

Are there any printed courses or lectures about entering Jhanas, published by such a school or institution (or by an author at least)?

Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw teaches both Samatha and Vipassana meditation. First one develops Jhanas and then one can progress to Vipassana if wanted.
Here is a description from the website of Pa-Auk Forest Monastery:

"The meditation taught at Pa-Auk Tawya is based on the instructions by The Buddha as found in the Tipiṭaka (the Pāli Canon) and its commentaries.
In brief, the main practice is to begin with Samatha (tranquility) meditation, which is to develop absorption concentration, also called jhāna. A yogi (meditator) is free to choose any of the forty Samatha subjects as taught by The Buddha. In Pa-Auk Tawya, most yogis develop jhāna with mindfulness-of-breathing (ānāpānassati).
Having developed Samatha, the yogi may proceed to practise Vipassanā (insight) meditation".


How do novice Tibetan monks meditate 23 hours a day? According to Lama Surya Das, novice monks traditionally meditate 23 hours a day, with one hour for sleep.  I met another American lama who said the same thing.  How is this even possible?  Even if the monk goes into deep meditation, is one hour of sleep enough?  And these were novices.
I have wondered about this for years, and can't seem to find anything about it on the web.  I often meditate when tired, because of chronic insomnia, and I often wonder what the relationship between sleep and meditation is.  Does anyone know anything about this practice?
Sorry if this is not specific enough, but I don't know anything else about this practice, but I find it extremely intriguing.

One can get by on little to no sleep when one mediates a lot but it requires a lot of learning and jhana.
If one had a good novice and a good teacher, under perfect conditions, then i think it is maybe possible to train some person in this way.
However in practise when one gets to little to no sleep stages then one will often skip a night altogether or find oneself too restless to sleep at a particular time.
Even Buddha's novices didn't do this and monks were advised to sleep in the 2nd watch of the night.
Therefore i don't think one can find a place where novices sleep only an hour a day lest they are forced to do it.
Forcing one is abuse and isn't even useful for meditation. I imagine many places are abusive.


Which buddhist traditions use silent visual applause, instead of clapping, to show appreciation and what is the origin of this practice? In sanghas following the tradition of Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh, to show appreciation one does not clap, instead one flaps his/her hands. This silent visual applause is similar to the sign for applauds in American, British, French and possibly other sign languages used by deaf persons.

Which other buddhist traditions also use silent visual applause to show appreciation? What is the origin of this way of showing appreciation in buddhism, was it borrowed from a sign language, and if so where and when?

This video says that it's widespread among French and German university students, ecologists, especially left-wing, for example at political assemblies and unions. And it says that an internet search shows that it's part of the "language of signs" but that no-one knows which country it began in.

The page Monks and nuns from the Thich Nhat Hanh collective, in Plum Village, France, pay our school a special visit suggest that Thich Nhat Hahn are:

From France
Teaching 'silent applause'
Teaching 'ecologist' songs such as "I love nature"

So perhaps they adopted the gesture from that milieu (or vice versa): i.e. from European students and young ecologists.


How Walking meditation happen Without any thought automatically start the walking and it's last for 15 minutes. How it's related to meditation.

There are four meditation postures: walking, standing, sitting and lying down. Walking is beneficial:

AN5.29:1.1: “Mendicants, there are five benefits of walking meditation.
AN5.29:1.3: You get fit for traveling, fit for striving in meditation, and healthy. What’s eaten, drunk, chewed, and tasted is properly digested. And immersion gained while walking lasts long.

And here are some challenges to overcome while walking:

AN4.11:1.1: “Mendicants, suppose a mendicant has a sensual, malicious, or cruel thought while walking.
AN4.11:1.2: They tolerate it and don’t give it up, get rid of it, eliminate it, and obliterate it.
AN4.11:1.3: Such a mendicant is said to be ‘not keen or prudent, always lazy, and lacking energy’ when walking.

Here are the details of walking:

MN91:9.34: These are the thirty-two marks of a great man possessed by Master Gotama.
MN91:10.1: When he’s walking he takes the first step with the right foot.
MN91:10.2: He doesn’t lift his foot too far or place it too near.
MN91:10.3: He doesn’t walk too slow or too fast.
MN91:10.4: He walks without knocking his knees or ankles together.
MN91:10.5: When he’s walking he keeps his thighs neither too straight nor too bent, neither too tight nor too loose.
MN91:10.6: When he walks, only the lower half of his body moves, and he walks effortlessly.
MN91:10.7: When he turns to look he does so with the whole body.
MN91:10.8: He doesn’t look directly up or down.
MN91:10.9: He doesn’t look all around while walking, but focuses a plough’s length in front. Beyond that he has unhindered knowledge and vision.


How to Sustain Alertness I am wondering if alertness is best sustained in terms of:

Attempting to sustain alertness in meditation, not meditating when too lethargic. In other words, always exerting oneself and keeping sharpness when in meditation, and stopping when the mind becomes unclear.
Or, engaging with meditation even when lethargic, continuing one's meditation despite the mind being unclear and hazy. In other words, waiting for the mind to clear up.

Which is more accurate?

Your meditation method cannot to be too comfortable, nor too uncomfortable, that is why people mostly choose to sit in half or full lotus with straight back so they don't slouch and sloth. Be careful not to slouch, keep back upright, work on posture and correct it.

Question 1:

  Attempting to sustain alertness in meditation, not meditating when too
  lethargic. In other words, always exerting oneself and keeping
  sharpness when in meditation, and stopping when the mind becomes
  unclear.

Sustain, but gentle mindfulness or awareness, I wouldn't say alertness as it implies stress as in fight or flight type of thing. Note that you are feeling lethargic. Do not stop, note that mind becomes unclear. Eventually correct your posture, straighten the back and continue. It is generally to be mindful of it just to the extent of eating, or waking up (both in meditation and daily life)

  Again, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu is one who acts in full awareness when
  going forward and returning; who acts in full awareness when looking
  ahead and looking away; who acts in full awareness when flexing and
  extending his limbs; who acts in full awareness when wearing his robes
  and carrying his outer robe and bowl; who acts in full awareness when
  eating, drinking, consuming food, and tasting; who acts in full
  awareness when defecating and urinating; who acts in full awareness
  when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking,
  and keeping silent. 9. “In this way he abides contemplating the body
  as a body internally, externally, and both internally and externally …
  And he abides independent, not clinging to anything in the world. That
  too is how a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body

Question 2:

  Or, engaging with meditation even when lethargic, continuing one's
  meditation despite the mind being unclear and hazy. In other words,
  waiting for the mind to clear up.

Engage, yet gently noting haziness and confusion, lack of clarity. Eventually correct your posture, straighten the back and continue.

On mental hindrances, such as:

Sensual Desire
Ill-will
Sloth and Torpor
Restlessness and Remorse
Doubt

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html

Bonus: "Is there such a thing as bad meditation?":


Is it helpful to stay single if I am not going to become a monk? In most Buddhist traditions, monks are expected to follow an austere life without being married or involved with another person, but what about lay people who are not going to become monks?

Personally, I've reached what most people consider mid-life and I'm getting too old for any monastery to accept me, but I'm sure this question applies to lay people both older and younger.

I am under the impression, monks are required to be single because of the attachment and desire that arises when being involved. However, a good number of monks do not live among lay people which I imagine would make it easier. It seems like lay people would benefit though, and when their time on Earth has expired also make it easier to let go.

However, I don't have a teacher nor do I have access to one so I wanted to reach out to the community to see what their impressions were. My guess is that it is helpful but a personal choice that differs from individual to individual. I mean 'helpful' in the sense of being closer to Nirvana or Enlightenment.

