I love life and I don't want to die. How to let go? The last few days I've been struggling with the fear of death. I really love life and I fear the unknown. I know it's inevitable but for some reason I can't accept it. I find it beautiful how in buddhism people actually want to achieve nirvana. I mean I know there's no suffering but also there is no happiness etc. I would love to hear some tips on how to accept the inevitable and enjoy the here and now more. Mindfulness helps a lot but sometimes the thought still jumps into my mind.

To fear death and/or uncertainty is part of the human condition. You're not alone with these feelings, especially not with a pandemic going on in the world right now.

Mindfulness is a good start. Also, there are "the five recollections" that may seem a bit cynical at first, but serves the purpose of reminding us to get used to the fact that everythings ends. They are:

Aging
Disease
Death
Losing loved ones
Karma

The last of these five reminders tells us that the only thing we really can own is the consequences of our actions. This can sometimes help in reconciling fear of death, as it may shift our attention to how to live a healthy life (The buddhist idea of a healthy life is perhaps different to a laymans idea of a healthy life).

https://suttacentral.net/an5.57/en/sujato


Sutta in which Buddha says that he/anyone don't have to take another person words? As in Title,
I'm searching for a sutta in which I recall that probably some person started to offend a Buddha, and he responded by giving some analogy, probably to offered food, that one doesn't have to take another persons words, offenses.

It was in the Akkosa Sutta SN 7.2

This incident took place when the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels’ Sanctuary. The angry young man was a brahman called Akkosaka Bharadvaja. He has heard that a brahman of the Bharadvaja clan had gone forth from the home life into homelessness in the presence of the Blessed One. That is why angered & displeased, he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh words.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to him: “What do you think, brahman: Do friends & colleagues, relatives & kinsmen come to you as guests?”

“Yes, Master Gotama, sometimes friends & colleagues, relatives & kinsmen come to me as guests.”

“And what do you think: Do you serve them with staple & non-staple foods & delicacies?”

“Yes, sometimes I serve them with staple & non-staple foods & delicacies.”

“And if they don’t accept them, to whom do those foods belong?”

“If they don’t accept them, Master Gotama, those foods are all mine.”

“In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted me, who is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating: that I don’t accept from you. It’s all yours, brahman. It’s all yours.

“Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman. It’s all yours. It’s all yours.”


How is Uposatha practiced in non Buddhist countries? Uposatha (a.k.a. Poya Day) is the traditional Buddhist observance day. Observances vary but one traditional pattern is to celebrate this day on the lunar calendar on each of four moon events; the new moon, full moon, and quarter moons.

For those living in traditional Buddhist countries or communities, there may be opportunities to visit a monastery. But how do those in non Buddhist countries celebrate the holiday?

Uposatha day is the day when the vinaya is recited. The vinaya is of course the list of all the rules that monastics follow.

In Asia, there are well defined community practices. For example, people go to the local temple that day, or in Mahayana Buddhism, you might fast (i.e. eat vegetarian) that day, or make a stronger effort to follow the five precepts or maybe follow all 8 precepts.

Out here in the west, not a lot of community practices visible to me. I personally try to make up for it by re-reading my favorite list of rules, the "Brahma Net Sutra" on Uposatha days, which is the same thing that real life east Asian Buddhist monks do.

I suppose a lay follower who wants to keep to the spirit of the holiday, but didn't want to read or recite a particular moral code, might do a sort of "Weekly Review" like you see in system of personal productivity, except with a Buddhist theme, e.g. http://lifehacker.com/5908816/the-weekly-review-how-one-hour-can-save-you-a-weeks-worth-of-hassle-and-headache


Sequece of Meditation and Side Effects https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkKOyV_pJ74
Refer to the image and video above, Venerable Guan Cheng explains that meditation should be practiced after proper moral virtue/Sila been achieved for the monks.
Question 1: Does side effects occur due to basic or minimum of Buddhism Precepts or Sila (requirement) not been achieved yet? Most Common side effects could be hallucination, feeling dizziness or more example below
Meditation side effects
Unpleasant side effects of meditation
Question 2: As a lay Buddhist, is it a right practice if the sequence is wrong or Sila/Precepts and Meditation being practiced together? If no, then at what stage of requirements? Well, i know at least not after being drunk and go meditate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts
Post Note: In the Youtube video above at 57:00, Venerable Guan Cheng explains that those monk only focusing on Moral Virtue before start meditation for the first five years. I had recently re-verify with another Bhante and he mentioned also must follow the sequence.

Question 1: Does side effects occur due to basic or minimum of Buddhism Precepts or Sila (requirement) not been achieved yet?

Yes. Right speech, right action, and right lively hood are all foundational virtues. If your morality is not in check, the mind tends to be busy. The side effects that occur due to the above precepts not being adequately followed include but are not limited to gilt, anger, fear, worry, frustration, and the cultivation of complicated and trouble causing situations.
The reason why they suggest tackling the above before meditation, is so that you can stay focused. It is easy to be distracted if you try to meditate when, due to poor morality, you have cultivated pervasive mind states.
You could still meditate before getting your life into a peaceful state, but you make more work for yourself if you don’t.

Question 2: As a lay Buddhist, is it a right practice if the sequence is wrong or Sila/Precepts and Meditation being practiced together? If no, then at what stage of requirements? Well, i know at least not after being drunk and go meditate.

As a lay Buddhist, the order doesn’t really matter. The order only matters if your goal is to become enlightened. Each layer makes the next one easier to achieve. By having good morals it becomes easier to meditate. By meditating you train the mind to be more able to observe the universe as it is and gain wisdom.
If you are meditating for some other reason than to train the mind to cultivate wisdom, such as to de-stress or energize the body, just make sure you set the right environment to achieve what you are looking for. If your goal in meditation is to enhance concentration, don’t drink beforehand. If your goal is feel peaceful, don’t murder someone the day before.
Just know if you don’t follow the suggested order, the next link in the chain will be harder to achieve.


What is 'crazy wisdom'? (no uninformed guesses please) I'm looking for a slightly better theoretical understanding of "crazy wisdom", as if that's possible.

I've seen two superficially-sensible mentions of it on this site.

here --

  If you knew what is "Spiritual Snobbism" and "Spiritual Ego" and why they are extremely dangerous, you would appreciate why some teachers go a loooong way towards shedding off any traces of that, even at the expense of hurting their public image (Trungpa) and making fools of themselves (Dalai Lama). Scandalous behavior is part of a longstanding and very respected tradition called "Crazy Wisdom" that aims to "transcend the dualistic view of repulsive and nonrepulsive" in student's mind and melt the spiritual ego.

here (quoting Chogyam Trungpa) --

  The rest of The Hundred Thousand Songs deals with Milarepa's development as a teacher and his relationships with his students. Toward the end of his life he had completely perfected the transmutation process to the point where he could be called the Vidyadhara or "Holder of the Crazy Wisdom." No longer could he be swayed by the winds of hope and fear. The gods and goddesses and demons, his passions and their external projections, had been completely subjugated and transformed. Now his life was a continual dance with the dakinis.

  Finally Milarepa reached the "old dog" stage, his highest attainment. People could tread on him, use him as a road, as earth; he would always be there. He transcended his own individual existence so that, as we read his last teachings, there is a sense of the universality of Milarepa, the example of enlightenment.

I suspect it's specifically-Tibetan, perhaps there are some pretty eccentric Zen teachers too.

So some questions:

Is there a notable difference between "crazy wisdom", "just plain crazy", and, "undisciplined, predatory, sociopathic"?
What's the 'right' way to act or react or view, if any, if you meet with or even are such a one?
Does it have a specific direction (guiding light), or purpose (destination)?
Does it have any limits, precepts, actions that wouldn't do? And why not those, to be clear?
If someone appears to be, for example, homeless, drug-addict, alcoholic, prostitute, thief, con-man, bully, rather mad -- are these states distinguishable from crazy wisdom?
Is there any particular reason to call it "long standing and very respected" -- is the principal reason, that some people are very respectful of everyone? Or is it, not that they teach a new dhamma but that they're willing to bring that to a new unpromising audience? I don't know.

If my questions sound insane and horribly rude, it's I must be deeply ignorant of the subject ... sorry! Hoping to learn better.

I gathered that Trungpa for example did hurt his public image -- stories I've read of him, presented as an exemplar of crazy wisdom behaviour, are at least a superficial reminder of remarkable or 'anti-social' behaviour of other people one can meet -- social outcasts; 'underdogs'.

What is Crazy Wisdom?

See Wikipedia.

Is there a notable difference between "crazy wisdom", "just plain crazy", and, "undisciplined, predatory, sociopathic"?

  In the case of ordinary craziness, we are constantly trying to win the game. We might even try to turn craziness into a credential of some kind so we can come out ahead. We might try to magnetize people with passion or destroy them with aggression or whatever. There’s a constant game going on in the mind. Mind’s game- constant strategies going on- might bring us a moment of relief occasionally, but that relief has to be maintained by further aggression.

  In the case of primordial craziness, we do not allow ourselves to get seduced by passion or aroused by aggression at all. We relate to these experiences as they are, and if anything comes up in the midst of that complete ordinariness and begins to make itself into a “big deal,” then we cut it down- without any special reference to whether it is good or bad. Crazy wisdom is just the action of truth. It cuts everything down. It doesn’t even try to translate falseness into truthfulness, because even that in itself is corruption. It is ruthless, because if you want the complete truth, if you want to be completely wholly wholesome, than any suggestion that comes up of translating whatever arises into “your terms” is not worth “looking into.”

