Is Buddhism the fastest growing religion in the West This is a companion question to this one.

I've heard it said that Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in the West. Is that true? Does anyone have any statistics to support or refute this? It seems that this wouldn't be right in absolute terms but might be true in percentage growth for some countries.

I appreciate that many people find the term 'The West' unsatisfactory. However for this could we use the definition from here:

  cultures that are directly derived from and influenced by European
  cultures

so this include be Europe, North American plus Australia and New Zealand.

Is Buddhism the fastest growing religion in the west?

Well according to Asian Tribune, an internet daily newspaper, in a story Buddhism fastest growing religion in West from April 7, 2008.

  Buddhism is being recognized as the fastest growing religion in Western societies both in terms of new converts and more so in terms of friends of Buddhism, who seek to study and practice various aspects of Buddhism.

It should be noted this article did not contain demographic numbers. It was a report on a public lecture given at All Ceylon Buddhist Congress Hall Colombo and "was delivered under the auspices of the Buddhist and Pali University, All-Ceylon Buddhist Congress and the Buddhist Times Trust".

Demographic numbers, were however available at Pew Research-Religious & Public Life Project dated December 18, 2012 The Global Religious Landscape – Buddhists give an overall look at Buddhist demographics.

This project noted that while 7% of the world's total population is Buddhist, 99% of these Buddhists live in the Asia-Pacific region. All other areas including North America, Latin America, and Europe have 1% or less of their populations identifying as Buddhist.

If only 1% of Western populations are Buddhist, what is the remaining makeup? (At this point I had to narrow the question to the US as I was unable to find comprehensive info for the west in general.)But for the US, for example, according to Pew Research Center, U.S. doesn't rank high in religious diversity Americans are:

Christians - 78%
Unaffiliated - 16%
Jews - 2%
Buddhist - 1%
Muslims - <1%
Hindus - <1%
Folk Religion <1%
Other Religion <1%

But these figures are far from static. According to the most comprehensive Pew Research document I found, U.S.Religious Landscape Survey, a full 28% percent of Americans have changed their religious affiliation since childhood. (This does not include changing from one type of Protestantism to another; it would be 44% if that was included.) So what are they converting to? Lots of things including Buddhism.

  • In sharp contrast to Islam and Hinduism, Buddhism in the U.S. is primarily made up
  of native-born adherents, whites and converts. Only one-in-three American Buddhists
  describe their race as Asian, while nearly three-in-four Buddhists say they are converts to
  Buddhism.

72% of American Buddhists are converts as compared to 27% originally born Buddhists.

An interesting fact is that the report states that only 50% of those raised as Buddhists in the US, still consider themselves Buddhist. So Buddhism in the US has simultaneously one of the highest rates of conversion from other religions to it and one of the lowest rates of retention of those born into it. (Lots of folks looking for something new I guess!)

But these American Buddhists tend to be satisfied with their personal lives. In a survey question (from the Pew Landscape report) asking "All in all, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in your personal
life?" 90% of Buddhist respondents stated satisfied; the highest percentage of any religious group. Only 8% reported "dissatisfied"; the lowest of any religious group.

But I'll wind it up with the observation from the Pew Landscape report that all religious groups in the US are continually gaining and losing members at all times. With the US Buddhist population being 72% converts, the half of the originally born Buddhists who leave Buddhism still leave it in a net gain category (based on "Childhood Versus Current Affiliation of U.S. Adults" on page 24 of U.S.Religious Landscape Survey).

Buddist gains are .3%. That sounds small until you look at all mainstream groups which are in the negative. In fact, the only groups that have a higher percentage gain are "unaffiliated" which is not a religion and "other faiths" which is the very small group of religions so small they are not broken out separately. So in that sense, you could perhaps say Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in the US. :)


Purpose of cessation or Nirvana! What is the purpose or cause of cessation or extinction or Nirvana. Did Buddha ever talk about it?
For example, see how SN 23.1 ends:

“But sir, what is the purpose of extinguishment?”
“Your question goes too far, Rādha. You couldn’t figure out the limit of questions. For extinguishment is the culmination, destination, and end of the spiritual life.”

So Radha is asking kimatthiya --

“But sir, what is the purpose of extinguishment?”
“Nibbānaṃ pana, bhante, kimatthiyan”ti?