What matters is what you do when you are single. If being single means using prostitutes to satisfy one's sensual desires, it could lead one further away from the path as compared to a person who restrains himself to one woman and practices loyalty, kindness, doing good deeds together etc.

But if being single means being celibate and using one's free time for meditation etc., one would generally have a higher chance of progressing in the path as compared to the average family man.

In the time of the Buddha, there were monks who went to forest for seclusion and ended up having sex with monkeys. So what really matters is what you do when you are single.


What is Buddhist Modernism? This question refers to "Buddhist Modernism" however I'm not sure what it is. It is a term that I have heard crop up in a few other places. Is it a reformation movement within Buddhism? If so what is it reforming and when did it occur? Is it particular to one school of Buddhism? Is it a related concept to Navayana Buddhism perhaps? Is it a real movement at all or just convenient shorthand for Buddhism as it enters the modern world?

Buddhist modernism just refers to Buddhists who only accept the aspects of Buddhism they consider to be compatable with the modern world. Usually the term is used to describe Buddhists who reject things like Karma and Rebirth but still see the Dharma as having things to offer. It's not a movement, just a catch all term used to describe people like that.

I think it is worth noting though that the term is relative to some extent. For one group of people it would be considered modernism to suggest that the traditional stories passed down aren't 100% accurate, and in other groups rejecting such stories might be the norm. I also think that there is a legitimate place for questioning and analyzing the core claims of Buddhism, although I think that the claims actually stand up whereas people who get called Buddhist modernists tend to think that's not the case for some of them.


Why is there a Miscellaneous chapter in the Dhammapada? Chapter 21 of the Dhammapada is titled Miscellaneous or Varied Verses or similar depending on the exact translation. Why do all the other chapters have descriptive headings and themes such as Flowers and Chapter 21 just has this generic title and generic theme?

I can only speculate. If we examine the preceding & proceeding chapters:

Maggavagga is about the Path and verses 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 285 and 289 all include the word "the path", while verses 283, 286, 287 & 288 are about when the path is not practised.

Nirayavagga is about Hell and every verse is related to the chapter title of hell.

As for the Pakinnakavagga: Miscellaneous, I would classify its verses as follows:

Verses 290 to 295 appear related to each other, which appear to be about higher happiness and freedom from cankers, unwholesomeness & suffering.

Verses 296 to 301 appear to be about another collection of related general practices.

Verses 302 appears to be about a separate topic of certain unique difficulties & sufferings.

Verses 303 to 305 appear to be related to the fruits of virtue.

In conclusion, at least unlike the preceding & proceeding chapters, it appears there are four different categories of teachings in the Pakinnakavagga; thus it is called Miscellaneous.
While I do not know the Dhammapada very well, similarly, I always wondered why verses 153 and 154 were included in the Jaravagga about Old Age.
As Ruben2020 said, often sutta titles are not directly related to the sutta subject matter. For example, the 2nd sermon (SN 22.59) is called Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta yet the word "lakkhana" is not found in the sutta or in any related sutta. While the term "Three-Characteristics" is inherently used in Buddhist discussion, this term actually never exists in the suttas. Based in AN 3.136, the "Three-Characteristics" should probably be called the "Three Natural Lawful Elements" (dhammaniyāmatā sā dhātu) or similar.


How would the END look like? According to Buddhism, how would the end of times look like?

Would it just be the end of a pre-defined period, or would it be something different like the Rapture in Christianity?

There is no known beginning nor end of times.


Buddhism practices on decease I have a couple of questions due to a recent unfortunate event that had happened, happy if you guys could share your view base on your practices.

1) How does a Buddhist cope with grief and loss? Is there any most effective way that would helps eliminating the pain a little lesser?

2) In Theravada Buddhism, does one practices having vegetarian for 49 days after passing of a family member?

3) In Theravada Buddhism, does transferring merit to the decease works? Like chanting, donation, charity and etc.

Thanks and sadhu sadhu sadhu.

Sunset_Limited

(1) It's good to remember Kisagotami Theri and Pañcasata Patacara: The Soothing of Grief and all the teachings about the cause of suffering: "Beyond Coping: The Buddha's Teachings on Aging, Illness, Death, and Separation"

(2) It's good to keep the Uposatha as long as possible.

(3) Sure, not that one might get like a piece of cake, but what ever the departed might be able to take as possibility. For their best possible wellbeing in the future, one looks after providing to keep the Dhamma alive. Read more: [Q&A] How can merit be transferred? and [Q&A] Hungry ghosts and food offerings to the dead, [Q&A] Body feels like crying - Death of beloved

Practicing metta, possible start with the beloved and then expand it is good. To bring alms food to monks and dedicate it, is good. It's in buddhist countries usual to give sets of house tools, starting from glas, pot, ... to what ever good for a new house hold, dedicate it as present for the departured and give such to monks.

It's good to have a small shrine for ones ancestors and other spirits near and to give best aways a share before eating. (one might put the food firt on this place, offer it, and the ask to take it, before eating one self). Reminding that ever new appearing living being around could be ones previous beloved, is a very good present best act, taking them as such and avoid harming best possible.

Also a retreat and/or attentive talks with wise monks or nuns are conductive.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


Did the Buddha have long ears? Every statue of the Buddha I have seen depicts him as having long ears.

Did Buddha really have long ears? If so, why and how did he get long ears?

UPDATE:

  The earlobes are elongated, partly to indicate the Buddha is
  all-hearing and partly as a reminder of the heavy earrings that
  weighed them down before Siddhartha renounced material things to seek
  enlightenment.

ref: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2714/why-do-statues-of-buddha-have-long-earlobes

Ah ha, the Ears reference comes from the 80 minor marks:
ref: http://news.fjnet.com/english/abcOfBudd/200606/t20060626_30901.htm
(credit to  yuttadhammo for solving the mystery)

The idea that the Buddha or a Buddha has 32 marks or physical qualities popped up in Buddhism and iconographers followed this list, but long ears isn't on that list.

ref:
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level2_lamrim/initial_scope/safe_direction/thirty_excellent_signs_major_marks_.htmlo


Can Metta make you likable? I think somebody asked a similar question earlier and understand that this will likely be closed but hope not.
Was wondering can practicing of Metta make you likeable? Or rather more approachable? Easy to talk to?
This is a very strange world, there are some people who possess some kind of unexplainable magnetism, it's like people are generally attracted to them and people pay attention when they talk.
They have never been out of the limelight.
Is it something to do with Metta?

From the Mettanisamsa Sutta:

  "Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release
  (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of
  loving-kindness (metta), by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by
  constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as
  a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by
  living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into
  practice, and by establishing them. What are the eleven?

  "He sleeps in comfort.
  He awakes in comfort.
  He sees no evil dreams.
  He is dear to human beings.
  He is dear to non-human beings.
  Devas (gods) protect him.
  Fire, poison, and sword cannot touch him.
  His mind can concentrate quickly.
  His countenance is serene.
  He dies without being confused in mind.
  If he fails to attain arahantship (the highest sanctity) here and now, he will be reborn in the brahma-world.

Read this essay to get some exposition and experience on Metta. Particularly this experience:

  Once I had a meditation student who had been a child in Nazi-occupied
  Europe. She recounted an instance when she was around ten years old
  when a German soldier held a gun to her chest -- a situation that
  would readily arouse terror. Yet she related feeling no fear at all,
  thinking, "You may be able to kill my body, but you can't kill me."
  What a spacious reaction! It is in this way that lovingkindness opens
  the vastness of mind in us, which is ultimately our greatest
  protection.