  On the other hand, the usual crazy approach is completely up for that kind of thing – for making whatever comes up to fit into your thing. You make it suit what you want to be, suit what you want to see. But crazy wisdom becomes completely accurate out of the moment of things as they are.

~Chogyam Trungpa, Crazy Wisdom

-- So the key difference is, ordinary craziness is acting out of Ego's overwhelming passions, aggression, and delusions - and "crazy wisdom" is acting out of enlightened mind but without concessions towards deluded samsaric ideas about right and wrong.

Does it have a specific direction (guiding light), or purpose (destination)?

To cut through student's samsaric attachments and neurosis.

What's the 'right' way to act or react or view, if any, if you meet with or even are such a one?

Please see Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche's "Guru and Student in the Vajrayana" (original post on Facebook is here).


What tools does a Buddhist have to engender others to take a wiser approach? Mum is regularly woken in the night by panic attacks which bring on uncomfortable physical sensations that she takes so seriously she has been known to ring the paramedics (always unnecessarily). After many months I am still unable to get her to even entertain the notion of 'staying with the discomfort, just as it is'. Does a Buddhist have any tools (metta/prayer/mantras - sorry I don't know the words) to manifest/stir-up a change in someone else’s approach? Or do I have to work on cultivating my own acceptance of the situation - however resigned that might make me feel?

I'm sorry to hear about your mother's discomforts. I used to have similar panic attacks that would bring on hyperventilation, taking Xanax and in extreme cases calling the paramedics as well, even though I had studied Buddhism academically for many years and I "knew" it should be able to help me.

It was only when I actually started practicing in stead of studying the attacks subsided, mostly because I had learned to recognize their arising in my mind and the cascade of thoughts, feelings and physical reactions that followed out of them.

The best recommendation I can give you from personal experience is not to start with "staying with the discomfort", as this already requires a person to be able to "witness" the arising and setting of thoughts in the mind. I suggest you start with simple breath counting in a comfortable position and once she is comfortable doing this, ask your mother to observe the space in between thoughts. Doing so will allow these spaces to grow and allow your mom to see the arising of thoughts and sensations, in stead of them being constant and unstoppable, like we usually perceive them. Once you get to that stage, you can start focusing on "staying with" the discomfort, as she will no longer experience it as inevitably leading to the subsequent discomfort in her mind.

Hope this helps, best wishes to you and your mother.


What is musavada in the five precepts? What is musāvādā in the five precepts?
On this five precepts page, it is translated as "incorrect speech", presumably by Ven. Thanissaro.
On this DN 27 page, Ven. Sujato translated it as "false speech".
In Iti 25, Ven. Thanissaro instead translated it as lying.
From SN 45.8, we read the definition of right speech as follows:

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech,
from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

So what exactly is musāvādā in the five precepts?
Does it refer to only lying or untruthful speech?
Or is it considered "incorrect speech", the opposite of Right Speech, that includes lying, divisive speech and abusive speech?
If musāvādā is not "incorrect speech", the opposite of Right Speech, then what is the correct Pali term for the opposite of Right Speech?
Please provide references to suttas if available.

So far as I know it's defined -- defined by example -- in AN 10.176

(Impurity in speech)
And how, Cunda, does one become impure in vācā in four ways? Here, Cunda, one is musāvādī. When he has been brought to the meeting hall, in front of an assembly, among his relatives, his guild, in the midst of the royal court, on being asked as a witness: 'come, my good man, what you know, tell us', if he doesn't know, he says: 'I know', if he knows, he says: 'I don't know', if he has not seen, he says: 'I have seen', if he has seen, he says: 'I have not seen'. Thus, for his own sake, or for the sake of someone else, or for the sake of some trifle gain, he is one who deliberately{2} speaks falsely.
One is pisuṇavāco, he is one who tells there what he has heard here, as a consequence of which [there is] disunion, who tells here what he has heard there, as a consequence of which [there is] disunion. Thus dividing those who are in unity and further dividing those who are disunited,{3} delighting in dissension, devoted to dissension, gladdening in dissension, he is one who speaks a vācā that creates dissension.
One is pharusavāco, he is one who speaks such a vācā which is rough, hard, bitter to others, abusive to others, connected with anger, and conducive to non-samādhi.
One is samphappalāpī, he is one who speaks at the wrong time, who speaks of what is not actual,{4} who speaks unprofitable words, who speaks of what is contrary to the Dhamma, of what is contrary to the Vinaya; he is one who speaks words which are not worth treasuring, at the wrong time, that which is nt reasonable, not moderate, or words which are related to what is not profitable.
These, Cunda, are the four ways in which one becomes impure in vācā.

So "Musa" is one of four types of wrong speech -- false speech is wrong speech, plus there are other types of wrong speech (e.g. divisive gossip) that's wrong even though it isn't false.
The footnote for "deliberately" there says,

deliberately: sampajāna - here the word has a wordly meaning. Its other meaning, spiritual, is of fundamental importance in the Buddha's teaching.

The presence of the word sampajāna, in that context, might imply that speech isn't false unless it's deliberate -- or that false speech isn't impure unless it's deliberate -- I'm not sure which. Taking it literally it's even more specific:

Thus, for his own sake, or for the sake of someone else, or for the sake of some trifle gain, he is one who deliberately{2} speaks falsely.

... i.e. it's done for some kind of "gain" and maybe even in a court. So maybe more specifically equivalent to "bearing false witness against a neighbour".
I'm still not certain which is implied by DN 27:

Is that implying that brahmins are lying deliberately?
Or that bad karma can be made by other forms of false speech?

I'd have guessed that the speech is divisive and rooted in conceit, but what do I know ... perhaps (as implied) it was seen as rooted in some intentional deception for profit.
There's another word mentioned later ...

what is not actual: a-bhūta-vādī - Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates 'what is not factual', and Bhikkhu Bodhi: 'what is not fact'.

... in the fourth general category i.e. of useless and unprofitable. Maybe that's more specifically "non-factual".

Piya Tan wrote:

The fourth precept is against falsehood, against communicating what is untrue, harsh, disharmonious and useless. This is again something natural: if there is no truth, then it is no use of my writing about all this. You would have wasted your time reading this! Truth is the very basis of wholesome human communication.

So possibly musāvādā -- false speech, one type of wrong speech -- is sometimes also used to refer to wrong speech in general, any or all of the four types.

I expect that the Pali word for wrong (by which I mean, the opposite of Right, or sammā) is probably micchā -- see micchādiṭṭhi.


Good is not different from Bad? In the book Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, I read the following statement:

  This is the basic teaching of Buddhism. Pleasure is not different from difficulty. Good is not different from bad. Bad is good; good is bad. They are two sides of one coin.

How does this make sense? Does this mean that every good action (for example trying to reduce suffering) is somehow also bad? Or at least destined to fail?

From a Theravada perspective, there is absolute good and absolute bad. The 2 can exist mutually exclusively.

Suffering is absolutely bad and the mind states that lead to suffering are absolutely bad.
Nibbana is absolutely good and the mind states that lead to Nibbana are absolutely good.

There is no suffering in Nibbana and there's no Nibbana in suffering. They arise/exist without requiring the presence of eachother.


Does it make sense to talk about origin of self? In dependent origination at what stage self comes into picture ? Does self originate ?

In dependent origination, the stage self comes into picture is at 'attachment' and is full mature at 'birth'. As a modern Indian, you (the questioner) should know the word 'jati' ('birth') does not mean 'physical birth from the mother' but means 'self or social identity'.

  Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति, Bengali: জাতি, Telugu:జాతి, Kannada:ಜಾತಿ,
  Malayalam: ജാതി, Tamil:ஜாதி, literally "birth") is a group of clans,
  tribes, communities and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each
  jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or
  tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or
  linguistic groupings may define some jatis. A person's surname
  typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi =
  perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, Ror =
  Warriors etc. Wikipedia

The self certainly originates, as described in many suttas below:

  And what is clinging? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging,
  view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self
  clinging. This is called clinging.

  SN 12.2

  The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &
  delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend
  Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the
  Blessed One.

  MN 44

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

  SN 22.81

  This, monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification.
  One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is
  what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness
  at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes
  about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is
  my self, this is what I am.'

  "One assumes about the ear...

  "One assumes about the nose...

  "One assumes about the tongue...

  "One assumes about the body...

  "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is me, this is my self,
  this is what I am.' One assumes about ideas... One assumes about
  consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the
  intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving
  that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

  MN 148

  Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

  "I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then
  the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But
  since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will
  be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the
  correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of
  sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"

  "Who, O Lord, feels?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
  that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling;
  and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

  "Who, O Lord, craves?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
  that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and
  craving is the condition of clinging.'"

  "Who, O Lord, clings?"

  "The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say
  that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
  clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the
  origin of this entire mass of suffering.

  SN 12.2


Is working in government insurance company right livelihood? I am currently jobless. I saw the advertisement of recruitment of government insurance company.  So I thought to ask before applying. I am very confused.  I don't want to do any wrong livelihood jobs.

I don't see any reason why wouldn't it be - it is not meat business or dealing with arms, or criminal activity, therefore isn't causing harm as a result of such business dealings.

After all, insurance is a positive thing as it helps the person in the case of unforeseen event.

