Is it true that Physics confirms some of the Buddha's teachings? I've heard it said that some observations in modern Physics effectively confirm some of the things the Buddha taught.

Is that true?
If so, could someone provide some examples?

This is dangerous ground, and liable to a lot of fluffy thinking, especially when referring to the area I like to call "Quackum Mechanics". But fluff aside, I think the notion is indeed true. And it's not a surprise since both Buddhism and Physics are trying to understand the nature of reality.

One example is in fact that very-prone-to-new-age-woo area of Quantum Mechanics. Staying clear of the woo, and although there's still a lot of debate over how to interpret the results, I don't think there's much if any debate over the idea that whatever reality is, it's not what it looks like.

Now until QM came along, that idea -- that the underlying cause of our experience cannot be said to be the same as the experiences it causes -- was respectable among philosophers and philosophically minded scientists which, back in the day was almost all scientists. After all, "Physics" was often called, until only very recently, "Natural Philosophy". But it wasn't at that point a "scientific" idea. It was metaphysics.

However, with the advent of QM, the double-slit experiment, entanglement, and so on, we now have scientific reasons to believe that idea, as well as philosophical/metaphysical ones. We now know, for example, that whatever an electron "is", it's not simply a wee ball whirling around a blob of slightly larger balls. Now some interpretations of QM would go even further and say that whatever an electron is, it's some function of a consciousness interacting with something else. In other words, that interpretation says that "reality" is not properly described as subject/object -- that is, reality is "non-dual".

So I'd consider all of that to be a confirmation of one aspect of the kind of metaphysics proposed by the Buddha. He claims to have experienced some aspect of these things -- the illusory nature of our experiences, and the non-duality -- that only now, 2,500 years later, our Western science is beginning to pick up on.

Now, again, caution is needed. I don't for a minute think that the Buddha knew about the double-slit result, or could work with Schrödinger's equation and so on. In understanding his position in this I'd use the analogy of selective breeding versus genetic engineering. The Buddha is like the expert cattleman who over years of selective breeding transforms wild animals into domesticated cows. But he may not know the full details of how he does what he does. Then, in that same analogy, the Physicist is like the modern gene expert who now understands in scientific detail what the cattleman had figured out in general by practical trial and error.


Splitting Up Meditation Time I'm wondering simply whether there is a difference between two thirty minute sits daily and an hour long sit daily? Which is more advantageous?

Thank you

The single, one hour sit.  The other option is far inferior.  There's some apocryphal story going around...I think Ajahn Brahm might have talked about it.  Or maybe it was Thich Nhat Hanh.  Essentially, imagine yourself sitting beside a forest pool.  You sit there in stillness, quietly.  At first, there's a horde of mosquitoes buzzing and biting.  But yet you remain motionless.  Eventually, they get bored with you and fly off to trouble, I don't know, a water buffalo or something.  Yet you remain, still and quiet.  Next, some sort of song bird lands in the tree next to you.  At first, he was a little shy.  You came in making all this booming racket and you scared the bejesus out of him.  But now that you've been quiet, he lands nearby and starts singing his song.  After a time, he leaves.  Next, a deer comes and starts drinking at that forest pool.  Deer are skittish and there is no bloody way this animal would have gotten within 50 yards of you in the state you were in when you first arrived at the pool.  The damn thing could feel your agitated energy from across the forest.  But now, as you sit still and quiet, he barely notices your presence.  And now you wonder...what other creatures are still waiting in the forest, undiscovered, that might emerge as you continue to sit, still and quiet?

This actually works in the woods, by the way.  If you've ever gone hunting, there is a spectrum of creatures that you will see dependent on how much of a disturbance you're making.  Once you pick your spot and sit down, it takes about a half hour for animals to start ignoring you.  The same goes for meditation.  The first thirty minutes is just a warm up.  Nothing interesting happens during that time.  The next 30 minutes, productive things start to occur.  But really, it's not until you've sat for 90+ minutes that the real meditation happens.


What is Enlightenment, according to Robert Wright? Robert Wright had a course about relations between Buddhism and modern psychology. I didn't have chance to watch the whole course, and I'm wondering how he sees enlightenment from that perspective. I hope I can get an answer from someone who attended the course or knows Robert Wright's take on enlightenment from other sources.

I took this course and my feeling is that Robert Wright is more into about asking questions rather than giving answers. At most he would give you potential answers, but it's up to you to decide for yourself what is "the answer".


What is the difference between fear and anxiety? I've always experienced a lot of anxiety. In many ways that was and remains a driving force in my practice. More recently I've experienced more fear. I feel fearful and under threat. They do feel different but I'm still working with them and will be for a long time. In terms of the Buddhist texts and psychology what is the difference between fear and anxiety? Are they spoken about as different things? Are there different Pali/Sankrit terms for them? Is there different ways of working with them?

In traditional Pali, fear is bhaya-bherava (lit. Fear-Panic), while anxiety is udhacca-kukucca (lit. Worry-Wrongdoing).

As I understand from the way these are used in suttas,

Fear is defined as an acute sense of danger. It is rather specific, like fear of something coming out of jungle and attacking you. Even if it is uncertain what exactly may happen when you sit in the middle of jungle, fear still has a very clear sense of directionality, there is no expectation that something good may happen, only bad -- otherwise it would not be fear.

Panic is defined as the accompanying sense of helplessness, or sense of our inability to deal with the object of fear.

(More about these two can be found in Dharmafarer's great analysis of Bhaya-Bherava-Sutta.)

While anxiety is defined as either a wavering remorse of something you should or should not have done (kukucca), or a wavering expectation of remorse you suspect you may experience in the future because you are not doing enough of something you feel you should be doing (udhacca). So unlike fear, anxiety involves wavering back-and-forth; there is an element of uncertainty in it. Also, the object of anxiety is yourself, your own acts, while the object of fear is external.

(More about anxiety is also available on Dharmafarer. See also one of my favorite suttas, Second Anuruddha Sutta.)

As explained by Buddha, the recommended way to deal with fear is by switching focus from obsessive waiting for the object of fear to appear, to getting ready to deal with it should that actually happen. While the recommended way to deal with anxiety is by developing one's wisdom, esp. understanding of Dharma, Three Marks of Existence, and (in Mahayana) by deepening one's realization of Emptiness.


Concentration's Meaning I've read a few answers and concluded that for most of these answers, concentration in meditation often implies unawareness of peripheral stimuli. This confuses me. I usually have wisps as thoughts rather than full blown thinking in meditation, but I don't particularly become unaware of my environment.

Is such an experience very advanced? More so, does unawareness imply literally not seeing/hearing/etc. or merely not being solicited by such distractions?

Finally, I'm wondering whether the diminution of thoughts in itself means little. Is attention placed upon the object consistently more important than thought reduction? For example, I can imagine attention being close to the object but thoughts (e.g. about the object) arising, but I can also imagine a thoughtless person's attention being fragmented, directed without focus. Is any of these more important?

Thank you

Concentration is a poor translation of samadhi. Samadhi means meditative state. And right samadhi is one with strong mindful awareness. Deep samadhi is a state of absorption into the meditation object.

There are also characteristic states of samadhi called jhanas which generally implies prominence of a particular mental quality (physical pleasure, mental joy, contentment and equanimity). However, the depth of each of these varies and are often debated between schools. This brings in the classification between commentarial jhanas (very deep states) vs sutta jhanas (just enough absorption to investigate phenomena).

Some schools prefer complete absorption as you imply in your question. Others, just enough absorption to have stable attention and plenty of awareness for insight practices. Certain suttas imply this sort of samadhi:

  Monks, secluded from sense pleasure... a monk enters and dwells in the first jhana. He steeps, drenches, fills and suffuses his body with the rapture and happiness born of seclusion, so that there is no part of his entire body that is not suffused with this rapture and happiness. Just as a skilled bath-attendant or his apprentice might strew bathing powder in a copper basin, sprinkle it again and again with water, and knead it together so that the mass of bathing soap would be pervaded, suffused, and saturated with moisture inside and out yet would not ooze moisture, so a monk steeps, drenches, fills and suffuses his body with the rapture and happiness born of seclusion, so that, there is no part of his entire body that is not suffused with this rapture and happiness born of seclusion. (D.i,74)

There are two ways we typically know the presence of thoughts (The Mind Illuminated by John Yates PhD et. al). Attention and awareness. You attention can be stably on the breath and you mindful awareness can see thoughts and distraction come and go. This shows maturity of practice and there is a sense of standing aback and watching the breath. Thoughts stop arising as you consistently ignore them. It's a learned behaivour (unification of the mind aka citta-ekagatta) where the mind system is together working on stabilizing attention and observing the meditation object. This is the required amount of samadhi per a lot of teachers to begin insight training as your mind is now a sharp sword that can cut through anything without getting caught up.

Further and more in depth discussion on this topic can be found here:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html
http://www.leighb.com/jhanas.htm

The bottom line though is that samadhi is a joyful, restful, alert and mindful state. It should ideally be nourishing and nurturing.


Mental Factor which Unites Other Factors If I think of the Noble Eightfold Path for example, or even the Abhidhamma traditions, I feel mental factors are clearly related, but noted as separate.

In sum, my question mainly is: What conditions cause mental factors/qualities to aggregate, i.e. lead to the development of others, and what conditions cause them to remain separate? Is there a unique condition (e.g. a mental factor) that unites others in the mind?

In non-Buddhist sources, strong pleasure as in addiction seems to channel the mind towards doing but one thing, to exclude in a way causing shame. But positive emotions such as joy tend to broaden one's perspective and capacity of action. A researcher on this says:

  But as the sun rises in the sky, things begin to change. Your blinders
  around your face begin to open and your world quite literally expands.
  You can see more. Your world is larger.

  Just as the warmth of sunlight opens flowers, the warmth of positivity
  opens our minds and hearts. It changes our visual perspective at a
  really basic level, along with our ability to see our common humanity
  with others.