Is finding a teacher necessary to practise dhamma? Many times I hear people say it's neccessary to have a teacher. I'm a bit lost as how one finds one. I've been to sanghas, talks, retreats but haven't met anyone who ive felt I could approach and ask to be my teacher. The Buddha never had a teacher. If he became enlightened without one then I presume anyone can. I find that the more people I talk to the more confused I become because so many people have so many conflicting condradictive perspectives.  From what ive heard and read if you sit and practice mindfulness of breathing etc you will gain insights into the true nature of reality.

Do you need teacher to practice Buddhism?

No you don't - but you need to know how to practice. And with so much contradicting information about Buddhism on the Internet and in books, to know the right practice requires insight into principles of Buddhism. Once you understand the principles, you can see for yourself which practice is real and which is a confused echo of real.

Do you need teacher to gain insight?

No, you don't. You can piece the puzzle together from books and videos, and integrate it all together into your own insight.

However, that requires an extremely good memory, very good intuition for the implied/inferred meaning, and a very good ability to connect the pieces of information that you may have received in different context, many years apart.

In real life, I'm a professional software architect at a large US company. As a software architect, I have an extremely well-developed capacity for remembering thousands of little pieces of information that I don't fully understand, and then slowly integrating it together into a meaningful whole that I can reason about and often see problems that others can't see.

And even with this ability, it took me almost 15 years of studying Buddhist texts, across Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen - to have even the basic understanding of how it all fits together. I'm not talking about the theory, I'm talking about understanding the basic idea, the framework, the "spirit" of Buddhism. Knowing the theory without understanding the "spirit" is useless. Someone like that can quote the texts but can't explain it in his own words. It's only when you get the "spirit" is when you "find the ford" and become "independent of others in regards to the Buddha's message" (the label on my profile).

Anyway, imagine my surprise, when after those 15 years I went to a live Zen Master and from his few replies and the overall behavior realized that he had a perfect intuitive grasp of all the principles that it took me 15 years to even begin to discover! I could have saved so much time! More than that, in two years of practicing meditation under Master Shin, I learned more about the real meaning of Buddhism than in 15 years of reading books.

Alternatively, you could in theory repeat Buddha's path and figure it all out in meditation, without any guidance or books, - but unless you're a genius like the Buddha (although as @PeterJ pointed out, even the Buddha had some teachers), the chance you'll strike gold is one in a billion.

So, do you need teacher to gain insight? No. In fact, it is impossible for any teacher to give their insight to someone. Insight is something that happens in your head, as you build the puzzle and see what it means in real life. But a live teacher who already has the insight, can save you years or even decades of time you'd either spend accumulating theory (like I did) or stumbling in the dark.

So even though I myself spent 15 years studying books and only 2 years learning from teacher, and now 6 years practicing on my own again, when anyone asks this question I always say: yes, go to a live teacher. If you can't find a live teacher, then at least talk to me. I will do my best to share as much insight as I can. Do not repeat my path.


How would/should a perfect monk appear, act and possible serve you? How would/should a perfect monk appear, act and possible serve you?

Or from Buddhas view if wishing to try to answer this?

Good if remarking whether a claim one would have or possible good for a monk (the used perspective of individual "issues")

[One may render it how ever wished for better lucie to nurish stackes and much exchange and no fear if not wishing to use it for liberation]

There is no perfection can be found in the realm of forms. Only Nibbana is perfect. Even an Arahant who attained Nibbana permanently and have great wisdom, higher goodness and intelligence still has to live in the limitations of a human form until s/he dies.

So a monk mustn't try to be perfect, or try to be better than he is. I think that a monk's first duty must be adapting more and more to meditation. Meditation doesn't necessarily mean formal meditation, but a monk must try to adap himself more to mindfulness. That's the only way for any human being-not only for a monk-to better himself/herself. If a monk realizes Nibbana he mustn't hide his situation from his community and must immediately share his situation with the abbot and other qualified monks in the monastery. That is absolutely necessary. (The people who realized Nibbana before they ordain must do the same thing too)

Other than that everything will take care of itself. The monks who makes mindfulness the priority in their lifes will eventually become better human beings, act better, serve better. Trying to reach to the "perfection" can be harmful. Monks are human beings and they mustn't be too hard on themselves.


The Noble Eightfold Path for monks and for lay disciples? Namo Buddhaya
Being well aware of the different posts about this topics, I wished to know how it came to be that the Noble eightfold path presented by Bhikkhu Bodhi would specify that Right action is to refrain only from sexual misconduct :

(3) Abstaining from sexual misconduct (kamesu miccha-cara veramani)

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html
While in the Magga-vibhanga Sutta it is refraining from unchastity, as stated here :

"And what, monks, is right action? Abstaining from taking life,
abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity: This, monks, is
called right action.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html
I have also stumbled upon this sutta where the translations between Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi and Venerable Ajahn Sujato differ from "refraining from sexual misconduct" to "refraining from sexual activity", while the pali version does state "abrahmacarya" which does suggest chastity as right action within the noble eightfold path, which seems like an undeniably substantial difference.
https://suttacentral.net/sn45.8
Does it imply that lay followers still engaging in the sexual act while monks giving it up are both following the Noble eightfold path ? Or would there be yet a reason for such a distinction in translation?
May you all be well.

OP: Does it imply that lay followers still engaging in the sexual act while monks giving it up are both following the Noble eightfold
path ? Or would there be yet a reason for such a distinction in
translation?

Yes, it is true that there is indeed a separation of the path for lay followers and for monks. The former is the version with defilements, and the latter is the noble version without defilements i.e. the full-fledged Noble Eightfold Path for monks (and nuns) only.
The path of the lay follower who practises Right Action, Right Speech, Right Thought and Right Livelihood as applicable to lay persons, is a valid path in Buddhism, even if it is not THE noble path that leads to the complete end of suffering. I speculate that the lay follower path may not go beyond stream entry, due to lack of renunciation.
From MN 117 (translated by Ven. Sujato) regarding Right Action:

And what is wrong action? Killing living creatures, stealing, and
sexual misconduct. This is wrong action.
And what is right action? Right action is twofold, I say. There is
right action that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of
good deeds, and ripens in attachment. And there is right action that
is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
And what is right action that is accompanied by defilements, has the
attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? Refraining from
killing living creatures, stealing, and sexual misconduct
(kāmesu micchācārā). This is
right action that is accompanied by defilements.
And what is right action that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a
factor of the path? It’s the desisting, abstaining, abstinence, and
refraining from the three kinds of bad bodily conduct in one of noble
mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the
noble path. This is right action that is noble.

The word "abrahmacariya" is not used above.
This sutta contains similar dual versions for Right Speech and Right Livelihood. Interestingly, there's also Right Thought (with two versions).

After writing the above answer, I found that a wise lay follower can become an Arahant on his death bed in SN 55.54:

If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ they should say: ‘Good sir, the
Brahmā realm is impermanent, not lasting, and included within
identity. It would be good to turn your mind away from the Brahmā
realm and apply it to the cessation of identity.’
If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ then there is no difference between a
lay follower whose mind is freed in this way and a mendicant whose
mind is freed from defilements; that is, between the freedom of one
and the other.”

Ven. Thanissaro's commentary to SN 55.54 indicates that a wise or discerning lay follower in this sutta, actually refers to a lay follower who has at least achieved stream entry.


Can a Sikh enter a buddhist temple with a turban? As I went to worship at one of the most famous & sacred temples in Sri Lanka a Sikh person entered with his turban. As per the religious traditions we are not allowed to wear any head coverings while entering the temple & worshiping.
When the particular person was asked to remove it he didn't & he worshiped with the turban saying it complies with the international laws. I see this disrespectful as,

It's a must for visitors entering the Sikh temples to wear a head cover.
Even the Kings have removed their crown when worshiping Lord Buddha.
As per the scripts many religious leaders who were there during the time of Lord Buddha has paid a lot of respect & has considered Lord Buddha superior.