Also here, What is exactly Right Livelihood as a reference from sutras. Furthermore, I advise watching What is right livelihood by Ajahn Brahm where it’s thoroughly explained.

From my perspective, make sure the company is not scammers and make it clear that your religion does not allow you to lie and twist the truth if sales is your department. Your intentions on why you work are important here.


How does the Dhamma reconcile slavery? Since one of the aspects of wrong livelihood is human trafficking, why do we frequently read in the Canon instances where a slave should be good to his master, a master should be good to his slaves.

I think you are mistaking servant for slave.

  In five ways should a master minister to his servants and employees

  (i) by assigning them work according to their ability,

  (ii) by supplying them with food and with wages,

  (iii) by tending them in sickness,

  (iv) by sharing with them any delicacies,

  (v) by granting them leave.

  - Singalovada Sutta

This neither fits the description of a master-slave relationship nor does it involve any human trafficking. Therefore, it doesn't come under wrong livelihood.


Does Kwan Yin hold a place in Theravada Buddhism? Kwan Yin (a.k.a. Guanyin, Avalokiteśvara) is an important figure in Mahayana Buddhism. But I recently noticed a statue of Kwan Yin on the grounds of a local Theravada monastery. I looked up Kwan Yin on Wikipedia and a connection to Theravada Buddhism wasn't clear, but the article did list translations of her name in Thai and Sinhalese; both areas where Theravada Buddhism is predominant. I also saw mention of a statue of Avalokiteśvara listed in a very old guide to Bodhgaya. Is this figure part of early Buddhism? Or simply beloved by many?

Kwan Yin wasn't taught by the Buddha in the Pali suttas and I'm certain Kwan Yin isn't mentioned in the Pali commentaries. Usually the teachers in the Theravada tradition strictly base how they teach on the Pali Canon but a lot of times they aren't so strict. There are Theravada teachers that are more like Mahayana teachers and Mahayana teachers that are more like Theravada teachers. In the end, the tradition one chooses isn't as important as the teacher one chooses.


what similes buddha gave for removing defilments Would be interested to hear all similes about removing the difilments step by step

What i vaguely remember is a simile about purifying gold - and maybe there was one on purifying silver ?

Vammika Sutta - The Discourse on the Ant-hill [Similes for the spiritual training] (Majjhima Nikya 23/1:142-145)

http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/28.13-Vammika-S-m23-piya.pdf

Vammika Sutta is one of the most interesting discourses that reveals the Truth of Buddha's Dhamma in a simple, effective way and in unequivocal terms.

ON the impermanence of the body. ON the fifteen puzzling questions that the dazzling non-human put to the Buddha: "What is the anthill? What smokes by night? What flames by day? Who is the brahmin? Who is the sage? What is the tool? What is the digging? What is the bar? What is the frog? What is the forked passage? What is the strainer? What is the turtle? What is the meat cleaver? What is the joint of meat? What is the cobra?" ON the parable of the smouldering anthill; with the Buddha explaining: the anthill symbolizes the body; the smoke by night symbolizes thought; flames by day symbolize words and actions; the brahmin symbolizes an enlightened being; the sage symbolizes the monk; the tool symbolizes wisdom; digging symbolizes effort; the bar symbolizes ignorance; the frog symbolizes passion and anger; the forked passage symbolizes doubt; the strainer symbolizes the five hindrances (passion, ill-will, indolence, anxiety, and doubt); the turtle symbolizes clinging to worldly things (the five aggregates: form, feelings, perceptions, formation, and consciousness); the meat cleaver symbolizes the pleasures of the five senses; the joint of meat symbolizes passion and delight; the cobra symbolizes those who have extinguished all desires.


Is it ok for lay meditators to have counsellors/therapists/psychologists It's pretty evident that meditation itself helps you deal with your problems and inner issues, but is it okay for a lay meditator to pay a psychologist/therapist to talk about his or her feelings.

But then this raises concern if the therapist will see things from Buddhas teachings point of view. Meditation teachers are expert teachers and not necessarily good at listening to stories about what happened in your childhood for example and talking about it. Their answers, even though may be with complete metta, are only in the range of 'just observe' and 'keep trying' which is mostly what you need to do.

I know that but sometimes there just doesn't seem to be a link between sitting on a cushion observing breath or sensations when something is bothering you on a daily or recurring basis.

Both Mediation and Counselling can help. Talking about something can help you lighten your mind. Similarly meditation can help your reduce stress. But it is best to keep them independent without having spill over from one form of perspective to the other when you meet the respective people / crowd.

If there is any perspective which contradicts the other, you can evaluate both and decide whether to choose between them or formulate your own perspective.

The main idea in Buddhism is to see things as they are. So be prepared to set aside any perspective you build from either advice or your thinking when you see things for yourself through your practice.

Following courses also might be of help:

Buddhism and Modern Psychology
Buddhist Meditation and the Modern World


Have Arahants have eliminated all Sankhara? I read on the internet:

  Arahants have eliminated all Sankhara. So there is no need for
  accumulation of memory.

Have Arahants really eliminated all Sankhara?

Please answer with Pali sutta references.

SN 22.85 says Arahants have "sankhara":

  “If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
  him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
  would you answer?”

  “If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
  form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
  suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
  Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
  impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
  away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”

  “Good, good, friend Yamaka!

MN 43 says a living individual has ayu-sankhara (vitality/life force):

  But because the life forces and the phenomena that are felt are
  different things, a mendicant who has attained the cessation of
  perception and feeling can emerge from it.

  Yasmā ca kho, āvuso, aññe āyusaṅkhārā aññe vedaniyā dhammā, tasmā
  saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpannassa bhikkhuno vuṭṭhānaṃ paññāyatī”ti.

  When a mendicant has attained the cessation of perception and feeling,
  their physical, verbal, and mental processes have ceased and stilled.
  But their vitality is not spent; their warmth is not dissipated; and
  their faculties are very clear.

  Yo cāyaṃ bhikkhu saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpanno tassapi kāyasaṅkhārā
  niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, vacīsaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā,
  cittasaṅkhārā niruddhā paṭippassaddhā, āyu na parikkhīṇo, usmā
  avūpasantā, indriyāni vippasannāni.

MN 26 describes Nibbana as the "calming (samatho) of all sankhara" rather than "destruction of all sankhara":

  It’s also hard for them to see this thing; that is, the stilling of
  all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of
  craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.

  Idampi kho ṭhānaṃ duddasaṃ yadidaṃ—sabbasaṅkhārasamatho
  sabbūpadhipaṭinissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṃ.


Are anagamis/arahants common (1000+) nowadays? The question is likely inappropriate here, but I'll try anyway. Hopefully nobody will take offense.
Are anagamis/arahants common (1000+) nowadays?
"Uncommon" would be, for example, that all the anagamis/arahants you know are renowned teachers. Likely less than 100 worldwide.
On the other hand, "common" would be if you know of 3 or 4 anagamis/arahants around in the same temple. Hinting at a much bigger number worldwide, on the thousands.
I'm sure someone that goes frequently to temples can give a clear answer. Or maybe someone can do some back of the envelope math.
Thanks.

In Udana 7.2, Ven. Sariputta (the Arahant) tried to teach Ven. Bhaddiya without realizing that he too was an Arahant.
The Buddha saw this and exclaimed the verse, describing Ven. Bhaddiya:

He has cut the cycle, has gone away to freedom from longing. The
dried-up stream no longer flows. The cycle, cut, no longer turns.
This, just this, is the end of stress.

This shows that the Buddha could recognize who is an Arahant, but not another Arahant (who does not possess psychic powers).
In addition, in the Bhikkhu Patimokkha, there is a rule forbidding monks from confessing their factual attainments to lay people:

Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an
unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed. -
Pācittiya 8

Hence, it is impossible to identify arahants or draw up statistics.


Can karma be destroyed by other Niyamas? Can karma be destroyed by other Niyamas?

Can the other four niyamas from the "Five Niyamas" remove a person's karma? Or just affect it?

No, if speaking of "can one deed make another undone" (MN 101), Breath, but by the deed of traing the mind, one can reach the ability to bear results of fruits from deeds easier. See the The Salt Crystal.

Since it has much impact of general ways of thinking, living mostly in a world of believe that unrightouseness could be corrected, the Essay Wisdom over Justice might give certain inspiration, dealing at least with this issue outwardly.

For Suttas (teachings) on kamma (actions) look up here: Kamma

In detail, of what certain sects see as skillful (here Niyamas), there are certainly deeds which are not benefical at all for even lighten effects of old kamma, not to speak of going beyound. But such would need the discussiin of each of this practices. Some of this classical are benefical, kusala-kamma.

To get rid of the effects of ones previous deeds eternally, there is just one refuge: Nibbana.

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


How can I stop thinking about the clock when meditating? I meditate for 30 minutes every day I normally meditate for 30 minutes but I cannot help but think about the time that the meditation is going to end and constantly thinking about the clock since normally you meditate to be in the present moment, but I am not in the present moment when I meditate. I appreciate any help.

Thank you :)

Focus on the clock, and you will find yourself getting distracted.


In Buddhism, does "God" exist or not? In Buddhism, is the existence of "God" accepted, or not? If not, what is the reason?