Can this be related to this question?

Thank you

Your questions sounds somewhat similar to Visākha's question to the nun Dhammadinnā in MN44:

  “But ma’am, is that grasping the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates? Or is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another?”

  “That grasping is not the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates. Nor is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another. The desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates is the grasping there.”

In summary, desire and greed perpetuate the five grasping aggregates as identity. The dissolution of identity (your "condition that causes them to separate") is another one of visakha's questions later on in the sutta:

  “But ma’am, how does identity view not come about?”

  “It’s when an educated noble disciple has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen good persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the good persons. They don’t regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. They don’t regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how identity view does not come about.”


Tatramajjhattatā • Equanimity • In the middle of all that Friends, could anybody direct me to some suttas of the pâli canon about Tatramajjhattatā, the developed form of the equanimous abiding 'in the middle of all that'.
To the best of my knowledge, this specific mental factor is mentioned in the Abhiddhamma and the Visuddhimagga, but I was unable to find it referred to in the Pali Canon.

Many thanks for your much appreciated help, with Mettā

Upekkhā word is used in 10 contexts of suttanta with 10 meaning, which were analysed by sāriputta-aggasāvaka, then concluded to 4 sabhāva:

One refers to vedanā (upekkhā-feeling).
One refers to viriya (effort).
Two refer to paññā (understanding).
Six refer to tatramajjhattatā (equality/parity/counterbalance).

So, when sāriputta try to explain each upekkhā, he used the synonym words to explain them, like we saw in the dictionary, nowadays, such as in KN. Jūlaniddesa, Udayamāṇavakapañhāniddeso:

  [446]    Upekkhāsatisaṃsuddhanti   upekkhāti   yā   catutthajjhāne
  upekkhā   upekkhanā   ajjhupekkhanā   cittasamatho   cittappasādatā  majjhattatā   cittassa.

That is the original tatramajjhattatā in pāli cannon.

Why commentary concluded 10 meaning to 4 sabhāva?

Because of the main topic of each contexts, which each upekkhā word appearing. For the example in SN Mahāvagga, First Ānandasutta:

  [1393]   Yasmiṃ   samaye   ānanda   bhikkhu  tathā  samāhitaṃ  cittaṃ
  sādhukaṃ    ajjhupekkhitā    hoti   upekkhāsambojjhaṅgo   tasmiṃ   samaye
  bhikkhuno   āraddho   hoti   upekkhāsambojjhaṅgaṃ   tasmiṃ   samaye  bhikkhu
  Bhāveti   upekkhāsambojjhaṅgo   tasmiṃ   samaye  bhikkhuno  bhāvanāpāripūriṃ
  gacchati.

You can see sama-word and ajjhupekkhā-word, which appeared in Udayamāṇavakapañhāniddeso like tataramajjhupekkhā, explaining upekkhāsambojjhaṅgaṃ. So, commentary concluded them as the same type upekkhā, tattaramajjhupekkhā.


Losing interest in Samsara and transformation one undergoes when following Buddhism I have been reading books on Buddhism and contemplating on the Suttas. Lately the things which I was interested about like reading novels, watching movies, playing games and girls is losing its sheen. I am more inclined to just observe things happening around me. What is the process of transformation one undergoes when one is following Buddhism?

Being depressed and delusional are also normal. Being enlightened is what is not normal in the world. Becoming disappointed of sensual pleasures and wanting to figure out what is really going on around you is a good thing. It's a mild version of what prince Siddhartha felt before he left the lay life. It's called Nekkhamma Sankappa(a part of the right intention). But it will soon disappear and you will be defeated by sensual desires again, if you don't practice Samma Vayama(right effort) of the noble eight fold path.


List of Buddhist podcast recommendations This is in the spirit of this (previously requested) List of book recommendations

Books are wonderful for learning (and audio books are great travel partners/work listening), but I wondered if those of you who listen to podcasts could suggest a Buddhist podcast that serves your learning style.

Please include:

a link to it,
a few words about what it brings you (or a description, as you like)
If it is in a language other than English please mention it to help those who would prefer to listen in a language in which they are more fluent.

I would prefer only a list of the ones you like/recommend.

thank you

MODERATOR's MESSAGE: please post one podcast per answer, so people can vote for each podcast individually.

Ajahn Brahm - Based out of Australia. There are a few others that upload on the BSWA channel. The talks are very easy to follow. Ajahn Brahm is one of the more entertaining monks, as he brings comedy and jokes into his talks. What I personally enjoy about this channel is that the videos are labeled very well, so you can search for topics that you want to learn. Say you're having a difficult day and aren't positive you can search the channel for "staying positive" and there will be several videos on the subject.

Resources:

Meditation Videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ajahn+brahm+guided+meditation
Talks: https://www.youtube.com/user/BuddhistSocietyWA/search?query=Dhamma+Talk
Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6M_EhnSSdTG_SXUp6IAWmQ


Does meditation giving you 'joy' because there is lack of suffering, or does it give something positive? Let's say that the summon of meditation is enlightement or nirvana. It is supposed to be a good 'thing'. But is it good because there is no suffering any more, or did you get something instead of it that is good in itself?

Both. Meditation when done properly will allow one to abandon the Five Hindrances (greed, anger, sloth/torpor, restlessness, doubt); and give rise to the Five Jhana Factors where each factor counters a particular hindrance:

Applied Examination to counter sloth/torpor
Sustained Examination to counter doubt
Joy to counter anger
Happiness to counter restlessness
One-pointedness to counter greed.

It's important to notice that meditation alone will not lead one to nibbana. It's only 1 out of 8 limbs of the Noble Eightfold Path, which a practioner will need to train to perfection.


Cultivate wisdom or work on compassion? People are different and have different skills and personalities. My partner is for example very good at visualization, she is very patient and also a fabulous cook! But she’s also a bit lazy (her words!). I am impatient, lousy at visualization and not that good at cooking. But I’m very eager.

Enough of that ---

In general I'm very interested in the wisdom side of Buddhism. This is really joyful for me. Many other people I know is really a lot more into the compassion side. For me, working on wisdom is in itself compassion generating because seeing suffering makes me more compassionate (both towards myself and others). But I also hear people who are already more compassionate types than me say that it's so important to evolve their compassion more. They f.ex. say they do this by watching movies with a lot of tears dropping and sad stories in them (I sometimes feel watching movies with sad stories to produce compassion is evidence that they could work more on their wisdom side -- or their awareness).

Anyway, is the best practice for me to keep on working on the wisdom side and let compassion grow in it's own tempo or is it more recommendable to provoke compassion?

I don't remember which teacher or even which tradition I've heard this from, but I definitely remember some Buddhist teacher specifically advising to focus on "that sheep that fell far behind".

This wasn't about skills per se, he didn't mean we should keep picking up skills like skydiving, motocross, crocheting etc - and other such ones that we are "bad at". Rather in context of cultivating the Buddhist path, he advised us to focus on the most glaring neuroses we have that make us less universally capable in various life situations. Like, if someone is a very adequate person but, say, has awful social phobias (among a dozen other less troublesome weaknesses) - one should focus one practice on the worst or the strongest issue.

I guess the idea is that by focusing on biggest issue one at a time we can discover the deepest attachments/hangups and get the most benefit from uprooting them. Also, prioritizing it like this addresses the issue with bypassing or procrastinating work on one's serious obstacles to Enlightenment, while making seeming progress in less problematic areas of one's life.


Being called Buddhist I always wondered why do people that practice Buddhist practices, label or opt not to label themselves "Buddhist".

All labels are conventions & attachment to mental states of non-becoming can make the mind uncomfortable with conventions.

Also, the term 'Buddhist' is a stereotype, loaded with all kinds of worldly connotations, such as believing in the Dalai Lama, reincarnation, statues, etc.

Those people might be more comfortable if asked: "Do you practise the teachings (path) of the Buddha?".


Need help understanding this about the jhanas I am reading
 "A Critical Analysis Of The Jhanas"

And it's talking about the way to reach the first jhana. This passage below.

  Block quote
  The Pa:isambhidāmagga explains them as follows:
  For one developing the first jhāna, the hindrances are abandoned by way of
  suppression. For one developing concentration partaking of penetration,
  wrong views are abandoned by way of substitution of opposites. For one
  developing the supramundane path that leads to their destruction,
  (defilements) are abandoned by way of cutting off. At the moment of fruition
  they are abandoned by way of tranquillization. And abandoning by deliverance
  is nibbāna, cessation.2
   (Wr. tr.).
  `

The question is, isn't the first jhanas all about concentration? So why did it say if you want to reach the first jhana you must partake in abandonment by suppression, and to reach concentration you must abandoned by way of substitution of opposites. Isn't it all dedicated to concentration?

I think this passage is addressing something that's more explicitly stated elsewhere.  In the Jhana Sutta (AN 9.36), for example, we find:

  secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, [he] enters &
  remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion,
  accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.

The operative word here, of course, is "secluded".  Vitaka and vicara (i.e. concentration) only come into the equation once rapture and pleasure are born of that seclusion.  Piti and sukkha help to calm, gladden, and focus the mind allowing concentration to strengthen in to full jhana.

So of course, this begs the question of how one finds that seclusion.  There are some who are lucky and can just shut the door on their negative and unwholesome states.  Other have to win their seclusion through other methods like suppression and substitution of opposites.  I think the latter group is who your quoted passage is addressing.


What kind of births are recognized in Buddhism? There are different kinds of birth in Buddhism, depending on what realm one is reborn in.

What are these kinds of birth?

In the Theravada Abhidhamma, four different kinds of birth are recognized1, namely:

egg-born beings (Aṇḍaja), such as birds, fish and reptiles.
womb-born beings (Jalābuja), such as mammals. Egg-born beings are also included in this category.
moisture-born beings (Saṃsedaja), includes certain lowly forms of animals, such as worms.
spontaneously-born beings (Opapatika), such as petas and devas. These beings are generally invisible to the physical eye.