Can I please have your views regarding this.

May the Noble Triple Gems bless you!

As a sign of respect and being inline with accepted customs it is best that the person removes the turban.

I guess they might have been allowed in the accommodation of Sikh religious custom of wearing the turban.

Being accommodating does no harm also, as long as a person is not wearing the turban as contempt or disrespect.


Living worried about the future and reaching mindfulness I'm going through a lot. It's very easy to be lost in thoughts and worries about the near future, and that leads me to a life of unhappiness. I also feel guilty when I fell happy, because I feel I should be worried.

For me it's very hard to accept the idea that the universe is impermanent and hence I should live the present moment when I'm responsible for things to go wrong or right. How can I solve my problems if I'm not totally immersed in the future, thinking about all the possibilities?

If I need to think about the future, there's no way to not be anxious.

How can I solve my problems if I'm not totally immersed in the future, thinking about all the possibilities?

In a sense, the answer is because being immersed in the future is a large part of the problem.

Buddhism doesn't recognize the things you call problems as real problems. They are conventional problems that only obtain the designation because of your own views and beliefs; in reality, whether you solve them or not is mostly meaningless.

This is because Buddhism recognizes the impermanence of life, the inevitability of death, and the cyclic nature of the universe.

  286. “Here shall I live during the rains, here in winter
  and summer” – thus thinks the fool. He does not
  realize the danger (that death might intervene).

  287. As a great flood carries away a sleeping village,
  so death seizes and carries away the man with a
  clinging mind, doting on his children and cattle.

  -- Dhp (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Buddhism doesn't advocate the acceptance of impermanence, so much as the realization that it is the truth; once you realize it for yourself, you will give up attachment to the future and the past, since you will understand that their importance is merely circumstantial.

A good advice is to accept that reality inevitably boils down to the six senses - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking. No matter what comes in the future, good or bad, it will only be some combination of these six categories of experience. This is how one settles ones concern about the future and the past. Even if you are homeless, living or dying on the street, it will only be an experience, not categorically different from living in a mansion.

The closer you come to realizing this, the better, not worse, your life will become (according to Buddhism).


Is it possible to attain stream-entry if one is only following "the 5 precepts"? Is it possible to attain stream-entry if one is only following "the 5 precepts"?

Are there any suttas that seem to address this question?

"entering the stream" means you understood the main point of Buddhism and started applying that point to your entire life.

Which point? -- That you should stop creating causes for future dukkha.

Which causes create dukkha? -- Whatever leads to increase of conflict, increase of side-taking, increase of attachment, increase of obsession, increase of aversion, increase of ignorance - leads to increase of dukkha. Whatever leads to maintenance of conflict, maintenance of side-taking, maintenance of attachment, maintenance of obsession, maintenance of aversion, maintenance of ignorance - leads to maintenance of dukkha. Whatever leads to cessation of conflict, cessation of side-taking, cessation of attachment, cessation of obsession, cessation of aversion, cessation of ignorance - leads to cessation of dukkha.

The nature of dukkha is conflict, clash, mismatch - so if you are setting in motion forces that will set up conditions for arising of conflict, clash, mismatch - then that's what you will get. Once you get that - there's suffering. Correspondingly, when you are laying down causes in the here and now that are by nature conducive to harmony - then that's what you'll get. It is that simple. We create Dukkha by ourselves, so once we stop creating Dukkha we may still get some Dukkha created in the past, but eventually all the past causes will run out and the new causes will come to effect, and so gradually we will attain the natural harmonious state - Nirvana.

Once you really "get" this, once you see it clearly, then you stop acting like that, because you know it's for your own benefit. It's not just blindly following the five precepts. It's about getting the principle. Sometimes you may still make mistakes and create trouble - but as long as you got the principle in the overall - you will keep making progress.

This is when we say you are "in the stream" leading to Nirvana.


Is it always beneficial to meditate? If one has a regular meditation practice and has no particular mental health issues or physical health issues - is it always beneficial to meditate? Or are there circumstances or points in time where it might be better to stop or cut back?

I ask because there are points where in my practice it just seems impossible to meditate and I have stopped for a dew days or a bit longer. Is that a mistake? Should you just grit your teeth and meditate anyway even if the meditation session is pretty unpleasant?

I've seen meditators of many different schools talking about the importance of not walking away from a "bad" sitting. All books I've read reflect this commitment. All monks I've heard too. Conversely, I never heard or read a single meditator to take this issue lightly as in "well, if you are not much up to it, sure, maybe some other day".

There are certainly a number of reasons for abandoning a specific practice. A big one, is that we might be doing it in some improper way, or in a way that increases unwholesome states, hindrances and/or decreases faculties associated to meditation.

  "As, Anuruddha, I was abiding diligent, ardent, and resolute, I considered thus: 'Excessive meditation upon forms arose in me, and because of excessive meditation upon forms my concentration fell away; when my concentration fell away, the light and the vision of forms disappeared. I shall so act that neither doubt, nor inattention, ..., nor perception of diversity, nor excessive meditation upon forms will arise in me again."

  -- MN 128 (Bodhi Trans.)

On a personal note, this is how I worked with this issue: if I identify the unwillingness to meditate as a hindrance, I do not make concession. Otherwise, I stop, or do not meditate  -- at least formally, sitting. (I'll make an adendum to this at the end of the post).

For example, in an individual sitting, if it's just hard, I'm in discomfort, or I wish to be doing something else, I make all the effort necessary to continue until my clock tells me to get up.

If I'm in "unbearable" pain, I stop -- I had to discover what is "unbearable" pain for myself, so today I'm roughly aware of how much I can push making progress (and without turning the meditation into a nightmare; been there, done that, a lot!).

Similarly, if I start a meditation carelessly and then feel very hungry, I prefer to stop, have my lunch and then do a proper sitting -- no need for unnecessary suffering. But only as long as this is the real reason, and not a hindrance. I remember a few times when I had to interrupt a sitting, but two reasons compelled me to do so simultaneously. One was very reasonable, the other was a hindrance. At one time, I only interrupted once the hindrance subsided. Another time, I wasn't able to do so, and I got up. And I could tell I got up because of the hindrance, not because of the counterpart. I blamed my inattentive mind and this compelled me to be more careful and practice more.

I've observed that this -- not giving to hindrances -- is extremely important for two reasons:

Giving away to hindrances may hurt future sittings considerably.

Personally, I know all I need is one single "walk away" followed by some half-baked excuse in my mind to make the future sittings much harder -- as it will be much easier to stop.
The difficult sittings (the ones in discomfort, with a strained, confused, non-concentrated and noisy mind, in "non-ideal" places or circumstances, etc), may be instrumental for upcoming progress.

I've personally had experiences with periods (days, months) of meditation that seemed like walking in the desert, going nowhere, and individual sittings that felt just terrible, but were so very important.

Years later, I noticed the "desert" was due to me not knowing some basics of meditation (for instance, what to do with hindrances...as a zen trainee, unfortunately, I was never introduced to these basic concepts and what to do about them). In other words, I'd say I was unskillful.

But when skills are in place, that's the whole point of meditating when hindrances are present, however strong: we're supposed to master them. And, I guess, that is what makes these difficult sittings feel so special; when we sit again later and it's....something else entirely.

So, I think once one develops, for example, some minimum skills with hindrances and is able to roughly replicate a "deeper state", these terrible sittings are seen just like the first week at the gym: a warm up (or simply actual work: even though we are displeased, muscles grow stronger -- I've observed the same happening with mind). Provided one is exercising correctly, otherwise it is just painful and possibly damaging.