That is kim plus atthiya
So asking "kimatthiya?" is like asking, "Nibbana is with the intention of satisfying a desire for what beyond nibbana?"
The question implies that nibbana is a stepping-stone to something else -- like a way of getting from here to somewhere else.
But it isn't -- instead it's the destination, the end-result, the goal.
I think that's explained in the Uṇṇābhabrāhmaṇa Sutta (SN 51.15)

“The purpose of living the spiritual life under the Buddha, brahmin, is to give up desire.”
“But is there a path and a practice for giving up that desire?”
“There is.”
“What is that path?”
“It’s when a mendicant develops the basis of psychic power that has immersion due to enthusiasm … energy … mental development … inquiry, and active effort. This is the path and the practice for giving up that desire.”
“This being the case, Master Ānanda, the path is endless, not finite. For it’s not possible to give up desire by means of desire.”
“Well then, brahmin, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. What do you think, brahmin? Have you ever had a desire to walk to the park, but when you arrived at the park, the corresponding desire faded away?”
“Yes, sir.”


Buddhist precepts and suppression In the Buddhist precept it teaches us to 'abstain' and 'refrain'. How is this abstention is different to suppression? It's good to practice with understanding and wisdom but most people are still practising, some people are naturally good in practising some precepts but not the other precepts. Is it true there is an element of suppression in the practice until we reach the final goal? Why should someone follow and practice the Buddhist precepts (5, 8, 10 or hundreds of precepts) if there is no suppression?

1. How is abstention different from suppression?

It is not. Suppression means "preventing the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain" 1, so they are actually synonyms.

(In case you are referring to the psycho-analytical concept of repression, instead of suppression, then abstinence is indeed different from it since repression is applied in a different context and from a different point of view.)

2. Is it true there is an element of suppression in the practice until we reach the final goal?

I'd say suppression (as defined above) is mostly useful in the initial phases of developing morality. As one progresses, there will be no more suppression since the act of abstaining will be implicit in the use of alternative skillful actions. (For example, instead of just abstaining from punching someone when one gets angry, one may foresee the upcoming situation and take appropriate measures like avoiding or seeking mutual understanding. Technically, one is still abstaining but this type of action is more refined and has no element of stopping a punch from happening when anger has already entered one's mind.)

So I'd say, no, it is not true.

3. Why should someone follow and practice the Buddhist precepts (5, 8, 10 or hundreds of precepts) if there is no suppression?

As I pointed above, suppression and practicing the precepts are the same in the beginning. After that initial stage the precepts are still being followed but there will be no suppression.

This leaves this specific question (3rd question) meaningless. If this was not the type of answer you were looking for in this specific question, I suggest clarifying it a bit since I had a bit of trouble understanding it.


The needs of the same human being may differ at different stages of life. Can there be one Dharma for all stages? From infancy till old age, our bodily, psychological and even spiritual change and evolve. Also, their faults or risks differ at each stage of life. For instance, the greatest "fault" of an infant is ignorance of the world, and simultaneously, her greatest need is to physically explore.

The same infant may grow into a youth whose greatest fault is lack of self-knowledge, and his/her greatest need is to explore the word of relationships and seek romance. The same youth may grow into an old person whose greatest fault may be a false sense of power, authority and ownership over other people, and whose deepest need may simply be peace and rest.

So, is there one dharma preaching for all stages of life (or stages of evolution) in Buddhism? or are there many?

Is there one dharma preaching for all stages of life (or stages of evolution) in Buddhism? or are there many?

There are many dharma preachings relevant to life stages.

Buddhism teaches Five Niyamas

In Kamma Niyama, it says every action has reaction. So don't do to others what you dislike.


What are some Buddhist ininterpretations of claims of past-life memories? There are stories of people who claim to remember their past lives. Such stories have been investigated by researchers such as Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker.

These accounts lend themselves nicely to Jewish and Hindu understanding of transmigration of souls. How do they fit into the Buddhist understanding of rebirth?

An answer to this question is in the Khajjanīya Sutta. The Khajjanīya Sutta explains life is comprised of five aggregates, namely: (i) body; (ii) feelings; (iii) perceptions; (iv) mental formations; & (v) sense consciousness. Mental stories about so-called or imaginary 'past lives' are 'mental formations', similar to dreams the mind constructs or manufactures in sleep.