It depends on what you mean when you say "God" and "exists". In Buddhism all entities (objects) are abstractions or models, conceptual labels on top of mind-made constructs. So all things really exist in one sense, but don't really exist in another sense. God is like that too. If by God we mean "The Absolute" then it in one sense it obviously exists (since everything is included in it) but then in another sense The Absolute is just an abstraction so it doesn't really exist. It certainly exists as concept or model in our mental world.


Anatta a tool or reality? I understand that realizing anatta reduces the suffering. You realize there is no "I" to suffer, to have anxiety, to be insulted etc. That is indisputable. However, is this reality or is it a tool? Is there truly no self? It is said that the Buddha remained silent upon the question of Am I? and Am I not?, was that because the answer to the question is irrelevant to the reduction of suffering & therefore there is actually a self? Or for another reason?

'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'

After this is said about the 5 aggregates, and the saying there is no permanent soul/self, I understand that identifying with any of them only leads to suffering, due to their impermanence. But this doesn't mean the self cannot exist outside of it, right? What I mean by this is, not inside/outside/a combination/the collection of them all, but rather something else that we cannot even talk about.
Furthermore, is it wise to try to understand Anatta, or is it best to realize it?

I understand that realizing anatta reduces the suffering. You realize there is no "I" to suffer, to have anxiety, to be insulted etc. That is indisputable. However, is this reality or is it a tool? Is there truly no self?

Throughout history, many arahants from many traditions have attempted to describe the true nature of reality. You can see examples of this from diverging explanations of realizations between Buddhist traditions. Some traditions describe enlightenment from the perspective of “no self”. This perspective views the world as full of illusions, all empty, transient, and devoid of identity. This perspective can be said to be one of negation, where you realize there is no identity in what you once believed there to be. Others describe enlightenment through the perspective of “true self”. This perspective views the world as pervaded by an almost godlike entity, a being that can be seen as the source of all that arises. This perspective can be seen as one of addition, where you realize you are not only human, but also the totality of the universe, and become one with everything.
Whenever this conversation arises, I always am reminded of the Buddha’s parable about the blind men an the elephant. Each touching a different limb of the elephant, and endlessly arguing about who’s description is accurate. This situation is extremely similar. Neither the no self, nor true self perspectives are completely accurate. The truth lies somewhere in between.
The perspective of being an arahant is one that can only be experienced and is impossible to explain in its entirety. To the mind, it is logically paradoxical, and therefore can not be conveyed accurately. Experientially though, the paradoxes coexist easily and without effort.

It is said that the Buddha remained silent upon the question of Am I? and Am I not?, was that because the answer to the question is irrelevant to the reduction of suffering & therefore there is actually a self? Or for another reason?

So, based off the above, hopefully you see why the Buddha avoided the questions. Describing the enlightened state is logically impossible. Anything that can be said about it can only be partially accurate. And people tend to get so caught up in the details, I think personally he was just trying to avoid blind men and the elephant situations in the hopes that people would make real progress as opposed to arguing about their belief systems.
I wouldn’t say the answer is irrelevant. The perspective you gain from becoming enlightened is what provides the understandings that ultimately ends suffering. It just can’t be accurately conveyed through language.

After this is said about the 5 aggregates, and the saying there is no permanent soul/self, I understand that identifying with any of them only leads to suffering, due to their impermanence. But this doesn't mean the self cannot exist outside of it, right? What I mean by this is, not inside/outside/a combination/the collection of them all, but rather something else that we cannot even talk about.

Those who describe true self understandings will tell you that what you really are is not a human being or body, but that indescribable thing that creates all that arises. That very same indescribable thing is what the Buddha describes as “empty” and “devoid of self”. Both perspectives are close, but again, not fully accurate.
So yes, one could say that a self exists outside of experience. But, thinking in this way will not help you become enlightened. Honestly I view it as a hinderance. In my experience, the illusory self likes to “jump” from one object to the next. For example if you believe you are the body, and then experience proof of the beliefs inaccuracy, the process of self identification tends to begin somewhere else. “I’m not the body, so I must be the mind! I’m not the mind I must be my thoughts!” Etc. My advice is to not think in this way. If you believe it’s possible that what you are something that exists outside of your experience, you put yourself in a bad situation. You are giving the illusory self a place it can nestle in, that is based on belief alone and can not be verified. If you wish to be free you must focus on investigating what you presently believe yourself to be, and constantly disprove places the self will try to hide.
Of course I’m speaking in metaphors here. The illusory self is not a thing that exists, but a process of identification that needs to come to a stop by observing that there is nothing permanent that can be claimed to be yourself.

Furthermore, is it wise to try to understand Anatta, or is it best to realize it?

Anatta can not be fully intellectually comprehended. Even those who are enlightened can not fully logically process the experience. They just experience life, as no one, someone, and the entire universe, at the same time. They accept the mind is of no help in the situation, and abandon any attempts to logically understand.
I would say it is not wise to investigate “what the enlightened experience is like”. One should work to become enlightened, and then once you get there yourself, you will fail too (as all others have before you) in explaining the experience to others. Even if you found an enlightened being that was willing to describe it for days on end to you, you would be no closer to the experiential understanding that is required to become free.
However, that being said, the Buddha’s no self teachings are filled with wisdom that should be used to guide you along your path. Enlightenment is inevitable if you can experience first hand how your current belief systems are incorrect. The first moment you truly break down the illusion of self and no one sees that the self doesn’t exist, from that moment on you will become free.


Can someone regain a Beginners Mind when it has gone? Shunryu Suzuki famously said in Zen Mind, Beginners Mind

  In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the
  expert’s there are few

But if one's beginners mind has gone is it possible to regain it. If so what can one do to get a beginner's mind back again.

The motivation for asking this is that after a years practice I had a very strong feeling of my beginners mind leaving me. I felt very fresh, vibrant and curious about practice for about a year then one day I could literally feel that ebb away. From that point my practice was different - maybe not worse but definitely has a different quality to it. It feels more like work I guess. So I've always been curious to whether that initial state would ever come back and if there was anything I could do to encourage it.

In the Mahasi tradition we don't have the idea of beginner's mind, just a continuous refinement of the process. Many times throughout my practice, I've learned that some phenomena or thought process was just that—where previously I mistook it for a deeper reality. And I continue to experience these refinements.

But to attempt to answer your question, try not to hang on to the desire for Beginner's Mind. It will come back on its own. In addition, I would say be gentle to your mind and body. Those particular helped me the most when I was struggling in my practice. Maybe it will work the same way for you, in that being gentle with yourself may allow the Beginner's Mind to return when you least expect it.


How to cultivate sexual energy with Meditation? How a person can cultivate his own sexual energy to creative one with the help of Meditation?
can we handle Sexual energy when it arises with breathing technique or Meditation?

Mr/ Mrs Jyo Soudagar - Ajay should not cultivate it, if he/she meditates, but should abandon it, when ever such comes along. Listen to or read, Mr/Mrs Jyo Soudagar - Ajay, what was said in the Bhikkhuni Sutta: The Nun, by Ven. Ananda.

Just considering the foulness of the body should help; or you may think on the drawbacks (disadvantages) of sensuality, to get disgusted.

(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.)


Different Pali words for remorse or regret The Pali word for remorse or regret in the definition of the five hindrances (in MN 10) is "kukucca". Sometimes, this word is also translated as worry or anxiety. This word usually appears together with "uddhacca".

However, the Pali word translated as remorse in Itivuttaka 30 is "tapanīya" (according to this Pali version).

In AN 11.1, AN 11.2, AN 5.41, Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation has the word "remorse", while Sujato Bhikkhu's translation has the word "regret". The Pali term for this is "vippaṭisāra". This can also be found in Udana 8.5.

What is the difference between these terms?

Etymologically, tapa-niya comes from the word for strong glowing and burning heat, like that of a big fire or sun. It also means the practice of self-torture done by the yogis. So I suppose metaphorically it refers to blaming oneself, torturing oneself, "giving oneself a heat", "beating-up oneself".

While vi-ppati-sara I think means something like "acknowledge result of one's wrongdoing", "realize one's mistake", "admit responsibility", "take blame", "plead guilty", "repent" etc.

So both tapaniya and vippatisara can be used to indicate regret and remorse - but one emphasizes the self-blaming aspect while the other emphasizes going back in time to look at one's past action.

Udhacca-kukkucca, as I explained in another answer, indicates something completely different -- obsessive wavering about right/wrong action, a scruples. While the previous two words pertain to someone experiencing results of one's past unskillful action, this one pertains to someone's state of worry and anxious wavering while choosing a course of action (including the no-action), even if it's actually the right choice.

Note, that Udhacca-kukkucca is completely different from 'vicikiccha' which is generic scepticism about something external, not anxious wavering about one's action.


What is the difference between Amitābha's Sukhāvatī & the Lotus Vault? What is the relation of sukhāvatī to 蓮華藏莊嚴世界海 ("the lotus's vault, the perfected lokadhātu, the ocean") attested to in the Buddhāvataṃsakanāmamahāyānasūtra T279 & Āryasaddharmapuṇḍarīkanāmamahāyānasūtra T262, wherein arahantaḥ, according to the Mahāyāna as attested to in aforementioned scriptures, perfect Buddhahood?

Context:

  Inquiry: in the Arhat's past lives the causes and conditions for being
  subject to embodiment necessarily ought to have been eradicated, in
  light of this they dwell where to perfect buddhahood?