So, revising (and concluding) from what I stated earlier: I would continue the sittings if (a) I'm seduced to not meditate because of a hindrance; and (b) this is the n-th sitting (for some small n, like 4) that is not good / without progress; otherwise it probably means I'm doing something wrong, and I better figure that out, perhaps, by other means, like studying.


What's the role of the detailed descriptions of the other planes of existence? Why it was important for the Buddha to tell them? There are many repetitions of categorization of the different worlds in the Pali Canon that make me a bit confused.

I'm not trying to rationalize them as metaphorical or as a "later addition to the scriptures". I am also not searching for a confirmation. The universe is probably endless and we percept only a tiny fraction of waves coming to our ape senses. There could be myriads of other planes and beings that are present but undetectable with any human-made tools and observable only by an enlightened mind.

But why did he even bother to start on this topic? He wisely answered with Noble Silence to other existential questions that could bring additional disputes and disagreements (like the Buddhist cosmology does today in "Buddhism vs. Scientific Worldview" debate despite scientists allow themselves to make up concepts like "Boltzmann brain" or "multiverse" without any issues).

And then there is this strict distinction between these worlds although they are not even "real realms" but a flow of dependently originated events. Like we're saying "human world" and "animal world" but in the modern eyes they are not even separate.

So what am I missing? Why the Buddha couldn't reduce it to "bad karma leads to hellish worlds, good karma leads to heavenly worlds" but went for this detailed naming and descriptions of beings, deities living there?

Mr Ivan ("god is merciful"), because the Buddha did not like Mr Ivan to mistake an realm of existence for Nibbana, or the heartwood. That is why he described those states of being in detail. So when you start to travel, and do not just ponder why you should not travel yet, Mr Ivan is well prepared.

In which plane of existence did you now take place? Nobody aside of Mr Ivan would know that, does Mr. Ivan do?

(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.)


How do you pray correctly in Buddhism? I have been calling myself a Buddhist for as long as I can remember, but I have never done it right. I notice that my mom would chant the mantras from the book, while usually I would just say anything while I pray. I am wondering... is there a right or respectful way of praying in Buddhism?

Just out of curiosity. Thank you!

is there a right or respectful way of praying in Buddhism?

Praying is conventionally understood as a petition or wish addressed to a deity.

In Buddhism, one might:

  meditate spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. --SN46.54

These two are similar except in one important way. Praying often involves intention and volition. In other words one quite often prays for a fixed result (e.g., rain, health, etc.). Notice that in the described mettā meditation, there is simply an extension of good will without boundaries, intention or direction. From a Buddhist perspective, intention and volition tend to perpetuate the cycle of suffering from craving particular outcomes.

This wisdom about intention and volition is also evident in religions with formal prayer. For example, there is the well-known phrase: "be careful what you pray for."

In Buddhism, one cultivates Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech and Right Action in the context of your question. Interestingly, asking about Right View is itself Right View!


Mission on earth (In Buddhism) Many religions claim we came to this earth on a mission, everyone has a different mission, a specific reason to be here.

In Buddhism I couldn't find anything like that, the "mission" would be the same for every one: Become an Arahant and scape samsara. There is nothing we should achieve here, except from that. Is that a fair statement?

Does anyone know a sutta, speech or book related to Buddhism that states otherwise? That we do have a specific mission on this planet?

This is going to be one of those Zen answers that tend to irritate people.

When I asked my teacher this question, he said something like:

  Mission, hmm... You want to be told what to do? Why?

This is not meant as teasing, it's a sincere invitation to sit and contemplate your personal answer to the above.


Does Zen have a concept similar to stream entry? Stream entry feels like a milestone where some very significant things happen and the practitioner cannot slide backwards from it. Do Zen sutras describe the concept of stream entry by that or any other name?

I'm not sure if it corresponds in every respect with stream entry but in Japanese Zen they generally distinguish Kenshō, the initial seeing of one's nature, from full Buddhahood so I think it is at least analogous to stream entry.

I'm not sure how this is talked about in forms of Zen outside of Japan (such as Chinese Chan, Vietnamese Zen, and Korean Seon) however, as I think the explicit distinction between Kenshō and Satori is a distinctively Japanese idea.


For what reason did Dharmakirti argue that absences are conceptual constructions? For what reason did Dharmakirti argue that absences are conceptual constructions? I wondered if it was because real absences would have svabhava, would be essences, because they do not change in time?

I can't find anything to cite now, but I believe he argued this. I mean everyday absences, such as a cow from a field, rather than anything technical about apoha, which I am not that familiar with.

Say you walk into a room and look around and think to yourself, "Ah, this room has no elephant in it!"

The absence of an elephant in that very room is an object of knowledge. It can be known by a valid mind that there is - in fact - no elephant in that room. Since the absence is an object of knowledge it can be said to exist. So how does it exist? In order to answer this, back up and look at how it was known.

The absence of an elephant in that room was known merely by conception and inference on the valid basis of failing to perceive any elephant in that room and depending upon the thought which knew it. It is not a real, essential or inherent absence. How can we know this with certainty? Because if the absence of an elephant were real, essential or inherent, then everyone walking into that room would know that absence and think to themselves, "Ah, this room has no elephant in it!" which plainly does not happen. Moreover, it would be impossible for someone to - at any of the three times - walk an elephant into that room. If someone were to walk an elephant into that room, then this would annihilate the absence. But inherent things cannot be annihilated otherwise they would depend upon something else. Moreover, the absence of that elephant - were it inherent - would not depend upon anything at all.

No, the absence of an elephant in that room exists conceptually, dependently, relatively, in an illusory-like way without even a shred of inherent existence at all. In the same way, were someone to walk an elephant into that room, then that elephant would exist conceptually, dependently, relatively, in an illusory-like way without even a shred of inherent existence at all as would the "absence of the absence of an elephant."

This refutes real Abhava along the lines of what Dharmakirti might employ and is in agreement with Madhyamaka's like Nagarjuna. However, Dharmakirti was not a self-identified Madhyamaka per se and had some apparent disagreement with other points of doctrine, but on this point I think they agree.

If you are talking about Apoha, well that is related but different. That is getting into the epistemology of how nominal things are known from real and inherent - but unconceivable - entities. The upshot is that Madhayamaka's like Nagarjuna had apparent disagreement with Dharmakirti on this point in so far as Madhyamaka's like Nagarjuna did not think that anything at all was real or inherent even if inconceivable.

Hope this helps!


Why Salayatana is ommitted in this mode of Dependent Origination? Why Salayatana is ommitted in this mode of Dependent Origination?

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for contact?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does contact come?' one should say, 'Contact comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html

I'm not sure it is omitted: it's listed there as "consciousness":

  From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form

I think that the ṣaḍāyatana are sometimes translated or understood as consciousness (which is listed in DN 15):

  More specifically, according to this analysis, the six types of consciousness are eye-consciousness (that is, consciousness based on the eye), ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness and mind-consciousness

The word used in DN 15 is viññāṇa (the following quote is also from Wikipedia's Vijñāna article):

  Hence, in this context, viññāṇa includes the following characteristics:

  viññāṇa arises as a result of the material sense bases (āyatana)
  there are six types of consciousness, each unique to one of the internal sense organs
  consciousness (viññāṇa) is separate (and arises) from mind (mano)
  here, consciousness cognizes or is aware of its specific sense base (including the mind and mind objects)
  viññāṇa is a prerequisite for the arising of craving (taṇhā)
  hence, for the vanquishing of suffering (dukkha), one should neither identify with nor attach to viññāṇa

I think that glossaries (e.g. here and here and here), and the so-called Viññana Sutta, say that although viññāṇa is a broad term it may include the six kinds of consciousness.

Or see this answer, which I think is saying that viññāṇa is used in two ways: technically as a specific aspect of mind, and colloquially to refer to several aggregates.