1  Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Ch. 5: "Compendium of Matter", p. 256, by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi


Circular thoughts and their antidote Did the Buddha give specific advice around circular thought patterns and perhaps an antidote.
I'm aware that there is a lot around mental proliferation but this seems more general.
Many Thanks

This is called Vitakka and Vicara in Buddhism in general.
Antidote for Vitakka and Vicara is discussed in Vitakkasantanasutta.
"When a monk is intent on the heightened mind, there are five themes he should attend to at the appropriate times. Which five?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html


How do you have a relationship Buddhism has made me realise that everything is impermanent and undergoing the process of destruction including intimate relationships however if I know this then why is it still so painful when it happens? And what is the point of trying to build a life together with another person when it's inevitably going to end? Sometimes it all feels like such a cruel joke. I was in a relationship for 15 years and never thought it would end but it did and 6 months later I still feel so sad. I don't want to ever get involved intimately with another person ever again because I don't ever want to go through that pain again. Yes this may be aversion to pain but why put yourself through that if you can avoid it? Sure there will be more pain from other things but the pain of separation from a loved one feels worse than a death. It actually feels like I could die.

Nyom Arturia,

Ajahn Chah once explained well how to have a relation, here in a simile of a glass:

  The Broken Glass

  You may say, "Don't break my glass!" But you can't prevent something breakable from breaking. If it doesn't break now, it'll break later on. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't break it, one of the chickens will! The Buddha says to accept this. He penetrated all the way to seeing that this glass is already broken. This glass that isn't broken, he has us know as already broken. Whenever you pick up the glass, put water in it, drink from it, and put it down, he tells you to see that it's already broken. Understand? The Buddha's understanding was like this. He saw the broken glass in the unbroken one. Whenever its conditions run out, it'll break. Develop this attitude. Use the glass; look after it. Then one day it slips out of your hand: "Smash!" No problem. Why no problem? Because you saw it as broken before it broke. See?

  But usually people say, "I've taken such good care of this glass. Don't ever let it break." Later on the dog breaks it, and you hate the dog. If your child breaks it, you hate him, too. You hate whoever breaks it — because you've dammed yourself up so that the water can't flow. You've made a dam without a spillway. The only thing the dam can do is burst, right? When you make a dam, you have to make a spillway, too. When the water rises up to a certain level, it can flow off safely to the side. When it's full to the brim, it can flow out the spillway. You need to have a spillway like this. Seeing inconstancy is the Buddha's spillway. When you see things this way, you can be at peace. That's the practice of the Dhamma.

That's the case how to possible think if having or losing a relation.

The other case is the sub-question:

  And what is the point of trying to build a life together with another person when it's inevitably going to end? Sometimes it all feels like such a cruel joke.

Realization that becoming is actually a "curel joke" is a very high realization and if seen in all compound things the reason for earnest seeking a path out, blessed if having come to the Buddhas good teachings. This is meeting up with the reality of Dukkha.

So in regard of search, what will be for a long time benefit?
That search it self is bound to much suffering as well, is clear, but if not having a search is needed and there are three kinds:

  Iti 54

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these three searches. Which three? The search for sensuality, the search for becoming, the search for a holy life. These are the three searches."

  Centered,

  mindful,

  alert,

  the Awakened One's

  disciple

  discerns searches,

  how searches come into play,

  where they cease,

  & the path to their ending.

  With the ending of searches, a monk

  free of want

  is totally unbound.

Search for a partner is nothing but about searching after sensuallity, maybe becoming, isn't it? Of course after a career even more... so just give it a deeper thought and maybe use you luck of independency you currently have for a more holly life to be.

At the End it's maybe worthy to say, that also searching for a relation to be able to live the holly life is actually nessesary, so admirable friend(s) are always worthy to seach for and also to invest much in such a relationship, even of course it will outardly break, but once being part of the other kind, no and never alone and without support till standing firm alone.

Mudita

(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commerzial purpose or other worldily gains)


"Kundalini" experiences during meditation Can anyone advise on experiences of "kundalini" (energy rushing up the spine and out the crown of the head) during meditation?  I have experienced this for years and am wondering if it has an understanding/meaning in the Theravada tradition.  The energy has a physical effect (jolting the body) and a mental one (like temporarily cleaning out the conscious mind).  Thank you greatly.

I've experienced this myself on a number of occasions though I never heard it called kundalini. Sometimes the experience has been exactly as you describe it. Sometimes it's a tingling feeling all over the body. Sometimes it feels like electric jolts. Sometimes the jolts manifest in physical movement.

I was advised that this was probably a manifestation of piti (rapture). This would be in the context of the rupa-jhana factors going from

applied thought (vitakka)
sustained thought (vicāra)
joy/rapture/happiness (pīti)
happiness/pleasure/bliss (sukha)
equanimity (upekkhā)
one-pointedness (ekaggatā)

So you could expect this to be proceeded by strengthening concentration and perhaps develop into a calmer more pleasurable state (sukka). Here is a further breakdown of piti which again feels familiar to me. Yours might fit into the last two classification - exalting and fulfilling rapture.

From conversations I had with other people the exact manifestations of these very much depend on the type of person. I'm more the anxious, type A type of person so I feel a lot of energy. I often feel it trapped in me then it comes out in great surges. Other people never feel this.

I think the important thing with these kind of experiences is not to get attached to them and not to pursue them. They are as they are and they come and go. In the experience themselves there is no insight nor is there lasting benefit. Like everything these things are ultimately impermanent and unsatisfactory.


How vipassana is useful for removing fear from myself? I am doing Vipasana from one year and I  feel it is beneficial for me but in spite of these a lot of fear surrounded me,fear of feature,fear of past a lot of fear surrounded me,fear of seniors.How can I handle these fears with Vipasana meditation.Please guide me.

From what I understand, what we feel as fear is a reaction when the self is in danger of losing something or itself. For example fear of losing reputation in social situations, fear of death.

This thing we call I or self is because of wrong identifications. We are identified wrongly with our body, our mind, our car, our house, our job. If you really think about it, you will see these things are not "I". You are not the job or the bank balance or the body. Please understand this clearly because that is what Vipassana meditation is trying to tell you.

If you observe your thoughts, which come up and go away, arising and passing away, your body is also the same. It is there for a brief period after which it is gone. Your car will get old and stop working. Your job may change or it may be gone tomorrow. Of course you must cherish it while it is there, but you must not get entangled with it or identify with it. Today it is there, but tomorrow it may not be there. Everything is "mortal". You are not immortal, nothing is.

Fear is coming up because you are afraid of something that you think you will lose. If you realize that this body or thoughts or job or car is temporary and may go away anytime, you will find your fear reducing. Because there is truly nothing to lose.


Is the principle of rebirth falsifiable? When the Buddha searched for truth in the world he used a method of empiricism. Empiricism is the precursor for modern science and although I believe that rebirth can be verified empirically I am not certain that is qualifies as a scientific theory.

The exact theory I am referring to is that rebirth is a mental process which occurs during our life and continues after physical death.

Although I do not think that rebirth is contrary to scientific evidence I do wonder if it is a theory which can be considered scientific. One requirement for theories in modern science is that they are falsifiable which means that if they are wrong then we can show that they are wrong.

Usually theories predict things and we can test if those predictions are false, however, I cannot think of any predictions which can be tested in this life.

This is assuming that one has a very still mind and can observe fundamental processes. I understand that this is related to the twelve nidanas and the stages when clinging leads to becoming which leads to birth. Is it possible for somebody to know what they should be seeing here before they see it?

In order to try and relate how the process of rebirth is falsifiable and therefore try and relate the concept to science, I will have to establish a number of ideas/theories before I can directly try and relate it to science, so I'll have a bunch of definitions or excerpts from sutras and then I'll try and relate it all together, so the beginning of my question may be just listing a bunch of theories which will later be brought together.

The process of "rebirth," as I understand it, doesn't allow for one to remember a past life or past life experiences. It is important to make the distinction between the physical Buddha (Shakyamuni himself) and, what is in essence, the "life force" of the Buddha. Shakyamuni himself wasn't able to see his past lives or remember past experiences from before he was born. What he was able to do, and this is what his fifth transcendental power of being able to see past lives is, is understand his "life force" and perceive the nature of his life, which he had in his previous lives. It is from this concept that karma/karmic chains and other such related ideas come from. To support this affirmation, in the Lotus Sutra, chapter 16 (The Life-span of the Thus-come One), when Shakyamuni Buddha is addressing an assembly of nearly all of his followers, he says:

  "You must listen carefully and hear of the Thus Come One’s secret and his transcendental powers. In all the worlds the heavenly and human beings and asuras all believe that the present Shakyamuni Buddha, after leaving the palace of the Shakyas, seated himself in the place of
  practice not far from the city of Gaya and there attained annuttara-samyak-sambodhi. But good men, it has been immeasurable, boundless hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, millions of nayutas of kalpas since
  I in fact attained Buddhahood.... in truth the time since I attained Buddhahood is extremely long (1)".

Shakyamuni here is saying that there was no start to his "existence" or life force in it of itself. Basically, he is saying that his, and everyone else's life force has existed from "the infinite past" and will continue to exist throughout. What is important to know is that one's life force isn't life in the standard sense, but is intrinsically existing as a function of the universe regardless of whether there is life. Life is more the manifestation of one's life force.

Also in the Lotus Sutra, in chapter 14 (Peaceful Practices), Shakyamuni states,

  "All phenomena are empty, without being, without any constant abiding, without arising or extinction.... phenomena exist, do not exist, are real, are not real, are born, are not born.... Look upon all phenomena as having no existence, like empty space, as without firmness or hardness, not born, not emerging, not moving, not regressing, constantly abiding in a single aspect (1)".