The Khajjanīya Sutta states 'mental formations' about the past should be interpreted as follows:

  Any kind of mental formations whatsoever … whether past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior,
  far or near, all mental formations should be seen as it really is with
  correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my
  self.’

As for 'rebirth', the Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta explains 'birth' ('jati') is the mental generation of the mental idea, view or 'assumption' of 'beings' ('satta').

SN 5.10 explains that, apart from 'view' or 'conceptual thought' (which are mental formations), there are no 'beings' to be found. SN 5.10 also states the idea of a 'being' (or 'soul') is a view held by Mara (Satan).

It follows, as explained in SN 22.85, each time the mind gives birth to the 'self' idea & believes it is a 'self', that is 'birth' ('jati'). To quote:

  There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes the body,
  feeling, perception, mental fabrication &/or consciousness to be a
  'self'. That assumption (of 'self') is a fabrication. Now what is the
  cause, what is the origination, what is the birth (jati), what is the
  coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact
  with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication (of 'self') is born
  of that.

If the 'self' fabrication keeps arising in the mind, each new fabrication of the 'self' idea is a new 'becoming', a new birth or 'rebirth'.

Most importantly, regardless of how the words 'birth' ('jati') & the myriad terms translated as 'rebirth' are interpreted, the most salient feature of Buddhist rebirth is it is always connected to the results of kamma (actions), i.e., productive of happiness ('heaven') & unhappiness ('hell'). To quote a stock phrase:

  'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech &
  mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions
  under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body,
  after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were
  endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile
  noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the
  influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death,
  have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.'

Unlike the Hindu reincarnation found in the Bhagavada Gita, which states the soul (atman) will always enter a new physical body at death, the idea of 'rebirth' in Buddhism is always connected to the results of kamma or moral efficiency.

Therefore, in Buddhism, unlike Hinduism & unlike the heretical branches of Judaism, 'rebirth' in Buddhism is not 'meta-physics' but, instead, 'morality' about results of kamma.

In other words, even Buddhists that do not believe in life after death still must believe in 'results of kamma' or 'moral rebirth' in order to have right view.

The language used in the Pali scriptures accommodates both views about 'rebirth' since terms such as 'beings' ('satta'), 'death' ('marana'), 'body' ('kaya'), etc, have dual meanings.

As previously stated & quoted, in the older Pali suttas, the predominant view about 'rebirth' is good kamma leads to 'heaven' & bad kamma leads to 'hell'. It seems only in later teachings did the idea of returning as a human being start.

In general, Buddhism teaches all things whatsoever are 'not-self' or, if using Hindu terminology, 'not-soul' ('anatta'). Therefore, Buddhism is contrary to Hindu & later-day-Jewish ideas about transmigration of souls. The Jewish Encyclopedia states:

  'Transmigration' of souls (metempsychosis)...This doctrine was foreign to Judaism until about the eighth century, when, under the
  influence of the Mohammedan mystics,  it was adopted by the Karaites and other Jewish dissenters.

As for the pseudo-science of  Ian Stevenson and Jim Tucker, since their claims arise from the studies of literally few children from billions, their claims can be debunked with explanations such as: (i) the child was conditioned by is parents; (ii) the child has a mental disposition or psychic power that can absorbs external ideas; and (iii) mystics with psychic powers are controlling the mind of the child.

For example, the failure of many so-called reincarnate Tibetan lamas, such as Tenzin Ösel Hita, shows such ideas about the reincarnation of souls are spurious or tenuous. In the case of Ösel Hita, it seemed to be not 'transmigration' but child abuse. To quote Ösel Hita:

  "At 14 months I was recognized and taken to India. They dressed me in a yellow hat, they sat me on a throne, people worshipped me ... They
  took me away from my family and put me in a medieval situation in
  which I suffered a lot. It was like living a lie."

If we all were really reincarnated souls then we would all remember our past lives or we would all be born with knowledge & experience from our past lives. But, unfortunately, we are all born ignorant, like a blank slate with some natural instincts, and we all must learn how to live & survive in life, as though we all started out anew & fresh.

Some translators of old Buddhist scriptures use the word "transmigration" but this is just a mistranslation.

Similar to the Jewish dissenters, later-day Buddhists created many ideas about reincarnation & even ideas about how 'consciousness' (which is mere sense cognition) is reborn, which probably explains why Buddhism become extinct in India, since it became the same as Hinduism.