In case you want to read more (I'm sorry to post links instead of answering the question here, but they're long), Piya Tan of dharmafarer.org (for example) has written about this at some length.

Here is his analysis and translation of DN 15. The introduction starts with,

  Moreover, its series of conditions omits three factors of the standard version: ignorance,
  volitional activities [saṅkhāra], and the 6 sense-bases. These omissions have led some
  scholars to suggest that the twelvefold formulation may be later augmentation of a shorter original;
  but such suggestions remain purely conjectural, misleading, and objectionable on doctrinal
  and textual grounds. All in all, omissions of the Mahānidāna Sutta are more than compensated
  for by its detailed explanations, interesting digressions, and supplementary sections.

And on page 156 (page 12 of the PDF):

  In the next section of the sutta, instead of going on to the 6 senses
  and their respective contacts, as in the standard formula, the Buddha reverses his last statement and
  says: “With name-and-form, there is consciousness”. To prevent any misunderstanding, the
  Buddha then, introduces a remarkable passage unique to this Sutta: etc.

It doesn't seem to bother him that this sutta uses an other or a non-standard description. I don't know "why" it is slightly different but I find that unremarkable. It seems to me like asking, "Why is the house described as 'brown' here, whereas there it's described as 'made of stone'? Are they two different houses?" They're two descriptions of the same house.

Furthermore, here is Piya Tan's essay on the meaning and usage of vinnana (which I won't quote).

I'm not sure that it's necessary to put "6 sense bases" as a distinct layer between form and contact -- for example I think it makes as much sense to say that there are 6 types of contact.

For what it's worth, the 6 sense-spheres are omitted from the description of the five aggregates too.


Karmic remnants after advice If you gave someone good or bad advice or wrote a book that was stored in the Library of Congress and read for centuries then wouldnt you have a karmic remnant to bear?

Yes, Kauva Aatma, for a good, a bad or neither good or bad. Something most are not aware, talking "I know" and do not.
To make it short, best is it to compair it with a pit-fall. As long as it is not removed, if one actually get's trapped, the action is full filled.
Now think of how many debts some accumulate, debts keeping them to come back again and again... think on how much remorse might follow, once finding out a better.
One question, bringing that to awarness was: Pitfalls of answers: what are effects of answers having be received, yet knowing they where …. Nyom Chris gave some practical advices.
Here as a sample directly, indirectly on this matter for understanding:

For instance, if a bhikkhu harboring this sort of general intention builds a trap but then changes his mind, he has to destroy the trap so thoroughly that it cannot be reassembled. Similarly, when a bhikkhu writes a passage describing the advantages of dying (see below) with the thought that anyone who reads it might decide to commit suicide, if he then changes his mind he has to destroy the writing so thoroughly that it cannot be pieced together. If, instead of writing the passage himself, he simply picks up a pre-existing written passage of this sort and then — with a similar intention — puts it in a place where it might be easily seen, he can avoid any penalty simply by returning the passage to the place where he found it.

On effects of approve and encouragement by speech (eg. signs, gesture, letter) see also:
AN 4.83: Avannaraha Sutta - Dispraise and 6. Acelakavaggo AN03.157-163.
And that is why if is said:

"Those who point out wrong Dhamma as Dhamma, Bhikkhus, those Bhikkhus archive harm for many people, suffering for many people, for the sorrow and suffering of heavenly and human beings. Much demerits, those produce, for the disappearing of the true Dhamma. This for the thirty third.

"Those who point out Dhamma as wrong Dhamma, those archive harm for many people, suffering for many people, for the sorrow and suffering of heavenly and human beings. Much demerits, those produce, for the disappearing of the true Dhamma. This for the thirty forth.

132-139. "Those who point out wrong Vinaya as Vinaya[2]... Vinaya as wrong Vinaya... not declared by the Tathagāta as declared by the Tathagāta... declared by the Tathagāta as not declared by the Tathagāta... not practised by the Tathagāta as practised by the Tathagāta... practised by the Tathagāta as not practised by the Tathagāta... not made know by the Tathagāta as made know by the Tathagāta... made know by the Tathagāta as not made know by the Tathagāta, those archive harm for many people, suffering for many people, for the sorrow and suffering of heavenly and human beings. Much demerits, those produce, for the disappearing of the true Dhamma. This for the forty second.

And not just for one and now... long time for one to wander on having overestimate one self, not to speak on deliberately account.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


How to bless someone? How to bless someone with special words in Buddhism ?
My friends ask me for keep them in my pray but we don't believe in praying.
So what should my answer to them ?

If someone is willing to be blessed the Buddha's way, then I could think of no more suitable & special words than the words from the Mangala Sutta that tells us what are the blessings in one's life:

  To not associate with fools.
  Those who drag us down with their foolishness; drunkards, layabouts etc.
  To associate with the wise.
  Those who encourage us to grow spiritually. The Buddha emphasized the importance of good companionship in many ways; when Ananda remarked that good friends were half of the Holy Life, He replied " Say not so! Good friends are the whole of the Holy Life!"
  To pay repects where they are due.
  Making puja to the Triple Jewel, honouring our teachers and elders; to have this opportunity is a blessing not to be missed!
  To reside in a suitable location.
  A place congenial to life, peaceful and with such a society and economy that we can live free from want and fear.
  To have previously done meritorious deeds.
  Thus, we can enjoy the fruit now. But don't be one who just lives off her capital! Invest in yourself by making more good merit now.
  To be heading in the right direction.
  If we are advancing spiritually, growing in wisdom and compassion, then we are surely blessed.
  To have much learning.
  Being well educated in the broadest sense; a well-rounded individual. In particular to have knowledge of the Dhamma is to possess a jewel beyond price.
  To be skilled and knowledgeable.
  Every useful skill we possess, crafts, trades, special knowledge can be of some use in improving life for ourselves and others.
  To be restrained by a moral code.
  A sound morality is the basis of peace and happiness.
  To have beautiful speech.
  That is; truthful, timely, pleasant speech connected with meaning. Such speech that others are delighted and improved by hearing.
  To be a support for your parents.
  The opportunity to repay the enormous debt we owe to our mother and father should be seen as a blessing and not as a burden.

  12 & 13.  The cherishing of wife and child.
  A happy family life.(perhaps the subtle differences between 12 & 13 got lost in translation?)

  To make one's livelihood without difficulty.
  A wholesome occupation that one does well and enjoys.
  To make gifts.
  Giving is a source of joy for both giver and receiver. Be one blessed with a generous spirit.
  To live in accord with the Dhamma.
  To have heard the Holy dhamma in this life and to have the capacity and opportunity to practice is a rare and wonderful thing.
  To cherish one's relatives.
  To have a functioning extended family (clan) either in the traditional sense or a community of friends and colleagues.
  To do blameless actions.
  Living one's life in an unreproachable way. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, nothing to regret.
  To cease and abstain from evil.
  Having the inclination of mind that instinctively recoils from evil as if from a red hot iron ball.
  To refrain from intoxicants.
  Not to need those substances which dull our precious human consciousness.
  Not to be heedless of the Dhamma.
  Being mindful and compassionate; going through life with eyes and heart open . Attention to details!
  To be respectful.
  Respect for the conventions is to make the life into a beautiful dance. Respect for the Buddha nature of all beings is the root of refined manners.
  To be humble.
  Pride goeth before a fall and the meek shall inherit the earth.
  To be content.
  Contentment with little is the magical wish-fulfilling gem! Its also a healthy attitude for our planet right now.
  To have gratitude.
  The Buddha said that gratitude is rare to find in this world. Remember always that you never would have gotten this far without a lot of help!
  To hear the Dhamma at the right time.
  Everyone who has experienced a word of teaching that touched the heart at just the right moment knows what a precious gift this can be.
  To have patience.
  Patience is a virtue but also a blessing. Just think how much suffering comes from impatience.
  To be easy to admonish.
  Make yourself amenable to teaching and those with something to teach will be ready to help you.
  The sight of monks.
  The robed figure of the recluse is an archetypal call to consciousness; together with the dead man, the sick man and the old man they are called the four divine messengers.
  To discuss the Dhamma at a suitable time.
  Speaking of the Holy Dhamma is the noblest use of the human power of speech. To be blessed with time and companions with which to speak of things tending to liberation is amazing grace indeed.
  To practice austerities.
  In the buddhist context this means the practising of meditation; a daily practice and regular retreats.
  To lead the Holy Life.
  To live devoted to the Eightfold Path and the seeking of Liberation.
  Seeing the Noble Truths.
  Opening of the Dhamma Eye. This refers to a level of direct penetration well beyond the intellectual.
  The realization of Nibbana.
  Going through the gateless gate. The treasure beyond any price in heaven and earth.
  A mind unshaken by contact with the world.
  Being in the world but not of it.
  Sorrowlessness.
  Beyond the realms of suffering.
  Stainlessness.
  The end of the obscuring defilements.
  Secure.
  Once found it cannot be lost.