Here, Shakyamuni is saying that the true aspect of all phenomena is that it has no existence. Another way to say this is that causes don't have intrinsic implications; only effects do. It also is to say that, whatever happens, that doesn't mean anything other than that that happened; how one reacts is all that matters. Here one can see how Shakyamuni's statments of the true aspect of all phenomena can be easily applied to our day-to-day lives, so the next logical step is to have a system of, in essence, figuring out which different effects one can create from any phenomena. This leads us into the next philosophical idea.

The 3000 Realms is an philosophical theory developed by T'ien-T'ai, a Chinese buddhist philosopher. It is to say that the, "entire phenomenal world exists within a single moment of life (2)". The realms themselves are used as a way to "categorize" the phenomenal world. Below is a chart explaining how he came up with 3000 realms:

 (2)

The Ten Worlds (or Ten Spiritual Realms) are basically thought to be the full spectrum of one's life condition, which comes from ones life force (i.e. how one feels). I'm not entirely sure where the concept of the ten worlds comes from, although I believe it is a relatively universall concept, at least within Mahayana Buddhism.

In short, however one feels can be represented as one of the "Ten Worlds", or "Spiritual Realms". The part of the chart which lists it as "The Ten Worlds and Their Mutual Possession" is referring to the fact that T'ien-T'ai considers the ten worlds to exist within each other. That is to mean that, even in the realm of hell, one can exist in a realm of buddhahood. An example from history of this concept would be of Martin Luther-King Jr.. He led the civil rights movement in America for some time and did so peacefully and, as far as I know, ethically too. One may say that he often times existed in one of the upper worlds like Buddhahood or Bodhisattva (I don't know the Ten Worlds well enough to be able to say with much confidence which particular world he was in while he was working for Civil Rights). Anyhow, while he was doing that though, he was angry because of the injustice of how he and other people were being treated and that motivated him. However, the important distinction to be made is that, although he was angry, he didn't act violently, he still thought and acted like one who was in one of the higher worlds would act. The inclusive world which he often dwelled in was Anger, even though he was in one of the higher worlds nonetheless.

Another important aspect of the Ten Worlds is that the entirety of them exist intrinsically within us at all times and one can, moment-to-moment, move from one world to the next- either up or down. That is to say that, at all times, for all people without exception, the World of Hell exists within us, but so does Buddhahood.

--

The next part of The 3000 Realms is The Ten Factors. This theory too comes from the Lotus Sutra in the second chapter (Expedient Means) and is expounded by Shakyamuni to Shariputra and goes as follows:

  "Shariputra, to sum it up: The buddhas have fully realized the law that is limitless, boundless, never attained before.... The true aspect of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between buddhas. This reality consists of appearance, nature, entity, power, influence, internal cause, external cause, latent effect, manifest effect, and their consistency from beginning to end (1)".

I personally have a hard time explaining The Ten Factors and so I'll also add a link that describes The Ten Factors (3) more clearly. To the best of my understanding, The Ten Worlds are how we feel emotionally, and the Ten Factors are how we project ourselves upon the world and how these two concepts interact with each other.

--

The final part of The Three Thousand Realms is called, "The Three Realms". I know the least about this part of the Realms, and so my explanation for it probably wouldn't be complete, but there are many websites which I think would be able to better explain them. Everything that I would be able to say about them is addressed in the image I added above, so I'll stop here.

--

What is important to know about The 3000 Realms as a whole is that they describe all of the possible effects within a single moment of life. It also means that everything is subjective - in terms of point-of-view - and that all things are equal.

The reason that I have included the concept of The 3000 realms is because it shows that not just Shakyamuni has a life force, and also that one's enlightenment (world of Buddhahood) intrinsically exists within one's self (as well as every other realm).

All perspectives are equal because anything that we perceive is a perception of a phenomena and all phenomena are "empty", as stated above, thus meaning that everyone's perceptions are equal.

This would mean that, if one can prove that all perspectives are equal, one can prove the principle of rebirth to be falsifiable because: If all perspectives are equal, because all phenomena are empty because there is nothing to perceive, all that is left to exist is our life force. Because our life force isn't constrained by any phenomena (e.g. birth and death), it exists for eternity neither beginning nor ending. One however, can not say that life simply doesn't exist, because as Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." This would leave the only option left being that "rebirth" exists, because our physical selves are bound by physical limitations and phenomena, things will be born and will die. However, since our life force is eternal, and not really "alive" in the sense that living is usually implied with, when we are physically living we embody that life force just as how, when there is matter, there will be gravity. Our life force is eternal, however, we, as living beings, are not, and so we will forever be born and die, but whenever we are born, we embody our life force. This is what reincarnation is.

What is left to do is then prove that all perspectives are equal. For that one must look at Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I don't understand this concept in its entirety, but I do know that it says that, if there is a person who isn't moving, time will be faster for him or her than it is for someone who is moving. This has been scientifically proven to happen. Time wouldn't change for certain people (or anything for that matter), if someone's perspective could be deemed invalid. It is because everyone's perspective is equal, that time itself changes when something moves.

I hope this answers your question. I know that some of my explanation may be a bit murky or unclear, so I would be happy to try and clear up anything.

Works Cited:

1) The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2009. 57-267. Print.

2) "Three Thousand Realms in a Single Moment of Life." Soka Gakkai International Buddhism in Action for Peace. Soka Gakkai International, Apr. 2012. Web. 6 Aug. 2016. http://www.sgi.org/about-us/buddhism-in-daily-life/three-thousand-realms-in-a-single-moment-of-life.html.

3)"Ten Factors." Soka Gakkai International Buddhism in Action for Peace. Soka Gakkai International, Oct. 2000. Web. 6 Aug. 2016. http://www.sgi.org/about-us/buddhism-in-daily-life/ten-factors.html.


Does anybody knows origin and reference Buddha teaches a bossy & angry the seven kinds of wifes ... in letting her chose which kind she would like to be?
Valued Upasaka, Upasika,
Dear seekers for the way to Awakening and Readers,
Atma (polite addressing of the own person toward householders, where Atma dwells) has started the transcribtion and translation of a very seldom teaching in modern and western world in regard of the Maha Manala Sutta by Ven. K. Gunaratana Thera, still not finished. Most stories are taken from the Jataka, some references already found. In redard of "To Look After Feed And Take Care Of The Wife And Children Is Most Blissful/highest protection" it contains a story that goes this:

Sujata, the sister of Visakha Maha Upasika, married the son of Anata Pindika. She was not only wealthy but was also charming. In the home of Anata Pindika she became disagreeable to almost every member of the family and to the servants as well. She was very quarrelsome and had her own say mostly because of her conceit.
One day Anata Pindika offered food to the Lord Buddha and his Bhikkhus and during the meal, she made a commotion in the household. The Lord Buddha,knowing the nature of the woman enquired about her dispute, which disrupted the peace of the home. The Lord Buddha then asked her, “There are seven classes of wives; have you any knowledge to which class you belong?” She replied that she did not know. The Lord Buddha said, “A wife not in any way agreeable but finding every chance to quarrel with her husband or members of his family, is a quarrelsome wife. A wife whose outlook in life is bent on squandering away the fortune of her husband in gambling or drinking, is a thievish wife, a wife who takes good advantage of the kindness of her husband, adopts a superior outlook in a manner so as to gain control over him in any matter concerning his family or his outside activities, is a
domineering wife; but when a wife looks after her husband’s interest with tender care and devotion like a mother over her child, this kind of wife is a motherly one; again a wife who by nature is obedient and shy like a sister to a brothers belongs to a sisterly type; and a wife who shares in like manner the happiness of misfortune of her husband is at once a friendly one; finally a wife who lives in tolerance of the whims and dislikes of her husband and serves him faithfully throughout, is a servantly type.
In the light of the truth Sujata gained the realization of the fruits of the First Path (Sotapatti).
Continuing the sermon, the Lord Buddha remarked that among the first three classes of wives, their existence after death would be in a hellish state, suffering untold pain in the unconsuming fire or
tortment. The remaining four classes of wives would enjoy even in their present lives, the store of
happiness and after death, their existence would be in a continued state of bliss in the realm of heaven.

Does anybody know the reference in the Suttapitaka (thinking Atma came accross one time there)?
Does anybody know which Ven. K. Gunaratana Thera wrote this book and some infos, biography and picture of him? Maybe even contact possibility, if still alive?
If inspired and knowing also the references of other stories in the book, willing to research them, feel invited to take on this possibility.

(If somebody feels inspired to help prove reading and/or translating further, one should feel welcome to take this possibility. Topic as well as sources can be found here: Mangala Sutta Uannana - Ven. K. Gunaratana Thera(draft)
(Note, this question and content is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commerzial use or other purpose of wordily gains.)

Atta feels inspired to help translating further this sutta Atma is searching for. Below are seven translations of the seven wives sutta:

1.සුජාතඝර සුණ්හා සූත්‍රය

2.妻子經

3.Жёны

4.Các Người Vợ

5.ภริยาสูตร

6.Az erőd

7.Istri-Istri

With metta

Householder # 3,454,845,812


What are the broad categories of the different types of meditation? I have heard that there is insight meditation (mostly as part of practicing Buddhism) and Samantha (which involves Buddhism, but really just as a tool in the beginning of a meditation).

This question springs from a question below and reading this answer about (Samantha) Anapanasati:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/9185/8475

Ultimately, I believe that the answers about meditation for this question are inadequate. I may be alone here, but the current answers do not specify a practical technique for meditation (assuming that mindfulness is a subcomponent). Categorizing the different types of meditation may help in for these underlying reasons:

Best type of meditation for attention
Technique for Concentrative Meditation
What exactly differentiates Vipassana from Samatha meditation?