Even in the Pali suttas, there are maybe a dozen suttas from thousands (such as the Chariot Maker sutta) that state the Buddha had a literal past life. These suttas are questionable as to their authenticity given they contradict the Khajjanīya Sutta.

In summary, original Buddhism taught the idea of 'self' is merely a mental formation/fabrication born from ignorance and that, in ultimate reality, there is no 'self' to be found. Therefore, the idea that 'my soul transmigrated' or the idea that "I" had a past life is contrary to original Buddhism.


What are the guides for lay followers, as to how far they should go to be compassionate? How far should lay followers go, to help others?

There is no denying that we all have innate desire to ease suffering of others, but when it’s done without right understanding it may lead to a higher suffering to the assisted person. On the other had if it’s done with right understanding and with the aim to assist the others to grow in Dharma then it is fruitful.

As an example, let’s say your friend is grieved for not being able to celebrate New-Year in Paris with his fiancée because he wasn’t able to save up enough money. If you restore in relieving his grievance you could give him money, but this could be adding fuel on fire. A true teacher of the Dharma will correct his view and relieve him from clinging, however, most of us don’t have that kind of ability: we are in a dark, trying to correct our own view, and the virtues we call virtues are but a guess work.

The point that I’m trying to get at is that on some cases the so-called suffering which we trying to prevent on other people could be a wake-up call or a learning curve, and by preventing it we could be hindering the person from realizing the first noble truth.

Sometimes these so called virtues extend even further in the name of compassion and we find ourselves teaching and arguing about Dharma to correct other. There may be many other cases as well. So how should we curb our act not to hurt others and ourselves in the name of virtues?

The most important things is to get Panna yourself as much as you can. You can achieve it by either reading Tripitaka or consulting monks about wholesome and unwholesome acts or both.
Passionate or compassionate about others is generally speaking wholesome act. But it has it own merit as well as harm to helper and helped if improper intention or volition.
To be specific to your question,

Donation is good to donor as long as donor have no attachment to things donated and have Metta to donee that he/she will free from sufferings. That is the very minimum requirements to have mind in donor. (There are many more details about making donation to the best, you can consult in Tripitaka and/or a well taught monks). In this case donor won't worry about how donee will use donated material/money.

For mental or verbal assistance,
Try to make your friend cheerful by encouraging, assisting to understand sufferings are not persisting. Try to do some activities and distracting him/her from thinking negative ideas if you are persuasive enough (you can either read some from Buddha's teachings or other religious teachings and non-religious self-help. The more you read, the more persuasive you are. Words have power).

For helping other people from clinging, you are absolutely right. No one, except Sammasam Buddha is the best because people with different hobby, desire, volition, perception and attitude need different delicate guidance to right path. We can only recommend some right ways to soothe sufferings. You can recommend him/her to do some meditation/Vipasana. Let him/her find what is bothering by himself/herself. How he/she can understand sufferings and how Buddha's Dhamma can guide him/her right way to end sufferings. There is nothing wrong if you are pushing someone to get to know Buddha's Dhamma as long as you put Metta on the people you are pushing. I read in Buddha's past life, he was pulled from hair to bring in front of Buddha and to get to know prior Buddha and Buddha teachings. But in this age of personal freedom, communities and societies don't go details to true intention of pushing someone hard and is not appreciated.


Is it possible for absolutely everyone to attain enlightenment? As seen in the title of this question, I'm not sure whether everyone is able to attain enlightenment.

As far as my study and introspective analysis have shown to me, it seems that in order to uproot ignorance permanently, one has to be able to correct the distortions of the mind (perceptions, thoughts and views). And the only way to do that effectively is through right understanding about reality (dukkha, the illusion of the self, impermanence, and the Dhamma in general).

But what happens when one is factually limited to exert that right understanding?
What happens when one cannot exert self-control, or when one is handicapped to use logic, language, cognition or the capacity for thinking abstract thoughts properly?
(I'm really sorry if I'm using some words in a rude fashion; english is not my first language)
I'm talking about biological or physical limitations that may impede a normal use of mental abilities (lack of cerebral structures, disease or anatomical abnormalities, lack of development of faculties, etc.).

What do the suttas tell us about this?
What is your personal experience in with this topic?
What does scientific research tell us about this?

I'd appreciate any kind of answer.