  Response: when attaining arhatship, the three realms' myriad outflows'
  causes and conditions are exhausted, there is no more birth again in
  the three realms. There is a pure buddha land, beyond the three
  realms, where not even the word affliction has a name, in this kingdom
  of the Buddha, they hear the Dharma Flower Sūtra [i.e. the Lotus
  Sūtra], with this they perfect Buddhahood. As in the Dharma Flower
  Sūtra's words: "There are arhantaḥ, for example, who’ve not heard the
  Dharma Flower Sūtra,themselves they call 'ones who have attained
  cessation'; I in another realm for them speak this matter, that you
  all shall become samyaksaṁbuddhāḥ."

  (Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśaḥ T1509.714a9)

Furthermore, these pure lands, what relation do they have to ākaniṣṭaghanavyūha?

Perhaps your title question is too board. And I'm too lazy to check all the Sanskrit names of the Sutras in corresponding to the Chinese.

So, you are asking to compare Sukhavati with the Lotus-treasure World? Let's give it few directions:

Sukhavati and Lotus-treasure are not in the same category. Category means when you can compare China with USA, but you can't compare China with America. Here USA and China are names for the countries, America is the continent. But you can compare America with Asia, both are continents.
Lotus-treasure World includes Sukhavati. Why? Because Lotus-treasure World is a generic name given to all existences and phenomena, all non-existences and non-phenomena, i.e., the all of all, the total of totality. In the Avatamsaka, it said the Lotus-treasure World is formed by innumerable world-seas and world-seeds. Sukhavati will be one of the world in one of the world-seeds.
Sukhavati is very far from Sahā-lokadhātu our world. One is it is mentioned in the Amitabha Sutra, said it is at certain and certain huge distance from our world of the western direction. The other is, in Avatamsaka the chapters describing the structure of the worlds, after it described the world-seed our world resides, it goes to describe the neighboring ones; when it depicted a world with known relationship to our world, say, both are at the 13th dimension, it stated clearly, also at the 13th dimension, such and such world is called so and so name... But it never mentioned the world Sukhavati. Therefore we can know Sukhavati is not a neighborhood world to ours.

From my reading, it seems Sukhavati is a "purified" world, that is, it is emanated from Buddha Amitabha's mind. But Lotus-treasure is the primordial, it is the manifestation of Vairocana.


Meditation help - Am i observing a thought like I should or entertaining it? I have a question with how to properly meditate, and a quick glance at other questions at this site seem to indicate I believe this exchange can provide answers.

I have two questions:

1) When I meditate, I often find myself daydreaming more than having thoughts bother me, although I can very occasionally find myself daydreaming of something in my past that was unpleasant (doesn't seem to happen much though). To simply observe this thought, do I let it play out or try and
focus on my breathing?

2) I have some symptoms of OCD, such as the whim of my internal voice at times playing out an uncomfortable experience in my head or a statement that bothers me (which is why my mind states it), and I worry if I don't address I might subconsciously believe it. (Such as, if the compulsive thought that bothered me was "I'm a bad person" and if I just let that sit with me instead of addressing it, merely observe it, I might subconsciously believe it. This is just an example but it illustrates what I'm getting at). Can I rest assured just observing such a thought won't cause such subconscious beliefs?

What you have described is not really "observing". It is "thinking".

Thinking & observing are basically two different & antagonist activities.

While there is a place for thinking, pondering or 'reflection' (yoniso manasikara) in Buddhist meditation, it is not observing (anupassi).

Therefore, if you just let thinking continue instead of addressing it, you certainly might subconsciously believe it.

If the thought arises: "I am a bad person", you should investigate or examine the truth or falseness of this thought; but in terms of emotions & actions rather than 'persons'.

In Buddhism, there are five precepts which are about: (i) killing; (ii) stealing; (iii) unwholesome sex; (iv) dishonesty; & (v) drugs & alcohol. These five are bad or harmful actions. In addition, thoughts & emotions of greed, anger/hatred & selfishness are also considered bad or harmful.

In Buddhism, a meditator does not think: "I am a bad person". Instead, a meditator acknowledges or refects: "This is a harmful emotion" or "This a harmful action". The focus here is upon the emotion or the action rather than the person. The meditator then reflects (thinks about) why the emotion or action is bad or harmful, which, in itself, will change the emotion & action towards a good emotion & good action.


Important readings in vipassana I am looking for the most important Buddhist readings regarding vipassana teachings. I have read thoroughly the Satipatthana Sutta, but I wonder if there are other important texts regarding insight meditation.

Thank you.

Yes there are some great teachings by the burmese meditation master Mahasi Sayadaw.

This website offers free books by Mahasi Sayadaw dealing with vipassana meditation and how to develop insight. This is a quote from the website regarding the free books:

  "The books in this section are free for downloads and personal uses. However, commercial uses are not allowed. The Buddha Sasana Online has acquired permission from Buddha Sasana Nuggaha Organization to post the books for free downloads as a gift for the Internet community. Therefore please keep these resources free, and if you wish to link to these files, please do not do so. Please copy the files to your own webspace, and save our bandwidth for other people. If you wish to distribute these books, you also need to ask permission from the publishers. Thank you".

You might find these books useful:

1. A Discourse on Vipassana

An extensive guideline through the practice of Vipassana meditation and explanation of the Satipatthana medthod, including how Nibbana is realized through this method of practice.

21. Fundamentals of Vipassana Meditation

This book includes an explanation of the difference of Samatha and Vipassana meditation, how Vipassana is practiced, the theory behind the practice, and how the practice achieves the goal of Nibbana and fulfills the Eightfold Noble Path.

26. Practical Vipassana Meditational Exercises

This is a brief look to the Vipassana meditation along with a few exercises to begin with.

28. Purpose of Practicing Kammatthana (Buddhist) Meditation

Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw explains the two kinds of meditations taught by the Buddha as well as a brief teaching on how to practice the two methods.

29. Satipatthana Vipassana Meditation

This book explains the Satipatthana Vipassana meditation method that's taught by the Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta. It explains extensively the instructions given by the Buddha in the Satipatthana sutta, the practice, and the theory behind it.

30. Summary of Discourses on Purity and Insight (Visuddhi-Nana-Kattha)

This is a collection of discourses given by the Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw on the subjects of purity and insight.

31. The Satipatthana Meditation

This is yet another discourse to extensively discuss the Satipatthana meditation method prescribed by the Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta.

Lanka


What canon do you follow to modify the Buddha's views as knowledge advances? Let's assume modern scientific discoveries contradict or alter the Buddha's explanations. How are we supposed to approach this new information as it relates to the Buddha's teachings?

It would depend on the information, but when in doubt, I go back to the basics of the Four Noble Truths, and the Buddha's last words of "Be a light unto yourself." and would see where the new information fit in with those. Without an idea of how a Teaching might be disproved, it is difficult to speculate.

If ultimately, it was somehow proven, and I feel this is unlikely, the Teaching is incorrect, then another path would need to be considered.


Are loving-kindness and compassion (metta and karuna) special kind of attachments? To alleviate someone from suffering, Buddhism teaches one to practice mettā
karuṇā. But it seems to me that to thinking good about someone and wish them the best, we need to have a better version of the suffered person, so that we can disagree with their current version. If we don't have that image, then we wouldn't say the suffered person is suffered at the beginning. Thus, it seems correct to say that in order to practice metta and karuna, we need to have an attachment?

Since this attachment is necessary, then I think it's fine to have? For example I ask this question, thus I have some attachment to it, and that's fine. I think this is related to the conventional truth and absolute truth.

So is it correct the in order to practice metta and karuna, we need to have an attachment to begin with?

Edit: One can simply say that the better version of that person is just a ideal fabrication of them (because they are not actually like that), or just the good side of them that they always have but not shown yet. In either case, I think it's necessary to assume good faith. Would that assumption be an attachment?

Related:
• Is radiating loving kindness increase attachment?
• How to view people with metta and karuna?
• Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people?

So is it correct the in order to practice metta and karuna, we need to have an attachment to begin with?

Well, attachment is a default software built into the core kernel of every human's "operating system", so whether we need to have it or not is kinda irrelevant. And no, there's no need to come up with some fabrication or some altered reality about the other person's personality in order to cultivate metta/karuna. It's a truth  that both evil and goodness co-exist within every single human being, it's just that the relative ratio is different from person to person. So it's not a fabrication to focus on a person's 'good side', because s/he does have a good side! So the beauty of metta/karuna cultivation is that one can start training right away, even with their existing attachment at the beginning stage. But as one proceeds to higher, deeper, more subtle levels of the Path, the attachment will naturally subside and eventually goes away completely. Once it's become second nature, Metta/karuna at that stage will no longer involves any kind of attachment at all.


Are Bodhisattvas real human beings we can encounter? I was wondering if bodhisattvas are real life people we can encounter along our path. There seems to be literature on how these beings take vows, but I was wondering if it was common to encounter one of them along the path.

From (Chinese) Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra:

  “Subhūti, this is like the body of a person that is tall and great.”

  Subhūti said, “Bhagavān, the body of a person that the Tathāgata speaks of, tall and great, is not a great body, and is thus called the Great Body.”

  “Subhūti, for bodhisattvas it is also such as this. If someone says ‘I will liberate and cross over innumerable sentient beings,’ then this is not one to be called a bodhisattva. Why? Subhūti, truly there is no such dharma as "bodhisattva", and for this reason the Buddha says, ‘All dharmas are not a self, a person, a being, or a life.’ Subhūti, if a bodhisattva says, ‘I am adorning buddha-lands,’ then this is not one to be called a bodhisattva. Why? The adornments of buddha-lands spoken of by the Tathāgata are not adornments, and are thus called adornments. Subhūti, if a bodhisattva has penetrating realization that dharmas are without self, then the Tathāgata says, ‘This is a true bodhisattva.’