Lastly, I intent to make a venn diagram showing the similarities and such...
Here are related questions:

Does Zen distinguish between concentration and insight meditation?
Buddha's advice regarding meditation practice

THE BROADER CATEGORIES ARE MENTIONED WITHIN SOME OF THE TYPES OF MEDITATIONS LISTED BELOW, and ALSO IS LISTED HERE:

Reflective meditation

There are a series of meditations that can put you in the right frame of mind.  The guardian meditations are one tool to reduce the power of the hindrances.

Buddhanussati  (reflection on the qualities of the Buddha)
The first guardian meditation is recollection of the Buddha, keeping in mind his Awakening. It is the reflection on the nine supreme qualities of the Buddha.
Metta (Loving Kindness Meditation)
The second guardian meditation is goodwill.  If one is friendly to oneself, that person will not harm himself/herself. If a person is friendly to others, that person would not harm others’ lives. Therefore, the friendship that brings good to oneself and others is called Mettā.
Asubha (Meditation on loathsomeness)
The third guardian meditation - Here one reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.'
Maranasati (Meditation on the recollection of death)
The fourth guardian meditation - “Mindfulness of death, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit, culminating in the deathless, having the deathless as its consummation.” – Anguttara Nikaya 8.7

There are 10 Anussati meditations - 8 reflections and 2 on mindfulness.  Anussati means repeated reflection or constant awareness or mindfulness on some object.

Dhammanussati (reflection on the qualities of the Dhamma)
. The second of the 10 is Reflecting on the virtues of the Dhamma (Dhammanussati). It is the reflection on the six supreme qualities of the Teaching of the Buddha.
Sanghanussati (reflection on the qualities of the Sangha)
The third of the 10 is the Sangha is the third of the Three Jewels in Buddhism. It is the reflection on the supreme qualities of the ideal community of Noble Ones (ariya-sangha) — those monks, nuns, laywomen, and laymen who, throughout history, have by their own diligent efforts successfully carried out the Buddha's instructions and gained at least a glimpse of the supreme happiness of nibbana.
Silanussati (meditation about virtue)
The fourth of the 10 is is the recollection of one's own moral virtue.
Devatanussati (meditation about heavenly beings)
This is the fifth of the 10 is this. We should cultivate the Sēkha Bala Dhamma – Saddhā (faith), Sīla (virtue), Sutha (Dhamma knowledge), Thyāga (generosity), and Paññā (wisdom of the Dhamma) – at this present time. These are qualities that are found in the Devas. If you develop them, then there is divinity within you.
Chaganussati (meditation about generosity)
The sixth of the 10 is Chaganussati. - Reflecting on Giving (dana) is one of the integral parts of the practice of Dhamma. When practiced in itself, it is a basis of merit or wholesome kamma, but only when combined with morality, concentration and insight, will it lead to liberation from samsara, the cycle of repeated existence. So it is of the recollection of one's own generosity.
Reflecting on the peace in Nibbana (Upasamanussati)
The 'recollection of the peace of Nibbana', is the last of the 10 recollections anussati.

3.

Karuna (Compassion meditation)
The way to cultivate Karunā meditation - the second of Four Divine Abodes… May I be free of bodily pains… May I be free of mental pains… May I be physically healthy… May I be mentally healthy… May I live well and happy… I and … (Karunhā meditation can be cultivated in Mahaggata Chētō Vimukkti and Appamānha Chētō Vimukkti methods similar to the Mettā and Mudita meditations.)
Mudita ( Altruistic-joy meditation)
Loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity are known as “the Four Divine Abodes (satara brahma viharanha)”.  The third of the group is the cultivation of Muditā to get rid of discontent about wholesome actions… The happiness we feel about others’ progress/wellbeing is Muditā. One can thrive with money, lands, vehicles, and so on by earnest and righteous livelihoods. If we can be happy by seeing such development of others without getting angry about it, it is Muditā. The Buddha preached to cultivate Muditā to get rid of discontent (aratiya) about wholesome actions.
Upekkha (Equanimity meditation)
This is the last of the four. We do this in order to not get upset from the eight vicissitudes of life.  One who practices equanimity will not mourn when sufferings, troubles find that person. He will not get excited when pleasure, happiness find him. He/she will feel all with an indifferent mentality. What we all have to face is the eight vicissitudes of life (ata lō dahama). One shall cultivate equanimity in order to not to worry or sorrow from the eight vicissitudes of life.

4.

Nava Sivatika (Nine cemetery contemplations)
The last exercise in mindfulness of the body is a series of "cemetery meditations," contemplations of the body's disintegration after death, which may be performed either imaginatively, with the aid of pictures, or through direct confrontation with a corpse. By any of these means one obtains a clear mental image of a decomposing body, then applies the process to one's own body, considering: "This body, now so full of life, has the same nature and is subject to the same fate. It cannot escape death, cannot escape disintegration, but must eventually die and decompose."

5.

Cittanupassana (Contemplation of the mind)
Cittanupassana-satipatthana means mindfulness which is firmly established on thoughts or mental processes, such as thoughts associated with the passions or dissociated from the passions.

6.

Dhammanupassana (Contemplation of mental objects or thoughts)
Dhammanupassana-satipatthana means mindfulness which is firmly established on phenomena such as nivarana (hindrances), etc.

Mindfulness

Kayanupassana (Contemplation of the body)
This is the first of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness.  Buddha's advice is to look at the body, as it is, neither getting attached nor developing aversion towards it. The Buddha's advice is to observe and analyze it without being biased by any views or prejudices and to develop mindfulness. Within the first major section on mindfulness of body there are five meditation methods.
(1) mindfulness of breathing (anapanasati)
(2) Satisampajaññya (awareness) meditation in Satara Satipatthana
(3) mindfulness of postures (iriyapatha)
(4) refelection on internal and external impurities and other vital parts (kunapa)
(5) analysis of four elements (dathu)
(6) reflection on nine stages of a dead body (nava seevaththika)

Concentrative

Mindfulness of Breathing (Anapanasati)
The Buddha explained to Venerable Ananda, “This one factor is Anapanasati, which when developed and pursued brings the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Cattaro Satipatthana) to completion. The Four Foundations of Mindfulness, when developed and pursued bring the Seven Factors of Enlightenment to completion. The Seven Factors of Enlightenment, when developed and pursued bring Clear Knowing and Release to completion.” in the Ananda Sutta.
Iriya patha (Meditation on postures of the body)**
The postures of the body can be good subjects leading to the proper establishment of concentration. Here one attempts to be mindful of walking, standing, sitting, lying, bending, stretching, eating, drinking, chewing, savouring, defecating and urinating.

Uncategorized

Dhathu Manasikara (analysis of four elements)
It is the meditation of the four physical elements (dhatu) of nature: Earth, Water, Fire and Wind (pathavi, apo, tejo, and vayo) as Elements of solidity, fluidity, heat and motion.

Combinations

sati sampajanna

The Pali word for alertness is sampajañña. It doesn’t mean being choicelessly aware of the present, or comprehending the present. Sampajañña means being aware of what you’re doing in the movements of the body, the movements in the mind. This is why mindfulness and alertness should always be paired.


Why is samghabedabastu section of the mulasarvastavadin monastic code not published in any language besides it's original language? Why is samghabedabastu section of the mulasarvastavadin monastic code not published in any language besides it's original language?

Today the widely accepted definition of the term “Sangha Bedha” is division among bhikkhus. All Buddhist sects would rather hold on to this erroneous interpretation of the term “Sangha Bedha”, as the true meaning of it is not in the best interests, or even worse – it is anathema to them. What is meant by “Sangha Bedha” is described in at least six suttas in the Pali Canon.

Patama Ananda Sutta and Sangha Bedha Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya describes what this Anantariya Kamma – the last of the five heinous acts (Kammas) – mean. If you read through the Suttas, this is what is said:

The Buddha condemned schism in strong terms, saying that a person who starts or joins a schism in a Community knowing or suspecting that he is not on the side of the Dhamma and Vinaya, is destined to be boiled for an aeon in hell (AN V.129; Cv.VII.5.3-4).

Buddha’s instruction is to look into the matter and to side with the faction on the side of the Dhamma. The Buddha does not advocate superficial unity for its own sake at the expense of the Dhamma, but instead encourages that the Dhamma be clearly defended against non-Dhamma and that the distinction between the two be kept clear.

When a bhikkhu has learned that a dispute has led to a schism and he wants to get involved, he is to side with whichever faction sides with the Dhamma. According to Mv.X.5.4, a speaker of non-Dhamma is to be recognized as such if he “explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …

Thus the ability to take sides requires that one be well-informed about the Buddha’s teachings. A schism can be rightfully ended only if both sides are able to investigate the grounds (i.e., the point of dispute around which the schism crystallized), get to the root (the mind-states motivating the schism — see Cv.IV.14.3-4), and then resolve which side was right, based on the Dhamma and Vinaya.

There are cases where bhikkhus have started or joined a schism rooted in corrupted intent, knowing or suspecting that their views and actions deviate from the Dhamma-Vinaya. Those who joined the schismatic faction through ignorance should be won over to the Dhamma side by explaining the true Dhamma-Vinaya to them.

Ven. Sāriputta: “How am I to behave with regard to these (schismatic) bhikkhus?”
The Buddha: “In that case, Sāriputta, take your stance in line with the Dhamma.”
Ven. Sāriputta: “And how should I know what is Dhamma and what is not-Dhamma?” — Mv.X.5.3

The Buddha: “There are these eighteen grounds by which a speaker of not-Dhamma is to be known. He explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …


Mindfulness of brain -- references? I am looking for references to any (obviously modern) practices that might be described as "mindfulness of brain" or "meditation on brain" -- using the brain, part of the brain or nervous system, or any neuroscience concept as a meditation object or theme. An example might be using Daniel Goleman's idea of "amygdala hijack" for meditation on fear or other problematic emotions -- thinking about the amygdala during meditation or even trying to visualize it.