Thanks in advance for your time and patience.

The nature of mind is clear light,
defilements are only adventitious.

-- Dharmakirti

In my view, enlightenment is possible -- if not within this lifetime, then in other lifetimes.

From the point of view of the doctrine of Buddha Nature, all sentient beings possess the inherent seed for enlightenment. The Dalai Lama says:

  Every sentient being—even insects—have Buddha nature. The seed of Buddha means consciousness, the cognitive power—the seed of enlightenment. That’s from Buddha’s viewpoint. All these destructive things can be removed from the mind, so therefore there’s no reason to believe some sentient being cannot become Buddha. So every sentient being has that seed.

Logically, karma must have fruition, and the mindstream follows the path of Samsara endlessly until it reaches Nirvana. Otherwise, it will always reincarnate, experiencing karma in the process. All karma is impermanent, as Buddhism suggests. From these premises, any karma -- negative or positive -- must come to an end. Even individuals having committed much negative karma, as Milarepa or Angulimala, reached high levels of spiritual capacity.

As to your question more specifically, for individuals cognitively impaired, such individuals may develop merit within their lifetimes, which will help them in future lives, even if they don't follow the path in its entirety.

To perceive this lifetime and the next as fully separate is against the idea of dependent origination, entailing linkage between cause and consequence. From the view of emptiness, the division of this life and the next -- as well as many other such divisions -- is empty of intrinsic nature: it exists on the basis of appearance alone. Merit, from this point of view, is indistinct from the realization of the spiritual path; the Buddha committed many compassionate acts in previous lives which furthered his enlightenment.

Therefore, from the view of the two truths of Nagarjuna, merit is karmically linked with enlightenment, on the basis of conventional reality's cause and effect. In other words, merit furthers enlightenment, and can be developed by individuals incapable of deeper cognition.

From the point of view of ultimate reality, in the same framework, I recall visiting a Buddhist temple where a Tibetan master explained how emptiness entails a division into parts. Even if a person cannot fulfill enlightenment in this lifetime, they can contribute to it in by right deeds, and even with very partial deeds. If compassion meditation consists in various altruistic intentions towards others, then why not a few intentions? Even one intention? Anything a person is capable of may fulfill a virtuous purpose.

For someone unable to commit any action on the basis of great disease or such things, then their life may consist in experiencing negative karma accumulated previously. In diminishing this karma they also promote later enlightenment.

In sum, I suggest enlightenment should be perceived in the context of multiple lifetimes. Otherwise, many individuals might conclude it is not possible for them, and commit detrimental acts. They would be forgetting the wholeness which the Buddhist path possesses.

P.S.: Isn't it that even for people deficient in a cognitive sense, that their minds still possess the capacity for virtuous and detrimental acts? Any mind entails various possibilities, leading either towards or away from enlightenment. And if a person failed to have the capacity of choice, i.e. the capacity for intention, then I'm unsure how this lack of intention would arise karmically speaking. In any case, I wish this helps!


How are bhikkhus using social networking sites? I thought bhikkhus were to not to be involved with entertainment. Thank you in advance.

I don't think their intention is to entertain but to to teach.Social Networking Sites can be used as a form for communication.Especially in this day and age.It's likened to them writing a letter or giving a dhamma talk.Since i don't attend any Buddhist monastery or retreats or groups,I have benefited from monks teaching the Dharma on Youtube or contacting a monastic via facebook when i had any questions etc.It is also a way for the monastic to keep in touch with the lay people.So intention plays a big role in why monastics use social networking sites.


Combining yoga (asanas); qigong meditation and raw vegan diet with Buddhism Fellow travellers,

As I have experienced myself major benefits from the practicing of asanas the past two years; plus from my raw vegan diet the past three years and qigong meditation the past year; I was wondering if these concepts/ways of life could be combined with Buddhism in the context of a monastic life.

The past year I was living like an 'urban monk' or something; meaning that I am spending most of my free time on my daily routine disciplines (lengthy meditation both sitting and walking; asanas; qigong meditation). As I also have to work to make a living, I have come to realize that this is an unequal struggle for me; walking some steps forward and then going backward. Which keeps me away from the development of my spiritual Self; and that is what I am interested about the most in my life.