A parallel from (Sanskrit) Diamond Sutra:

  "Subhuti, a comparison can be made with the idea of a large human body. What would you understand me to mean if I spoke of a 'large human body'?"

  "I would understand that the lord Buddha was speaking of a 'large human body' not as an arbitrary conception of its being, but as a series of words only. I would understand that the words carried merely an imaginary meaning. When the Buddha speaks of a large human body, he uses the words only as words."

  "Subhuti, it is just the same when a disciple speaks of liberating numberless sentient beings. If they have in mind any arbitrary conception of sentient beings or of definite numbers, then they are unworthy of being called a disciple. Subhuti, my teachings reveal that even such a thing as is called a 'disciple' is non-existent. Furthermore, there is really nothing for a disciple to liberate."

  "A true disciple knows that there is no such thing as a self, a person, a living being, or a universal self. A true disciple knows that all things are devoid of selfhood, devoid of any separate individuality."

Meaning, "bodhisattva" is an approximation, a label. In reality there is nothing fixed / specific / well-defined that we can call "bodhisattva". When one practices like this, one can be called "bodhisattva" - and yes, at this point it is a live person someone can encounter.


Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people? There are many good answers in the question Would Buddhists help non-Buddhists continuing their attachments?. I'll summarize some of the points here:

Buddhism only teaches that things don't last, not stop doing them. Love people knowing that someday we lose them; use things knowing they break; earn money to survive not out of greed; eat food only to be healthy not because taste good. Even if the girl is attaching to her mother, helping them or not will not make them less attaching anyhow. (ashen25's answer)
Dhammadhatu's answer even cites the suttas:

  Buddhism has two levels of teaching: (i) moral, which includes attachment; and (ii) non-attachment (MN 117). The Buddha said his teaching of non-attachment was only for a minority of people (MN 26).

  Therefore, a Buddhist would help ordinary people maintain their important social relationships. In fact, this is a duty of a monk (DN 31). The duty of a monk & of a Buddhist is not to "strip" ordinary people of their attachments & identities.

The consensus in there is clear: helping them, not converting them. However, psychologically speaking, I think helping people necessarily requires both parties forming a relationship, or requires the helpers involves/attaches in other people's emotional dramas. Or when they are helping them, they need to have expectations on the outcomes. These are things a Buddhist would like to avoid.

They can simply say "sorry, my goal is not to get attached with relationships. I'm not a suitable person to help you. I hope you get well with your life." Not only this is an acceptable manner, this would also conveniently help the helpees understand the value of non-attachment without the need to teach them anything.

I think the solution is simple: as long as the helpers acknowledge that after the problem has been solved they can detach to it, then it would be fine. However, are there any sources discussing this?

The following three quotes from the question are merely more annihilationist wrong views (per SN 12.17) based on the original annihilationist wrong view:

Requires the helpers involves/attaches in other people's emotional dramas.
When they are helping them, they need to have expectations on the outcomes.
My goal is not to get attached with relationships. I'm not a suitable person to help you.

The above ideas are "annihilationist" (per SN 12.17) because these views ignorantly assume a "self" exists that must non-attach from itself & from other "selves", "persons" or "beings".

When the mind is enlightened with right view, it does not think it is helping "people". It is only helping "ignorance" become wiser. Since the enlightened mind has no view of "persons" or "beings", it naturally also has no attachment when helping.

Please refer to SN 12.17 and also MN 102.

  Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
  these venerable contemplative & brahmans—through fear of
  self-identity, through disgust for self-identity—(nevertheless) keep
  running & circling around self-identity.

  MN 102

Therefore, if & when "helping necessarily requires both parties forming a relationship", one party (the helped) is attached & the other party (the helper) is non-attached. In other words, the helper is free from fear & is unconcerned about whether the other party attaches to them. The helper trusts in virtue, appropriate boundaries & the Dhamma. The helper does not need to and should not physical touch the helped, let alone engage in sexual relationship. Thus, pure metta will always be harmless to both, even if the helped becomes attached. When a Virtuous One acts with pure metta, the helped will always remember & love them but this type of love is not harmful.

As Volkov wisely said elsewhere:

  As my teacher explained, it's only when the person is completely
  abandoned by the currents of normal life, is when they get picked up
  by the current of Dharma.

In other words, those looking for help can even spend months in a monastery, where they may speak each day for one or two hours with a monk. But, eventually, such ordinary worldly individuals will leave the monastery when they feel better or restored (to try their luck again in the world of attached relationships).


Is an analogy between karma and modern day physics possible? The Buddha spoke about kalapa's. A body, including the mind, consists of tiny particles which arise and cease in a everlasting flow of sequence. Karma as the law of action/reaction. Unwholesome acts cause unwholesome results for the producer of that action and wholesome acts cause wholesome results. Neutral action causes neutral /no results. Is there a correlation between this truth and the truth of Newton's third law of motion? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Since quantum physics entered the realm of scientific knowledge, on a sub atomic level action reaction became not absolute anymore in predictability.
Is it a delusion to suggest that on a highly subtle level unwholesome acts might not in all cases lead to unwholesome results as wholesome acts might not in all cases lead to wholesome results?

I need to do some more reading about quantum physics, I really do.  It seems very interesting.

What I can say, is there is a clear analogy (to me at least) between Buddhism (or how I understand it) and modern mathematics.

It is my opinion that the single most important theorem in mathematics is Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theorem.  Basically, this theorem shows that no system of constructing proofs of arithmetic is expressive enough to prove all true theorems and disprove all false ones.  No system of logic can tell all tales and solve all problems.

This hydra has many heads.  Another well-known one is the Halting Problem in computer science.  This one states that there is no single algorithm that can determine whether any algorithm halts.  This is an extremely deep result assuming the Church-Turing thesis, which states that any computable function at all is computable by a Turing machine.

It's very similar to the beginning of the Tao Te Ching.  While this is not a Buddhist text, nonetheless it opens with "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.  The name that can be named is not the eternal name."  We are extremely fortunate that it can be proven logically that all logic is faulty in some way.  We are privy to the knowledge that all knowledge is false, and that that is the only true knowledge.

It is my belief that there is no truth.  When somebody says "This statement is false", a good and proper response is, "Yes, every statement is false."  Newton's third law is not true, nor is any other physical theory true.  Edge cases will continue to be discovered ad infinitum.  If any physical theory were true, and the universe operated deterministically according to its laws, there would be no experience.

The only things that are real are the things that transcend this world, such as our Karma.  Of course, to us there is no difference between the things that transcend this world, since we cannot access or imagine them.

Do not rely on Karma to bring good results in this life, since the distinction between good Karma and bad Karma itself is just a dualistic notion.  Just know that you are here for a reason, and have faith.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIFgZD4errQ


Is it possible to make an oath to control one's actions? Can a person decide to do X action and be able to do it forever... from a mental point of view  -  if physically he can do that action?

What I'm trying to say is many times I decided to not do anything for fun or to meditate Y time every day but even when it was 5 minutes every day I didn't do it.

Every time either I didn't want to  sit to meditate or even be mindful of actions  -  or I wanted to watch a YouTube video and pass the time with YouTube videos etc.

Is it possible to decided to do something and not break it at all?

I mean for example I keep the 5 precepts by default and will probably keep them at the future hard for me to see a situation I won't  - but for example if I decide to keep the 8 precepts and never break them  (again mentally)  even if I never have to face something like a physical injury  or even friend begging me to go to a movie etc  but just in dealing with my own defilement - can I decide  not do break it in advance and guarantee myself I won't break it in the future (again if physically it's possible to avoid it).

It looks like your problem is that you want to practice but you don't want to practice.

This whole fiasco can be pondered. The whole thing is the three characteristics manifesting. Are you in control? Do your plans and focus keep ending? Are you suffering? What are you learning? Ask yourself what you are taking for granted.

You could learn a lot by just pondering what is driving your every action, your karma.

We are either distracted or mindful.

Check out the 5 hinderances that are in your way.

Don't make vows or oaths but instead undertake training to not do or to do X and if you fail ponder it but don't react like breaking the training rule must be punished or reacted to is some way. Don't get angry, get compassionate.

Check out how to overcome procrastination. LOTS of people have procrastination problems. There are a lot of free pdf's or ppt's online about procrastination.

Do not smoke marijuana everyday because it often zaps ones ambition.


Are Buddhists against abortion? While other religions seem to have a definition position on abortion I've never come across the Buddhist view on this. From a naive perspective I would imagine that Buddhists would be prolife rather then prochoice - the abstain from killing precept seems to be the relevant one. But I would imagine it would also depend on when Buddhist believe that life begins or becomes sentient.

Is there any pointers to the ethics of abortion in the scriptures (pali canon, mahayana etc..) or perhaps guidance/opinions from more contemporary teachers. I feel that the real position could be quite nuanced.