  These are the highest blessings!
  Having accomplished this
  one is always unconquered,
  one goes everywhere in peace.
  These are the blessings supreme!


The object of meditation I have been focused on the breath in meditation and I am interested in Vipassana, but I am confused about the object of meditation.

I have read that you focus on the breath and as thoughts arise, you should observe them and then return to the breath and that it is the returning to the breath that increases one's mindfulness.  I have also read that in Vipassana meditation, one shifts the object of meditation to the thoughts that arise and make them the object of mediation.

This approach seems to be just sitting and letting your thoughts wander.  Do I misunderstand the meaning of making arising thoughts the object of meditation?  As it is now, I continue to make the breath the object and observe my other thoughts but generally do not pursue them, rather just categorizing the thought (like "planning the future" or "reliving the past") and then return to the breath.

In the meditation taught in the original Buddhist scriptures, the mind stays with the breath & free from thought.

In the original Buddhist scriptures, there is no 'shift' when vipassana is practised. Instead, calmness (samatha) & insight (vipassana) are developed simultaneously. The scriptures state:

  These two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight.

  MN 149

In the original Buddhist scriptures, the term 'vipassana' refers to the 'clear seeing' of the impermanent (anicca), unsatisfactory (dukkha) & not-self (anatta) characteristics of the five aggregates (body/breathing; feeling sensation; perception; thought/mood; sense consciousness).

For example, the breath arises & passes continually; a breath appears & disappears; a new breath appears, then disappears; another breath appears then disappears. To see/experience clearly impermanence of breathing is vipassana.

To see clearly that it is the physical body that breathes (rather than the 'self' or 'I' that breathes) is also vipassana of 'not-self' in relation to breathing.

'Unsatisfactoriness' means to see that because X breath & Y breath is impermanent; that breath cannot form the basis of or be relied on for lasting happiness (due to its fleeting impermanent nature). It can also mean the impermanent nature of a breath, if clung to, will lead to suffering.

The ordinary distracting thoughts the mind has are not really suitable for vipassana because they actually diminish awareness, clarity & discernment of the mind.

For the mind to practise effective 'vipassana' in relation to thought (sankhara aggregate), 'samadhi' (mental clarity & stability, aka 'concentration') must ideally be very developed & pure (empty).

Ultimately, true 'vipassana' is 'enlightenment'. It is very profound because it discerns the 'not-self' nature of the five aggregates.

Believing 'you' are observing 'your thoughts' or thinking 'my thoughts' are impermanent is not really vipassana because vipassana sees 'not-mine' or 'not-yours' (anatta) rather than 'my' or 'yours'.

To conclude, categorizing the thought (like "planning the future" or "reliving the past") and then return to the breath is the right method according to the original scriptures.

  You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the future. What is past     is left behind. The future  is as yet unreached.
  Whatever phenomena/truth (dhamma) is present you clearly see right there,
       right there. Not taken in, unshaken, that's how you develop the heart.

  Bhaddekaratta Sutta


Are there Bad teachers? Is Mara in the Sanga? I have had an experience with a top teacher, Regional Assistant Teacher, and Center Manager acting in ways very disturbing to the path. Later I saw clearly that they were controlled by Mara or had energy in the Mara realm, may be interested in making very difficult Sankhara. How can a serious student navigate these dangers to reach liberation? If the Sangha has lies, killing beings, Traps students and Practitioner s in a the type of life a student of Buddha seeks to be free from? Are these dangers in monks? Can we admit and face what influence we have acting upon us or act out ourselves or will this lead to more ego I am, I am not... Etc. More confusion and controversy.

There have always been bad men robed as monks. If we have clear moral discernment, we will avoid them.

  There are many evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe. These wicked men will be born in states of woe because
  of their evil deeds.
  It would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball, blazing like fire, than as an immoral and uncontrolled monk to eat the alms of the
  people.

  Dhammapada


Talking about Dharma - is it worthwhile? Discussing the Dharma, as on this site -- looking for and sharing information -- is it really beneficial or could it be a waste of time or even counterproductive?

Several quotes come to mind, e.g. this one from Wumen Huikai:

  The instant you speak about a thing, you miss the mark.

and of course, Fen Yang:

  When you are deluded and full of doubt, even a thousand books of scripture are not enough. When you have realized understanding, even one word is too much.

From this and other sources (like Chogyam Trungpa's warnings about spiritual materialism) one might conclude that spending time on a site like this could be a path to illusion and a way to develop the subtle "enlightened" ego.

What are the dangers of discussing Dharma on an online forum? How could it be worthwhile, if "speaking about a thing misses the mark" and "even one word is too much"?

Both quotes you cite come from the Chan/Zen tradition. It is very typical for Chan to emphasize "transmission beyond scripture" and "silent illumination". Not all of Buddhism is like that though.

Gautama Buddha for example spoke about Dharma for 40 years. Tibetan Buddhists wrote hundreds of volumes about Madhyamaka, Tantra and Lam Rim (Stages of the Path). Even Chan/Zen masters themselves left a massive library of texts - koan collections, sutras, treatises, commentaries, lecture drafts etc.

Why talk about Dharma at all? As Buddha taught, the more we give our attention to something -- the more our mind gets tuned to that -- the more it becomes part of how we see the world -- the more it shapes our thoughts and actions. So the idea is, at least in theory, that the more we talk about Dharma, the more it penetrates our minds and actions.

At the same time, Buddha himself compared Dharma to a raft. It is useful as a vehicle for taking you to the other side - but once you are there you don't have to carry it with you. In fact, holding on to the raft could be an obstacle to one's Unbinding. In other words, obsession with Dharma could easily become Anti-Dharma. There are examples documented even in Pali Canon of people quarreling about particular Dharma point with Buddha having to step in and teach non-attachment to views. Second Anuruddha Sutta (A 3.128) shows how thinking about Dharma can go contrary to fulfilling Dharma in practice. The Theravada tradition warns about getting lost in quasi-dharmic intellectual proliferation, what they call "papanca".

This is exactly the same point Chan masters emphasize. The period when Prajnaparamita and Chan developed was the time when people obsessed over the raft. The Abhi-dharma movement chewed the original suttas to the bone - and came up with what they thought was a neat distillation of Dharma - the matrikas (bulletpoint lists) of Four Truths, Three Poisons, Four Efforts, Five Skandhas, Sixteen Levels of Knowledge and so on and so forth. Several centuries after Buddha's Parinirvana, people started grasping onto the specifics and missing the forest behind the trees. Some schools seriously argued how many dharmas the world is made of, 76 or 89.