Concerning the raw vegan diet I have found amazing benefits in both mind and body. Alive food provides higher levels of energy and a lightweight sensation, both bodily and mentally (as what we eat affects both mind, body and spirit). We consume the alive consciousness of other forms of life such as fruits; greens; sprouts and that has an instant effect in our "own" consciousness as well. That led me to realize that.. in fact in fact, it is not our consciousness in action, but instead, its the outcome of what we put into our system; and that is raw; alive; which changes us from within. It's not something dead, consuming food from the same kingdom (meat/flesh) as ourselves. Dark leafy greens have a higher alkaline pH, which aids to radiant health and elimination of all diseases. All these three years I was never sick. All diseases arise in a highly acidic environment. All processed foods and especially meat create a high acidic pH in our body. Therefore, the effects of a raw vegan diet are instant and they work deeply, in a psychosomatic level, affecting all that consists of what/who we are.
Combined with the asanas from yoga and the qigong meditation, where I learn to sense the pranic/chi bioenergy field around me, and how to work with it and use it in order to heal my body, all these disciplines are essential to me. The body is the temple of the mind. «Νούς υγιής εν σώματι υγιεί» were saying the ancient Greeks. Which means "Healthy mind in a healthy body". As the body is the temple of the mind, both affect one another; a normally fit body will not suffer when we will be old. We are training our body as we are training our mind; these two go hand in hand for me (and for millions of others as well).
I won't go much into personal details, to not make this a lengthy post.

As about Buddhism, I am new, but as it seems from my research, it's the only system that offers this freedom of both spiritual; psychological and philosophical expansion and betterment in one system, which is what I need (not want), in order to develop myself from within (the only true development).

I would heartily appreciate your advice on this very important path in my life. I am glad that I have found you.

Peace and harmony to each one of you ~

Grigoris

There are a few things which come to mind that Buddhism may say about your current spiritual path;
Surely, the practices you have described will bring you some beneficial results. But without proper insight, guided by the Noble Eightfold path, they will not lead you to liberation from old age, suffering, and death. And this is evident by the way in which you describe the body. The body is in fact a prison, not a temple. This body is not ours, and by its very nature seeks out death. Pursuing health is a useless endeaver, as the Buddha said :

"'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging.' This is the first fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.
"'I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness.' ...
"'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.' ...
Upajjhatthana Sutta AN:5.57

And in fact, the mind has far more affect over the body than the body does over the mind, insofar as the mind is developed. An undeveloped mind can and will suffer in even the most healthy of bodies, but a well developed mind needs not suffer in even an ill and dying body. In this way, the two do not mutually affect each other, and therefore pursuing healthy things for the sake of health is of no benefit. Such clinging to your health and well being will only lead to suffering, as sooner or later it will come to an end.
As for asanas, or qigong meditation, I do not know. But unless their teachings ascribe the application of the Noble Eightfold path, they are not in line with the teaching of the Buddha, and will not lead one to final liberation.
I hope this helps clarify some things with your current practice in regards to the teachings of the Buddha.


How to judge progress in vipassana In samatha one can judge their progress through the progression of jhana, is there a concrete/measurable way to judge progress in vipassana?

There are multiple stages of insight before you reach stream entry. Then there are the 4 stages of sainthood which follows which you can judge of the fetters and defilements that remain.

Taking Dependent Origination into account the main issue leading to the conditioned existence is when we sense any sensations due to, we react with with like or dislike which you try to possess or get rid of. This keeps you rolling in stress and conditioned existence. Once you feel the sensation and you maintain your equanimity then you stop conditioning. Therefore by all means the best measure of your progress is much equanimity and awareness you have towards feeling and sensations that arise in different situations. At a more advanced stage when your equanimity is not wavering, the main measure can become how much of the 3 characteristics of existence you can see. At some point your will start seeing the arising and passing away of phenomena in  any place of your body confirming everything is in a flux of change. You will realise any feeling you get has a finite length. It arrives as cluster of vibrating quantum particles and stays for a finite duration. You have no absolute control over creating, maintaining or the sensation of a particular sensation.

The next way you can monitor your progress is through your wellbeing and that of others people around you. You will be less agitated and stressful. This intern makes people around you less agitated and stressful. You become moral. Each time you try to generate negativity you see the process of stress and agitation building in you. This re enforces your morality and cordial interaction with others. You will have a balanced mind thus make the right proactive decisions than emotional reactive decision. This will be profitable for you in this life and the afterlife for you and everyone around you. Also you will experience peace and happiness with in you. As always your 1st measure of progress should be equanimity and mindfulness after which is firmly established you can look at the secondary measures. You will actively investigate the phenomena arising and passing away within the framework of your body. Once well You will feel pleasant and relaxed. Your mind will get focused. You will have a lot of energy in you.