Many thanks for any/all thoughts

This is one of those questions that is complicated by that in the United States the conversation around abortion looks and feels very different than it does from other countries in the world. It is also made complex by the interaction of the ideology and the "situation on the ground," where things are usually quite complicated.
To quote Karma Lekshe Tsomo's excellent article Prolife, Prochoice: Buddhism and Reproductive Ethics:

In Buddhism, a primary guiding principle for ethical decision-making is the relief of suffering. It is clear that both abortion and restrictive abortion laws can cause great suffering for both mother and fetus. […]
In the end, most Buddhists recognize the incongruity that exists between ethical theory and actual practice and, while they do not condone the taking of life, do advocate understanding and compassion toward all living beings, a lovingkindness that is nonjudgmental and respects the right and freedom of human beings to make their own choices.

So to start with, we need separate "pro-life" (in the sense of being opposed to abortion) and "pro-choice" (in the sense of believing the state should restrict it). There are certainly Buddhists who are both pro-choice and anti-choice regardless of whether they are also "pro-life."
It is widely recognized in a variety of sources that, in the traditional Buddhist sources, the ensoulment occurs at conception. Bhikkhu Bodhi mentions in the book In the Buddha's Words that consciousness (or perhaps more precisely viññāṇa) begins "from the moment of conception," though I don't know where precisely in the texts this is defined to be the case.
We see that this translates to a "pro-life" and sometimes "anti-choice" attitude in the Theravada countries. Sri Lanka allows abortion to preserve the life of the woman but not for any other reason. Myanmar is similar. Thailand is slightly more permissive–especially since it allows for health of the mother under some circumstances and includes mental health–while still generally banning it.
In Peter Harvey's An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics we see analysis that indicates that:

It is clear, at the very least, that the great majority of Buddhists agree that abortion is killing a human being, and is an evil that should be avoided, other things being equal. A crucial issue, though, is how evil it is and what 'other things' can come to outweigh this evil, so that abortion comes to be seen as a 'necessary evil' in certain circumstances?

It is important to note that in some cases these laws were only written after contact with European societies (details in links, Peter Harvey indicates as well that, pre-colonial times, Burma/Myanmar "abortion was not liable for punishment"). It is also the case that, even where it is banned, the laws do not appear equivalent to murder.  There's also a great deal of individual variation outside of the state laws, especially in Thailand, where 95% of the population is Buddhist but there's some popular support for more lenient abortion laws.
As far as I can tell, Tibetan Buddhism is similarly strongly opposed to the practice, but there's still some nuance around treating it, with the Dalai Lama saying in an interview with the NYT (from the above BBC article examining Buddhist views on abortion):

Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances.
If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.

In Japan (and Korea per Harvey) it is much, much less restricted and the Japanese Buddhists are much more accepting of it. This was examined in the book Liquid Life: Abortion and Buddhism and Japan.  It is notable that both US Buddhists and Japanese Buddhists tend to be much less opposed to abortion than other Buddhist groups.
This issue is explored further in Michael G. Barnhart's Buddhism and the Morality of Abortion, which notes that:

However, as Keown points out, (92) the cases dealt with involve women seeking abortions for questionable, perhaps self-serving, reasons including "concealing extramarital affairs, preventing inheritances, and domestic rivalry between co-wives."  In short, if these are the paradigm examples of abortion, then the case is heavily biased against the practice.

In conclusion: We can say that, in general, Buddhism is opposed to abortion and believes that it incurs a significant karmic burden, especially Theravadan and Tibetan practice. Individuals and subgroups, meanwhile, especially in Japan and the United States, fall all along the spectrum with respect to:

The degree of problem.
What factors help to balance and to what extent they balance.
What precisely the state should do about it.

Regardless, the person who has had an abortion should be treated with compassion–not moral judgement–and it should be understood that the decision is pretty much universally a difficult one with a lot of complications and nuances.


I'm trying to find a specific sutta I think I remember there being a passage where a monk says to Buddha that he thinks the Sangha is at least 50 percent of the teaching and Buddha says something along the lines of 'it's all of it'. Can anyone help me find this or is my memory faulty and that's not what was actually said?

Upaddha Sutta: Half (of the Holy Life)

  Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole
  of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends,
  companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the
  noble eightfold path.


What's Buddhism view on choice, choicelesness and causality? You see, there is only one constant, one universal, it is the only
  real truth: causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect. (...) Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without. (...)  Beneath our poised appearance, the truth is we are completely out of control. Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it.

  -- The Merovingian, The Matrix Reloaded

I've read/listened somewhere that the illusion of control and choice is a source of suffering. Does the Buddhist see it in a unyielding manner as the Merovingian?

Does different groups of Buddhism view this point differently?

EDIT:

Please complement your answers. Beyond the views on causality (deterministic or stochastic perception) how these views relate to suffering? Is there relation between suffering and how someone perceives choice? The misunderstanding of causality and control can produce suffering?

causality. Action. Reaction. Cause and effect

This is agreeable with Theravada Buddhism. This is dealt in dependent origination

  Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without

Not relevant. As there is no one with absolute power nor are we puppets to some external force.

Having said this. We do have some degree of choice in the present moment, which has some degree of influence on the future which hence some level of influence of the future.

  the truth is we are completely out of control

Do not aggree. We have some degree of control but not absolute control (Anatta nature, marks of existence), i.e., fuzzy, stochastic and complex.

  Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it.

Do not agree.

By understanding cause and effect (dependent origination) you can break out of this vicious circle and attain Nirvana. You are at Nirvana when you break the cycle of dependent origination, hence free from cause and effect.

Also cause and effect in Buddhism is more like:

Fuzzy
Stochastic
Complex System

Hence we not completely enslaved nor are we completely free from it. We have some degree of choice but not absolute choice. (Refer to marks of existence)

  Is there relation between suffering and how someone perceives choice?

Also any form of perception clouds your view of reality. So any perception regarding choice also results in misery as you are looking through coloured glass (See Moha and Avidyā in the 3 unwholesome roots).


Computer Feedback in Meditation Are there any meditation computer  feedback programs out there? Like Biofeedback.

What could they do? Allow a teacher much insight into a student? Allow a meditator to know when wandering is happening,  when subtle thinking is happening or to know when reality is seen directly or with concepts?

Would this be a helpful tool to be used all the time, only  sometimes or never?-(Perhaps because it creates a duality, it creates aversion, it's unnessasary, it's not in the Pali Canon or anything).

Biofeedback programs just take data such as heart rate, blood pressure, etc... and display them on a screen so that the person can see them. The underlying theory is that if a person can directly see what's going on, they would be better able to adjust themselves to slow them down.

Because these devices cannot directly access the mental activity of the meditator, I don't see how they could be of much use. Certainly if one is developing some form of calm abiding it might be useful to an absolute beginner, but once they start making progress, even stopping to check the machine readout would be comparatively distracting and would erode one's concentration.


Acceptance of impermanence as the right of passage to adulthood? My take on Buddha's teaching The Buddha encouraged us to find out for ourselves whether what he was saying was true.

I say the same. Feel free to find what is true for you.

The Buddha invented a rite of passage to adult age.

He said that we need to accept impermanence.

This makes us adult.

As long as we refuse impermanence, we are still children.

Impermanence is a polite word for failure, illness, decay, loss, death and all the **** life throws at us.

During the years 50s and 60s teenagers lived a rite of passage to adult age consisting in racing on the edge of a cliff, possibly to death (see film Rebel Without a Cause).

They thought that it's better to die than to live your entire life as a never-grown child.

Society abolished rites of passage to adult age.

Every time we accept impermanence we make our adult self-image stronger.

Every time we accept discomfort, failure, mistakes, illness, decay, suffering, pain, loss and death we make ourselves invincible.

The base of this rite is that what we accept helps us, what we refuse kills us.

This is a psychological law.

Every time we decide to accept impermanence we are Enlightened.

Impermanence is not the key here, acceptance is.

What do you think? What's the core of Buddha's teachings?

“Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’” --MN62


What are the Sutta stating Paramithä requirements to be a stream winner? I have heard, therefore I am yet to discover in Tipitaka, that to achieve certain stream winner stages, one needs to fulfill paramithä. Could you please give me the names of some sutta which I can read further on this (or the Tipitaka vagga / section).

Ten Paramithä
 1. Däna
 2. Sîla
 3. Nekkhamma
 4. Pañña
 5. Viriya
 6. Khanthi
 6. Sacca
 8. Adhitthana
 9. Mettha
10. Upekka

Thanks in advance!

Could you please give me the names of some sutta which I can read further on this

I think that SN 55.2 implies perfection of Sila.

People say that Dana parami is an essential beginning, for example here ...

  Giving (dana) is one of the essential preliminary steps of Buddhist practice.

... but I don't know a sutta where it's named as a characteristic of a stream winner.

I wonder where the talk about practicing paramithä came from. Have you encountered people or books that speak of requiring paramithä to become a stream winner?

There are a couple of talks on Access to Insight.

The Ten Perfections
A Treatise on the Paramis

I didn't find any (after only a brief search) on dharmafarer.org

My theory is that "perfection" isn't a doctrine which is talked about in the suttas.

The "Ten Perfections" for example starts by saying,

  Each path was defined as consisting of perfections (paramī) of character, but there was a question as to what those perfections were and how the paths differed from one another.

So I guess those doctrines (the doctrines about "perfections") were developed after the suttas.

The "Treatise" talks about the sequence in which they should be developed, and how to practice them and so on:

  Here "sequence" means sequence of teaching. This sequence is rooted in the order in which the paaramiis are initially undertaken, which in turn is rooted in the order in which they are investigated.

It finishes with:

  Their fruit is, in brief, the state of perfect Buddhahood.