This might include subtle body techniques (chakras, channels, winds, etc) that make explicit reference to brain or neuroscience concepts (which would be highly speculative, scientifically speaking, but that’s ok for my purposes).

I am seeking references to established teachers or meditation systems or programs -- online or in books or papers -- not just ideas about how to do it, or the pros and cons of the notion. I'm also not seeking programs -- which abound -- that talk conceptually about brain or neuroscience but don't integrate that material into specific meditation material or themes.

addendum -- 2/28

As I said, I am not looking to discuss pros and cons of "mindfulness of brain". I just want to know if anybody is even attempting it. This is a small part of a larger research project on the consequences of current neuroscience for Buddhadharma. In fact, if nobody is doing it, that would confirm a hypothesis. But there are a lot of people drawing connections between neuroscience and meditation, so it's conceivable that someone is attempting "mindfulness of brain". If so, I'd like to know the story.

If nobody responds, that's fine. It will be some evidence of non-existence, though obviously not definitive. It's all but impossible to do an online search for this idea because all the conceptual material on neuroscience and meditation gets retrieved first.

That's all -- I'm not advocating it. Thanks.

Brain is a concept. You cannot experience 'brain'. So by definition, there can be no mindfulness of the brain. You can be mindful of the idea of a brain. Even if you split someone's head open and take out the brain, it's still just seeing, feeling, smelling... So an attempt to create such a system would fail. In other words, it would be a system that fortifies ignorance instead of weakening it.


Is all attachment equal in nature? In the general view of "attachment" in Buddhism, is the quality of attachment considered to be the same across all possible types of attachments? Or are there different qualities or degrees of attachment?

Put another way, can one kind of attachment be considered "less bad" or "more bad" than another kind? Or is it all just "attachment" in a general sense, without distinction?

For example: Is clinging to the nostalgia of an old childhood friendship any different than clinging to money or cars?

According to my first teacher, attachments to concrete worldly things are not as bad as attachments to abstract principles - which generate massive conceit and world-scale aversion.

Compare attachment to tasty food with attachment to religion - which one creates more suffering?

In my understanding, the way attachment works is via appropriation of a dharma (an object of mind) which then creates the duality of "this" vs "that" (and its special cases, "I" vs. "you" and "us" vs. "them"). There are four major quadrants here:

Low contrast between "this" and "that" and small scale of identification.
Strong contrast between "this" and "that" and small scale of identification.
Low contrast between "this" and "that" and large scale of identification.
Strong contrast between "this" and "that" and large scale of identification.

An example of the first kind is attachment to certain flavor, like the taste of some food cooked in a particular way. Even if one can't find this specific cooking style, one can find fairly similar kinds - and the resulting aversion to other flavors will not be that strong. In this case suffering generated by this attachment is both weak and small-scale (only applies to one small area of experience).

An example of the second kind is attachment to one's own life. Here the contrast between living and dying is very high, but the scale of identification is rather small. So even if one's fight for survival manifested as external violence it would unlikely create a world-scale conflict - so the suffering will be strong but not vast.

The third type can be explained on the example of attachment to gender identity. In this case the scale of attachment is massive - one identifies oneself with "I like men" or "I like women", but the contrast between the two is not polarized enough -- not black and white enough -- to create a major issue, like a war between genders. There are certainly some very common tensions between genders (can we call this "very weak but vast suffering"?), but very few women would say that men are harmful and should not exist - and vice versa.

Finally the fourth type is attachment to an abstract and highly polarized view or principle that is very prone to emergence of group identity - such attachment to religion. In this case the contrast between "good" and "bad" is very high - the carriers of the other view are considered harmful and evil. And the scale of identification is very large - all carriers of the same view are considered "us" and all carriers of the other view are "them". This results in a very explosive combination of "good us" vs. "evil them" - hence strong and vast suffering.

And then of course there are all kinds of intermediate qualities between "strong" and "weak" and between "small" and "large".

In your example, the difference is in the real object of attachment. If the reason you attach to an old childhood friendship is because it exemplifies some abstract quality that your old friend possessed that you now idealize (and on this basis cultivate aversion to those lacking such quality) - than that could be a fairly dangerous attachment. On the other hand, if attachment to old childhood friend is solely on the basis of her beautiful voice - then it's not such a big deal.

Similarly, if attachment to wealth is on the basis of simple idea that wealth gives one access to comfort and material pleasures - then it may be a medium-contrast/medium-scale problem. But if attachment to wealth is part an abstract view that all wealthy people are smart and hard-working and poor people are lazy and immoral, - then it could be feeding a global-scale conflict.

To summarize, whenever you want to evaluate an attachment you should
 - identify the real object of attachment, the root of attachment (aka the preconception)
 - assess the degree of polarization between the object of attachment and its opposite
 - assess the scale of identification and the size of the potential conflict

As a rule of thumb, watch out for abstract and highly polarizing attachments - they tend to create the strongest and largest-scale suffering.


The Buddha and the Cycle of Life What is the source of the cycle of life/death in the scripture , Does it have references in the Pali canon? Is the cycle itself introduced with Buddhism or came from other sources?

What is the source of the cycle of life/death in the scripture , Does it have references in the Pali canon?

From SN 15.2:

At Savatthı. “Bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. Suppose, bhikkhus, a man would reduce this great earth to balls of clay the size of jujube kernels and put them down, saying [for each one]: ‘This is my father, this my father’s father.’ The sequence of that man’s fathers and grandfathers would not come to an end, yet this great earth would be used up and exhausted. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this sa˙s›ra is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving."

Is the cycle itself introduced with Buddhism or came from other sources?

No, the concept of Samsara already existed in other religions before Buddhism.


Did Gudo Wafu Nishijima claim that there will be no pain for anyone after death? Gudo Wafu Nishijima (incidentally Brad Warner's teacher) the soto monk, claimed that sentient beings in pain are just in hell, and hell is a supposition.

I take this to mean that pain occurs without rebirth, already in this life, andt hat we cannot know that we will suffer pain after death: so I'd conclude that rebirth that isn't painful. What I think I'm adding to his exact words is just that facts like suffering are all or nothing, nothing real is incomplete.

That may seem crazy, but I like it. I'm highly skeptical that we need to experiecne more pain to experience the dharma. Even if sentient beings do (and do not!) experience the result of their evil acts.
Is there any basis in the sutras? Not to my conclusion, but his claims about pain.
I've read that zen teachers are often ambivalent on their students belief in rebirth, but I mean something more than that, that to experience the result of bad karma is either in this life or not what we usually mean by "painful".

First off, the concept of death and rebirth in Soto Zen (Nishijima was a Roshi of the Soto school) differs from the general cosmology during the Buddha's lifetime.

The Buddha's world-view was greatly influenced by Hinduism, the dominant world view in his region during his lifetime. The original Buddhist concepts of karma, hells and rebirth are basically a facsimile of these concepts in Hinduism and were taken quite literally during and after the Buddha's lifetime.

The Mahayana view on hells and rebirth is not necessarily taken so literally. For example, one hell is populated by constantly angry beings, another by constantly hungry beings with very small mouths, so it's impossible for them to quench their hunger. In several Mahayana schools, it is suggested that humans go through these realms of hell every waking day when feeling angry, hungry, etc. In Nichiren, this is called "Three thousand realms in a single moment of life". You should read Nishijima's statement in this context.

Also, in Mahayana Buddhism, "death" does not necessarily refer to physical death. Reaching a single moment of Kenshō is referred to as "the Great Death".

Lastly, on the concept of "pain". Eastern teachers will often use this word to refer to Dukkha which can be translated as pain in the Pali canon, but is also translated as "uneasy, uncomfortable, unpleasant, difficult, causing sadness". It refers to the unsatisfactoriness of daily life caused by the five Skandhas. This is the cause of traversing "Three thousand realms in a single moment of life".


Observing eight precepts in regular life I've seen some people do this. But how practical is this with the modern lifestyle? As an example the place where I sit in the office is a bit too comfortable. Sometimes there's music in public transport.  If that person shares a place with others or visits other people, they may have to change their lifestyles as well. e.g: eating before noon.

How can one deal with such situations without being a nuisance to others, if someone decides to observe them in day-to-day life?

Simply being in the presence of music or entertainment or sitting in a comfortable chair doesn't break the 8 precepts. Here are the relavent descriptions from the Uposatha Sutta in which the Buddha describes the 8 precepts:

  All of you have given up singing and dancing, the playing of musical
  instruments and the watching of entertainments, which are stumbling
  blocks to that which is wholesome. You do not bedeck yourselves with
  ornaments, flowers or perfume. For all of this day and night, in this
  manner, you will be known as having followed the arahants, and the
  Uposatha will have been observed by you. This is the seventh factor of
  the Uposatha.

  ...

  All of you have given up lying on large or high beds. You are content
  with low beds or beds made of grass. For all of this day and night, in
  this manner, you will be known as having followed the arahants, and
  the Uposatha will have been observed by you. This is the eighth factor
  of the Uposatha.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.041.vaka.html

With entertainment it is talking about intentionally seeking out or producing entertainment, not about overhearing or seeing someone else doing it, and the giving up of high beds I think is specifically refering to the use of such beds to sleep. I don't think sitting in a chair counts.

Furthermore whenever we interpret the precepts as laypeople (i.e., not interpreting the rules of Vinaya) we have to focus on the underlying principle and purpose of the precepts to decide between different understandings. The purpose of the eight precepts is to live with the renunciation of sensuality and luxury. As a layperson I think it makes sense to say that as long as you are not actively seeking these things out but merely coming across them, you are still acting in accordance with renunciation.


Do arhats exist after death? I was just looking at the connected discousres (Bhikkhu Bodhi) and it said

Sorry for the rushed question, but I wondered if arhats can be said to exist or not after death? Does the Buddha say the same of arhats here as himself: refusing to answer

I would like an answer in the Pali tradition, and something which explicitly mentions arhats.