As a reaction to this extreme, there emerged the Mahayana tradition - spearheaded by the Prajnaparamita movement - whose entire method is built on the contrast between the literal meaning of the teaching, with what it points to in the actual practice. At the same time, both at the peak of Chan's popularity and today, students keep on studying texts and Chan Masters keep on giving the Dharma lectures. Knowledge of Buddhist fundamentals, in their basic conceptual form, was and remains a prerequisite for receiving the more advanced instruction.

Tibetan Buddhists go as far as to say there are in fact two Dharmas - Dharma of Transmission and Dharma of Realization. Transmission consists of memorizing and passing on the texts of the three baskets: Vinaya, Sutra and Abhidharma - or more broadly the conceptual aspect of Buddhism. Realization is the actual training in Discipline, Meditation, and Wisdom - as they apply to one's daily life. The two relate as getting the map and walking the path. While mere owning the map does not get you anywhere, without the map the next generation would simply have no idea which way to go.

Another way to see this, while Buddhism teaches "liberation through wisdom" (liberation from what? wisdom about what?) not everyone can jump straight from Avici Hell to Nirvana-with-no-remainder, not everyone even wants to - so there is gotta be a way to motivate people who are not exactly on the right track. This is another reason Dharma of Transmission is necessary.

This is kinda how I myself see this site: while it can't replace a face-to-face apprenticeship with a live master, at least it can provide inspiration and positive motivation to people who have no idea what Buddhism is even about. If in addition to that it can clarify some confusion for more advanced students and point them in the right direction, I will feel verily gratified :)) One of my biggest pains growing up was overuse of upaya by teachers I learned from - mostly due to my own bad karma - so the vow I gave to myself is to share liberating realization and basic sanity openly to help new people avoid pain and confusion I went through.

Anyway, to come back to your quote, The instant you speak about a thing, you miss the mark. - I believe this refers not as much to the horrible dangers of speaking (after all you can totally "miss the mark" while staying perfectly silent!) - as to the fundamental confusion between reality and its models. Our mind keeps on building these models trying to understand reality based on our past experience - but as we project the model back onto reality we see the pant monsters we ourselves created - not the actual reality! Attachment, aversion, and reification of such mind-made phantoms - and the mental/verbal/physical action based on these three - is the fuel that feeds the fire of Samsara. Liberation from suffering caused by such phantoms, through understanding the nature of mind, is the main point of everything I am talking about here, and when it comes to this basic point,

  when you are deluded and full of doubt, even a thousand books of scripture are not enough. When you have realized [this] understanding, even one word is too much.

It's not like understanding this point makes you instantaneously Enlightened - there is still a lifetime of practice, overcoming one's reification/attachment habits - but at least knowing this you can relax about the whole thing and not feel like a donkey chasing the carrot of Nirvana while secretly hating this world.

Of course if all we do is talk about Buddhism in the way of entertainment while holding on to our models in the daily life - we would be totally missing the mark.


What is the resort of Nibbaana? In Unnabho Brahmano Sutta: The Brahman Unnabha  says

  "There are, Brahman, these five sense-faculties... which do not share
  in each other's sphere of action. Mind is their resort, and it is mind
  that profits from their combined activity."

  "But, good Gotama, what is mind's resort?"

  "Mind's resort, Brahman, is mindfulness."[4]

  "Then, good Gotama, what is the resort of mindfulness?"[5]

  "The resort of mindfulness, Brahman, is liberation."

  "Then, good Gotama, what is the resort of liberation?"

  "The resort of liberation is Nibbaana."

  "Then, good Gotama, what is the resort of Nibbaana?"

  "That question goes too far Brahman. No answer can encompass it. The
  aim of the holy life, Brahman, is immersion[6] in Nibbaana, it has
  Nibbaana for its final end, Nibbaana for its conclusion."

Is this suttha says Nibbaana resort on five seance faculties?  or If Not how can it seance?

In my opinion, "resort" is a bad translation for patisaranam (literally, something other things rest on) -- a better option in this particular context would be "apex". Compare with following simile from Milindapanha:

  Like in a building with a pointed roof: whatever rafters they are, they all rest on the apex, lean towards the apex, meet at the apex, and the apex is pointed to as their chief. So is the samadhi in its relation to the other wholesome dharmas.

It does make more sense this way, doesn't it:

  Brahman Unnabha: As the five faculties are of different scope and range, and do not share in each other's sphere of action, what is their apex, and who profits from their combined activity?

  Buddha: Mind is their apex, and it is mind that profits from their combined activity.

  B.U.: But, good Gotama, what is mind's apex?

  B: Mind's apex, Brahman, is mindfulness.

  B.U.: Then, good Gotama, what is the apex of mindfulness?

  B: The apex of mindfulness, Brahman, is liberation.

  B.U.: Then, good Gotama, what is the apex of liberation?

  B: The apex of liberation is Nirvana.

  B.U.: Then, good Gotama, what is the apex of Nirvana?

  B: That question goes too far, Brahman.


Buddhist Centres in Paris? I moved to France, Paris recently. I am seeking any meditation centres vipasana, zen, Insight etc., where I can also communicate in English, since I don't speak much French.

Can anyone here who knows about any such places or websites please let me know?

I had success with http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/ when looking for local communities. In fact, this is how I found my last Zen Master.

Here is a direct link to Paris page, there are 13 centers registered: http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/province.php?province_id=761


Extending Buddha's lifespan Where did Lord Buddha say to Ananda Thero that a Buddha can, if there is an invitation, extend His lifespan? Was this mentioned in a Sutta or somewhere else?

It is DN 16, here

The Buddha said to him: “Ānanda, Vesālī is lovely. And the Udena, Gotamaka, Sattamba, Bahuputta, Sārandada, and Cāpāla shrines are all lovely.
Whoever has developed and cultivated the four bases of psychic power—made them a vehicle and a basis, kept them up, consolidated them, and properly implemented them—may, if they wish, live on for the eon or what’s left of the eon. The Realized One has developed and cultivated the four bases of psychic power, made them a vehicle and a basis, kept them up, consolidated them, and properly implemented them. If he wished, the Realized One could live on for the eon or what’s left of the eon.”
But Ānanda didn’t get it, even though the Buddha dropped such an obvious hint, such a clear sign. He didn’t beg the Buddha: “Sir, may the Blessed One please remain for the eon! May the Holy One please remain for the eon! That would be for the welfare and happiness of the people, for the benefit, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans.” For his mind was as if possessed by Māra.

... and here

Therefore, Ānanda, the misdeed is yours alone, the mistake is yours alone. For even though the Realized One dropped such an obvious hint, such a clear sign, you didn’t beg me to remain for the eon, or what’s left of it. If you had begged me, I would have refused you twice, but consented on the third time. Therefore, Ānanda, the misdeed is yours alone, the mistake is yours alone.


Life's issues as a meditation subject? Are life's issues and other practical problems appropriate as a meditation subject?

Any buddhist school, that focus on this type of meditation?

Vipassana is training to handle such life situation.

Associated with each life interaction and though is a sensation. You can look at the arising and passing away of the sensations with full equanimity.

In generally what happens is when you come in contact with vicissitudes of life you react with clinging and craving on how you Perceive the sensation hence creating fabrication.

You can think and ponder on the matter in hand. This is in fact verbal fabrications. Thinking and pondering will create other sensation. Most prominent even in no mediators are like happiness, depression, anxiety, anger, hate, etc. which also has feelings associated. In general thinking things these can also be neutral or very subtle. In the process of Thinking and Pondering again look at the associated sensations arising and passing away.