The introduction says,

  The "requisites of enlightenment" are the paaramiis themselves, the main topic of the treatise. The word paaramii derives from parama, "supreme," and thus suggests the eminence of the qualities which must be fulfilled by a bodhisattva in the long course of his spiritual development.

So far as I know, when Theravada talks about the Four stages of enlightenment (starting with "stream winner") it's more usual to talk about the "fetters" which are overcome, rather than about "perfections".


In Vipassana, what's the difference between 1st and 2nd "knowledge of dissolution" (paṭhama- & dutiya- bhanga-ñāṇa) One of the main station of insight before stream entry is bhanga-ñāṇa. In some explanations this seems to be subdivided further into 1st (paṭhama) and 2nd (dutiya) bhanga-ñāṇa ("knowledge of dissolution"). What is the difference between them?

Bhanga-ñāṇa or "knowledge of dissolution" is the first major direct (nonconceptual) experience of Emptiness. Although every practitioner's experience is unique, there are some common themes that can help one recognize the milestones as they are passed. Here is one description of bhanga-ñāṇa by Patrick Kearney of buddhanet.net, a dharma teacher in the lineage of Mahasi Sayadaw:

  What happens next? The meditator’s awareness and concentration continues to develop. As a result, he now sees only the passing away of phenomena. It is as if his awareness is so fast, it is faster than the experiences he is examining, As soon as he places his attention on some aspect of his experience, it disappears. This is the knowledge of dissolution (bhanga-nana). In a weak aspect, this can take the form of the meditator apparently losing his concentration. It seems like he can no longer focus on anything; his attention keeps sliding off whatever he tries to look at. It can be lie trying to grasp something that slips out of your hand the moment you touch it. In a stronger aspect, it can be like falling into the black hole of Calcutta. Wherever you look, there is nothing - only blackness. The meditator is shocked, because he used to be able to focus on anything. Now, it seems, he can focus on nothing at all. All his good work has dissolved into nothing.

In reality, this and the following several stages are a very painful experience. It feels like losing your mind, so frustrating it is. You can't even focus on your frustration -- the moment you look at frustration, it slips right through your fingers. This is truly the very bottom of "the dark night of the soul". All preconceptions collapse. You really see the BS-ness, the emptiness of all mental formations. Up until this moment you were holding onto the hope that something must be real, but now your ego is exhausted and can no longer maintain yourself.

As for the distinction between the first and the second "knowledge of dissolution", when the thought-form you are "looking" at collapses, falls apart, and dissolves right in front of your "eyes" -- that's the first bhanga-ñāṇa, and when, in utter frustration and disbelief, you look at this "looking", and it itself collapses, falls apart, and dissolves -- that's the second bhanga-ñāṇa.

In case you don't believe my first-hand experience ;) here is an explanation by Ven. Sayadaw U Jotika in his "A Map of The Journey" (a transcript of a series of preparatory talks given prior to a meditation retreat held in Australia):

  At this stage, every time the meditator is meditating -- no matter what the object is, even the movement, (without paying attention to the shape anymore but to the sensation) - the meditator is aware of the sensation and the very fast passing away one after another very clearly. All the shapes and solidity disappears, which means that you don't pay attention to shape or solidity anymore. You pay attention only to sensations and their passing away very quickly.

  Seeing the object passing away very quickly is the first bhanga-ñāṇa, paṭhama-bhanga-ñāṇa. Seeing the wisdom passing away is the second bhanga-ñāṇa, dutiya-bhanga-ñāṇa. The two together make the bhanga-ñāṇa complete.

  In any insight there is the beginning and the maturity of insight. In the beginning you see the object passing away very quickly. When this becomes more mature, stronger, you see the passing away of consciousness, vipassana consciousness, and the wisdom also passing away together.

    You notice one thing, that passes away and
    that consciousness which is aware of
    that passing away also passes away.

  ...

  Because of seeing this passing away, passing away, continuously you feel
  that this process is dangerous; it is passing away so quickly you cannot rely on it. You cannot identify with it. You see that nobody can identify with
  this and hold on to it and rely on it. There is no reliance. There
  is nothing reliable in these mental and physical phenomena.

As interesting as it is to read about these things, my advice to all practitioners is to forget about these stages/levels and instead focus on your practice. In Buddhism, knowing stages does not help you get there. Buddhist experience cannot be contrived! Once every 5 years you might want to check yet another stages-of-the-path text, congratulate yourself on another achievement, confirm that your intuition was right again -- and then forget about stages for the next 5 years.


Should we "ignore" feelings while being mindful and aware of the present moment? When I am not judging any moments of life and taking it all in, should I give importance to feeling anything at all? I tend to get very rational and "accepting" about things. A feeling of letting go arises, which makes me feel very passive? It feels like there is no time for a feeling because we are losing the next moments by living inside a feeling, either positive/negative.

Also am I doing this right? Sometimes, it is like I am shutting that emotion up because I don't want to give in to a feeling. Why would I not want to give in to a feeling that makes sense at that point of time? That is mere repression.

Any thoughts on this?

Any experience you should be equanimously and objectively aware of perceiving (desirable, undesirable, neither) and sensation (pleasant, unpleasant and neutral) of the arising and passing or the sensation devoid of any craving or clinging while keeping though proliferation in check.

When you let go there is a feeling of renunciation with again is 3 types according to Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta. A house holder seeks sensual pleasure and is temporarily satisfied or unsatisfied by the experience by perceiving and desirable or undesirable or neither. When you renounce householders life you strive to stop this perceiving by understanding the universal characteristics of the experience (changing, unsatisfactory, non self). In this letting go there is a pleasure also whis is non sesual nature. See: Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Pañcak’aṇga Sutta, Bahu,vedaniya Sutta

There are 18 mental examination:

  (1) On seeing a form with the eye,
  one explores a form that gives rise to pleasure,
     one explores a form that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
        one explores a form that gives rise to equanimity.

  (2) On hearing a sound with the ear,
  one explores a sound that gives rise to pleasure,
     one explores a sound that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
        one explores a sound that gives rise to equanimity.

  (3) On smelling a smell with the nose,
  one explores a smell that gives rise to pleasure,
     one explores a smell that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
        one explores a smell that gives rise to equanimity.

  (4) On tasting a taste with the tongue,
  one explores a taste that gives rise to pleasure,
     one explores a taste that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
        one explores a taste that gives rise to equanimity.

  (5) On feeling a touch with the body,
  one explores a touch that gives rise to pleasure,
     one explores a touch that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
        one explores a touch that gives rise to equanimity.

  (6) On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,
  one explores a mind-object that gives rise to pleasure,
     one explores a mind-object that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
        one explores a mind-object that gives rise to equanimity.

  Thus there are six mental explorations with regards to pleasure; six mental explorations with regards to pain [displeasure]; six mental explorations with regards to equanimity.
  ‘The 18 kinds of mental explorations should be understood,’ thus it is said in this connection.

See: Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta, Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta

Where you have to examine the sensations hence you doing it right. This plays a role in removing the roots. See: Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2


Are the 16 stages of Insight mentioned by the Buddha in the early Pali texts or are they a later addition to the Dharma? I am reading Practical Insight Meditation: Basic and progressive stages by Mahasi Sayadaw. In the book he elaborates on the 16 stages of insight meditation as a kind of road map of what to expect. I was wondering if these stages are part of the Theravada tradition or an integral part of the Dharma canon.

The Seven Stages of Purification are summarised in the Visuddhimagga (The Path of Purification), a 5th century Theravada text (about 800 years after the Buddha lived).

  the seven visuddhis come from the Ratha-vinita Sutta (MN 24), and the sixteen stages of knowledge are found in the Patisambhidamagga. –  yuttadhammo

  This comparison between practice and "seven relay chariots" points at the goal. Each purity is needed to attain the next. They are often referred to as the "Seven Stages of Purification" (satta-visuddhi):[3]

Purification of Conduct (sīla-visuddhi)
Purification of Mind (citta-visuddhi)
Purification of View (ditthi-visuddhi)
Purification by Overcoming Doubt (kankha-vitarana-visuddhi)
Purification by Knowledge and Vision of What Is Path and Not Path (maggamagga-ñanadassana-visuddhi)
Purification by Knowledge and Vision of the Course of Practice (patipada-ñanadassana-visuddhi)
    Knowledge of contemplation of rise and fall (udayabbayanupassana-nana)
    Knowledge of contemplation of dissolution (bhanganupassana-nana)
    Knowledge of appearance as terror (bhayatupatthana-nana)
    Knowledge of contemplation of danger (adinavanupassana-nana)
    Knowledge of contemplation of dispassion (nibbidanupassana-nana)
    Knowledge of desire for deliverance (muncitukamyata-nana)
    Knowledge of contemplation of reflection (patisankhanupassana-nana)
    Knowledge of equanimity about formations (sankharupekka-nana)
    Conformity knowledge (anuloma-nana)
Purification by Knowledge and Vision (ñanadassana-visuddhi)
    Change of lineage
    The first path and fruit
    The second path and fruit
    The third path and fruit
    The fourth path and fruit

  The "Purification by Knowledge and Vision" is the culmination of the practice, in four stages leading to liberation and Nirvana.

  The emphasis in this system is on understanding the three marks of existence, dukkha, anatta, anicca. This emphasis is recognizable in the value that is given to vipassana over samatha, especially in the contemporary vipassana movement.