If, as suggested in comments, there's no answer, may I ask if the equivocation in the quote is in the Pali original? To be specific, whether Vacchagotta (I think is the interlocutor) is praising master Kaccana for not speaking of the Buddha beyond "this", or suggesting that Master Kaccana has "surpassed this".

This is one of questions left unanswered by the Buddha.

Read here

All of the following are amongst incorrect views.

A Buddha (read Arahant or Enlightened being) does exist after death.
A Buddha does not exist after death.
A Buddha both exists and doesn't exist after death.
A Buddha neither exists nor doesn't exists after death.

In my opinion, the problem being whatever happens to the energy/consciousness/entropy/field of the Buddha must be such that it cannot be expressed in words and not even be able to be grasped as an idea or any kind of mental construct. So the Buddha left it unanswered.


Why should I focus on that which is not mine? I was sitting among my friends when I realised none of them are mine. They will change or perish. I felt detached and disconnected. I no longer focused on what they were saying. I appeared absent minded to them. I appeared as one who doesn't understand or care or love.
My question is : Why should I focus on people or serve people who are not mine ?

There is a Buddhist concept of Kalyāṇa-mittatā, Buddha definitely approved friendship amongst the sangha as well as for householders. As long as it was with right people (meaning friends addicted to gambling, alcohol should be avoided).

Now to your dilemma,

  when I realised none of them are mine

The better thing to realize was to say, 'I am not' 'anatta'. As long as you have not realized no-self, and as long as you are you can say 'none of them are mine'. Of course, you do not possess them, so in that sense, they are not yours, but they are YOUR friends. As a householder, friendship is imperative, you cannot live in this samsara like an island, you never know when will you need whom. Although this should not be the criteria to make friends, but this is true.

  They will change or perish. I felt detached and disconnected. I no longer focused on what they were saying.

They will change and perish so will you, so will everybody you know, your wife, your children, your parents, everything is impermanent, 'annicca'. The feeling of detachment is alright, in fact good, but dis-connection shows you lack respect and compassion. Everyone wants to tell their story to friends, share the problems and good and bad times with friends, you should have compassion. You should have listened to them without attachment. Like a lotus in a pond, be in this world but not of it.

  I appeared absent-minded to them.

Are you not practicing mindfulness? Absent-mindedness is not something for a meditator. You should be aware. Later on, you will regret if only I would have been listening to him...

  I appeared as one who doesn't understand or care or love.

Cultivate kindness and compassion. Metta bhava is important.

  Why should I focus on people or serve people who are not mine?

Because Samsara is Nirvana (this is something I learned in Zen). Also not focusing on people who are not of profit to you or not yours shows selfishness and will bolster your ego. Remember the Jataka tales and remember all the sacrifice the Buddha did in His previous life for other beings, out of compassion.


Trouble Maintaining Practice Okay, so I searched for an answer to this question and couldn't find one, but it must be common, so I apologize in advance if this is a duplicate.

I try to practice daily mindfulness by saying in my head, "walking" as I am walking, "reading" as I am reading, etc., but often I lose my focus, and three hours later I find myself thinking, "oh yeah, right, I was supposed to be practicing mindfulness.." This happens especially when something I perceive as really bad occurs- negative thoughts cloud my mind and take me over. And then I feel SO GUILTY!
How do I overcome feelings of guilt about my practice? And how do I sustain mindfulness throughout the day? It seems almost impossible, and every time I realize I have failed at it, I curse myself and feel like a hopeless buddhist.
Thx for reading! Ian

tl;dr keep pushing yourself, but gently as Paul Sasik says. Also, keep an open mind because this stuff can be very counterintuitive.
Long answer
It sounds like you're practicing the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, where one notes phenomena as they arise. In this case I can answer from my own experience in the tradition.
A few pointers:

Negative thoughts are just thoughts, so you have the opportunity to note "thinking".
Ditto for a clouded mind; you have there an opportunity to note "clouded mind".
Ditto again for guilt; if guilt is predominant then note "guilt".

The essence of this strategy is not to get enticed by what we perceive. Thoughts aren't intrinsically negative or positive; we mistakenly understand them to be as such. The same goes for feelings like guilt, and the realization that the mind is clouded. When we see them as they are, it's easier to remain in the here and now.
As for the wandering mind, I can say a few more things:

Try to abandon the desire for practice to go well—paradoxically this can hold you back.
Don't curse yourself. Cursing yourself is a form of identifying with your experiences.
Experiment a lot. Vary the quality of your practice—Does one note intensely, or note softly? What can be noted that was not noted before? What are the limits of what can reasonably be covered by noting? Do the limits change from one day to the next? Come up with ideas like these, and test them out during walking and sitting practice. At the same time, keep it simple. You don't want to get too obsessed with conceptual dead ends.

It can take a long time for practice to improve. But I can confidently say that my mind wanders much less than it did one year ago. In my 3 years of practice (one 6-day retreat, about 15 minutes per day on most days) I have found there are long stretches—perhaps days, weeks, even months—where no progress is made, followed by flashes of what seem to be insight, followed by the realization that they are just unusual experiences, and so on.
Lastly, as for maintaining mindfulness throughout the day: I find this one quite difficult. It improves with practice just like the wandering as I explained above. Personally my daily mindfulness is quite weak but at the same time much better than, for example one year ago. Another side of this is that the monastic lifestyle or a meditation course will give you the opportunity to develop these skills more quickly.
Be well.


Ultimate Lack of Discipline I noticed that despite all my resolutions and intentions, I am still not much better than when I attempted to change. Therefore, I ask the following:

What could a person particularly lazy and unmotivated, who cannot stick with things long term, and who only has good intentions do in the short term to get out of their situation? I'm asking about any tiny step, initiative, or behavioural change that could help.

I tried exercise, meditation, dietary change, stopping social media, etc. but all, in the long term have failed.

Thank you.

Two days ago, my person translated a possible benifical talk on this matter, which is actually nothing else as complacency, or pamada. ([Q&A] Appamāda - What is it? How to practise it? Benefits?)

So here are the traditional and required three tools:

Respect, Confidence & Patience

Is more than smart, to beginn with devotional practice and integrate it in daily live, for a practice without that will in all ways lead just to another complacency.

As the Buddha told even after awakening: "One suffers if dwelling without reverence or deference."... now think how poor and in suffering are those not awakened, not having proper means for devotion and act on it. All they could do and do is consuming, consuming signs, sounds, smells, tasts, touches, ideas... a poor consumers life like that of the most.

There is no much better practice as to simply assist and render help for ones teacher, and it's already a practice on the path. Veyyāvacca, only in German for now.

Usually one starts by his first Gods in doing so, one parents. And to give you as well as others the possibility to serve, having the Sangha and the other Gems as object, there are many ways to get joy and to spend ones time by working on ones conditions, even if maybe not capable for intensive meditation practice, here. There might be others as well, and if even have a monastery near, monks you could assist, take this oppotunity.

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


How to die professionally? In this book  Preparing to Die: Practical Advice and Spiritual Wisdom from the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition Lama Tharchin makes a powerful statement

  Dharma is how we can come to die professionally.

What did mean by that?

How does dharma help us during the death process?

book's link

How to die professionally?
What did mean by that?

The untrained mind, i.e. a mind that has not been subjected to systematic, continual practice, development and purification, can be classified as an "amateur" mind. It does not know how to deal with physical or mental objects such as pain, ill-will, greed etc. It is therefore more likely to cling in the event of death, thereby leading to rebirth.
A trained mind that sees clearly with no obstructions, has insights into the true nature of reality, knows how to deal with conditioned phenomena and has consistently been trained in meditation, is a mind that is more likely not to cling in the event of death. The trained mind will be able to merely observe what happens in the death process, thereby liberating itself from Samsara.
That mind can be classified as a "professional" mind.


Choice-less awareness vs directed I read that after careful mental noting of experience in mindfulness .One reaches a state of effortless effort and choiceless awareness .So I want clear out if awareness can direct itself without deciding or should it always be consciously directed ?.

For example what decides that now awareness has to be shifted from the breath to the body ?.If this decision is unconscious then it isn't wise .And if it's based only on information coming from the breath, then its not a well educated decision.

So shouldn't awareness be directed on "where should it be directed"?.

Choiceless awareness is the awareness without "you"-the ego-self- involved(without your preferences, your life history, beliefs). You're fine with all of the options and you're in a total acceptence of whatever is the case. You're fine If "a" happens or "b" happens or "c" happens or none of them happens. And with that clear awareness you know what is the right thing to do. Without this clear awareness the choices would always be based on conditioning.

This kind of clear awareness is the continous experience in the high enlightenment stages, and it is temporary experiences for the good spiritual people. So it is better to not seek this kind of awareness because you can't immediately have this kind of awareness and live based on it but you can live in such a way(mindfully, spiritually) so you can temporarily have this kind of awareness time to time and eventually you can permanently have this awareness when you reach to the high enlightenment stages. And then even when you act based on your personal preferences, you would not act based on attachment or serious desires but kind of a "game". And you'll never attach to the form-ego reality again because you would have the permanent realization of the illusory nature of the self/ego which is not more real than a shadow.


Does being a lay Buddhist have any advantages over a Monk? That's the question. Is there any advantage in being a lay Buddhist over being a Monk who has gone forth, that is in as far as following the Dhamma-Path to Nirvana is concerned?

There is the case of Ghaṭīkāra, who was asked:

MN81:11.2: ‘Dear Ghaṭīkāra, you have heard this teaching, so why don’t you go forth from the lay life to homelessness?’

Ghaṭīkāra responded:

MN81:11.3: ‘Don’t you know, dear Jotipāla, that I look after my blind old parents?’

And Ghaṭīkāra was a non-returner:

MN81:18.16: And since he has ended the five lower fetters, Ghaṭīkāra will be reborn spontaneously and will become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.

Lay Buddhists are still tied to the world, but their practice can still benefit themselves and others. Ghaṭīkāra was the chief attendant of Buddha Kassapa.

MN81:18.1: ‘Great king, there is a market town named Vebhaliṅga,  where there’s a potter named Ghaṭīkāra. He is my chief attendant.

This story made the Buddha smile. Perhaps it might make you smile as well. There is a lot more in that sutta that what is posted here.


Buddhism ideals in the West before the 20th century Today, I received an email with a quote in the signature attributed to Blaise Pascal reading

All of human evil comes from a single cause, man's inability to sit still in a room.

A more accurate quote is,

tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne pas savoir demeurer en repos dans une chambre
All the unhappiness of men comes from only one thing, which is not knowing how to stay at rest (or 'remain peacefully') in a room.

Here is the whole passage in context (I translate),

When I put myself sometimes to considering the diverse agitations of
men and the dangers and trouble which they expose themselves to, in
the court, in war, from where are born so many troubles, passions,
endeavours that are hardy (or fool-hardy) and often bad, etc., I
discovered that all the unhappiness of man comes from just one cause,
which is not knowing how to stay peacefully in a room. A man who has
enough goods to live, if he knew how to live with pleasure in his
home, wouldn't leave it to go on the sea or to the seat of a place.
One buys such an expensive warrant for the army, only because one
finds it intolerable to not move from the town; and one looks for
conversations and the distraction of games only because one can't stay
at one's own home with pleasure.
But when I thought about it more closely and after finding the cause
of all our unhappiness, I wanted to discover the reason for that, I
found there is one very effective (reason), which consists in the
natural unhappiness of our feeble and mortal condition, and so
miserable, that nothing can console us, when we think of it closely.
Whatever condition one figures oneself to be in, if one assembles all
the goods which can belong to us, royalty is the most beautiful
position in the world, and nevertheless if one imagines oneself (in
that position), accompanied by all the satisfactions associated with
it. If it's without distraction, and if one lets oneself consider and
reflect on what is, that langorous happiness wouldn't sustain itself,
it necessarily falls among the sights which menace it, the revolts
which could happen, and finally the death and sickness which are
inevitable; such that, if it is without what one calls 'distractions'
(literally 'detours', figuratively 'games'), there he (the king) is
unhappy and more unhappy than the least of his subjects, who play and
distract (or entertain) themselves.

How would a Buddhist respond to such a statement ?
I have a feeling he or she would agree at least on some levels. Even though it seemed Buddhism was introduced to the west beginning mainly in the 20th century, this quote seems to echo that the West was not totally unawares.
If I remember correctly, "Lines Composed a Few Mile Above Tintern Abbey" also seemed to reiterate some principles found in Buddhism.
There were probably missionaries who came in contact with it after the birth of Christ. Reverand Kusala mentions Zen Buddhism was actual a reaction of missionaries coming in contact with the existing Therevadan tradition.

Apparently Pascal is aware of the same thing that the Buddha was aware of before he became enlightened: i.e. a view of reality which was the actual incentive for Gautama to look for enlightenment, asking something like,
"How can I be happy, even as a king, when illness and death are inevitable?"
This description of the "human condition" is presumably well-known to many other people too.
What's remarkable about Buddhism isn't its description of the problem: what's remarkable is the Buddha's description of the solution to that problem.
Pascal describes the problem but not the solution. He says (I paraphrase),

"We can't be happy. But there's a reason for that, i.e. our feeble and mortal condition. Even a king couldn't be happy without distractions."

Later,

"Thus goes life. We look for rest by overcoming a few obstacles. And when they're overcome, rest becomes insufferable."

And a few pages beyond that,

"Man, who hasn't been able to heal death, misery, and ignorance, has advised himself not to think about it.

The conclusion to that chapter is that such distraction is actually harmful because it stops us from looking for the real remedy:

puisque l’homme ne s’ennuie de tout, et ne cherche cette multitude d’occupations que parce qu’il a l’idée du bonheur qu’il a perdu ; lequel ne trouvant pas en soi, il le cherche inutilement dans les choses extérieures, sans se pouvoir jamais contenter, parce qu’il n’est ni dans nous, ni dans les créatures, mais en Dieu seul.
because man gets bored with everything, and searches for this multitude of activities only because he has the idea of the unhappiness which he has lost; which having not found (happiness) in himself, he (man) looks for it uselessly (in vain) in external things, never able to content himself, because it (happiness) is not in us, not in the creatures, but only in God.

In summary I think that Pascal is aware of the First Noble Truth but the rest of it is not especially Buddhist. The remedy which Pascal proposes (elsewhere in the book) is the Christian faith.


Why aren't there 5 Noble Truths? Consider the fact that our Nirvana depends on one crucial truth and that is law of Karma. Good karma bear good fruit and bad karma generates bad results.

Why didn't Buddha say that Fifth Noble Truth is law of Karma ?

Other answers say that kamma is already covered by, or implicit in, the first and/or second noble truths.

I think it's related to the fourth noble truth -- i.e. you say that kamma is important to attaining nirvana (and I think that "the path towards attaining nirvana" is what the fourth noble truth is about).

Or, perhaps, you can see "bad karma" and "good karma" in the second and third noble truths respectively.

I find the logical structure of the four noble truths satisfying or persuasive.

The first three have the structure of a syllogism:

premise: dukkha exists, and is this and that
premise: dukkha is associated with craving
theorem: dukkha ceases when craving ceases

So that's the doctrine "in a nutshell".

The fourth is, then, an introduction to the rest of Buddhism:

to begin to implement that in practice, see the noble eightfold way

I think that (as well as karma) there are other important aspects of dharma -- e.g. anatta, dependent origination, the sangha, the qualities conducive to Enlightenment, and so on.

So I don't see why you see the need to "privilege" karma (as more important than other doctrines) -- but it's helpful that there is a doctrine with only 4 (memorable) truths, rather than (less memorable) 20. The "4 truths" served as (and still serve as) an introduction to the dharma.

Or perhaps you're saying that the doctrine of karma should be privileged because it's the single most important doctrine to remember. If so, maybe you're not wrong; but there are also some other dharmas that people have been inclined to say are the most important -- for example, "right view"; or maybe "harmlessness", "generosity", "skilful virtue", "admirable friendship", "attention"; and so on.


Is everything about the world the 6 sense objects I read that the world is only our 6 sense object that we percieve with our 6 sense doors, does this mean that Buddhism says that everything is mindmade and there is nothing really out there or I may be wrong so I would be glad to hear from you.

In my understanding, the suttas tell us that everything that can be cognized, it is cognized through our six sense-doors. The senses work conjoined with sensory stimuli and consciousness of each sense door, which arises only after the impingement between a stimuli with the sense-organ; the interaction between this three conditions is called "contact".

If one were to posit that something can be known outside of what our six senses offer to the mind, that would be inconsistent with our capacity to know the world.

From the above, we cannot conclude that "everything is mind-made", but only that we feel and get "our" information through "our" senses. Now, if you want to know where does this sensory data come from, I would argue that such answer is out of reach, beyond our ability of knowledge. The very question of "how can we feel what lies beyond our feelings" becomes contradictory, as far as I can tell.

We can only be conscious about what we perceive; and we perceive only what we feel through our sense-doors (including the mind as the six sense-door).

In my opinion, this is why the Buddha equates the senses to "the world", because in practice we can only speak and reflect about what our senses are able to tell us. Anything beyond them might fall under the realm of speculation and fantasy.

Kind regards!


What would be the karmic result of worrying? How come worrying is a bad karma ? Buddha stated that Having a confident mind gives a good rebirth ( in heaven etc.).

Most of the time, I worried about not able to complete a task within the desired time.

What would be the karmic effect of this worrying and any other worries ?

Worrying, because of its obsession with self (i.e., "I won't finish") is a form or wrong mindfulness. Right mindfulness attends to what will help oneself and others (e.g., "What effort and action would be of value now?").

But you ask about the effects of worrying. These are listed starting here:

  AN10.114:9.1: Wrong mindfulness is a bad principle.  Right mindfulness is a good principle. And the many bad, unskillful qualities produced by wrong mindfulness are bad results.

The remedy for worrying is to become aware of and be mindful of those around us. In this way we can communicate and coordinate, building what is needed by shared effort rather than by fixating and worrying about "my job" or "my things". Worry is often tied up in Identity View. And the escape is not laziness or blissing out. The escape is right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right immersion.


Does any modern Buddhist tradition use a Gregorian holiday schedule? Have any modern Buddhist organization adopted the Gregorian calendar for celebrating Buddhist holidays?

Last time I tried to find something simple as Vesak or some of the other common Buddhist Holiday's, they are celebrated on a lunar calendar and differ from country to country, ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesak#Dates_of_observance

I'm not affiliated with any particular organized sangha, so I have two challenges-- deciding which holidays to celebrate, and even after that, there isn't a lot of agreement on how to calculate the day.

I've had a look around and I can't see actual Buddhist holidays that follow a Gregorian calendar. They all seem to shift around with lunar cycles. The Thai national calendar is a renumbered Gregorian calendar but the Buddhist festivals within that are lunar

However I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community in the UK and we have over a number of years celebrated 'Gregorian' festivals. For instance we have a lovely Buddhist ritual on winter solstice and then again on New Years Eve. I'm not sure if this quite answers your question and I appreciate that this isn't traditional or even standard but I think it's interesting that we are repurposing these days as Buddhist festivals just as Christians repurposed pagan festivals for Christmas and Easter.

So perhaps there are no Gregorian festivals (that I know of) right now but 'Western' Buddhist communities will be busily repurposing existing Gregorian festivals just like we are. Just a thought really.