Another way to measure your progress is through the level of understanding of the Noble Truths at the experiential level (Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi). If you were to use another way to investigate your progress you can keep looking at sensation within you. In further investigation you will see that any stress or agitation arises arriving in you. On further investigating you will see what causes this is your attachment and aversion. You will start seeing if something happens to something you identify as me or mine (things, ideas, thoughts, views, body, friends and foes) you get either agitated or pleased. The lack of mindfulness and equanimity you grasp to the feeling that arrised when you sense something. (E.g. your foe losing his job.) You always long for similar incidents as when you get to know and recognise this is in deed your foe then you experience the some feeling. As you practice, you see when your get any volition in your mind, you experience sensations. You see the sensations as not permanent, grasping to them cause resentment and not absolutely controllable. When you are equanimous and mindful in all times you see that this reduces the stress and agitation in you. You will see every time you even think about breaking your morality you get stressed and agitated, more control you exercise over your mind and prevent it going into negative states more positive you feel and when it does go agitation and stress arises, you will see each time you like or dislike towards something (starting with a certain type of feeling) you loose your balance of your mind and craving to create any such sensation or feeling is not under your absolute control, does not last long and since it does not last it is not satisfactory. You see the way out of this is not to react to the sensations you experience but be aware looking at their true characteristics.

Also you can always be mindful of the defilements to see what frequently arices and how intense they are.

Monitoring progress is has its drawbacks. Proximate cause of looking at progress is striving too hard. You have to leave the results for itself to manifest in due time than be trying to be over mindful of the progress. If you are looking for progress too often then this is a sign of being too attached to the outcome thus losing the balance of your mind and falling behind in your practice.

You do occasionally (not too often or not too far paced) have to see how you are doing though. This is to see if you are doing the right practice and on track. If you are not making progress then the this might mean that you have missed some aspects of the practice or doing something wrong. When you do look at progress is that if is like a knife. You cannot see the daily wear and tear but suddenly notice that it has worn out though this was happening little by little over time.


Does the Maha Parinirvana Sutra acknowledge the existence of eternal spirit/soul? The Buddhist scholar Sallile King has the following interpretation made from the Mahayana Maha PariNirvana Sutra:

  [I]t is obvious that the Mahaparinirvana Sutra does not consider it impossible for a Buddhist to affirm an atman provided it is clear what the correct understanding of this concept is, and indeed the sutra clearly sees certain advantages in doing so.

What I basically want to know is in the context of mindfulness meditation (anapanasati): Is it okay to have the usual hindu belief in eternal aatman for the practice of anapanasati, or is it necessary to have the buddhist belief in non-existence of aatman in order to practice anapanasati?

The second part in the posting below attempts to give an answer to your question stated in the title; the second question I can only comment with subjective view in the first part

1) I think there is no "restriction" or prerequisite (like for instance a system of permits) for mindfulness-meditation. Just try and see how far you come.

However, the Buddha said, (and it is quite reasonable for me) that for the full liberation from the attachments to emotions and mental figurations, and for the true emancipation from (and eradication of) tanha , the illusion of an inherent, eternal, unchangeable Self atma has necessarily to be dissolved.

2) I copy&paste some excerpt from the Mahayana-Mahaparinirvana-Sutra (taken from links found at Dr. Tony Page's site). The following are the last couple of paragraphs from the third chapter.
I find it a bit strange to say the least, for instance that a man like we know it as the Buddha from the palicanon comes to be a doctor to "subdue the tirthikas" ...

If I understand that excerpt correctly, then it is suggested, that the concept of no-self, of "an-atman" is only teached in the framework of concurrence of the "doctors" and "... because of this,(...)" and it is continued, that it had also been said, that there is a self, namely "... it is not that they [the dharma/the phenomena] are completely devoid of a self".

The text is suggesting, that the Buddha did not teach the non-existence of the self simply because of the non-existence (what would be the natural assumption) but because of didactical reasons (and actually means something else)!

Below now the excerpt, emphasis added by me: source

  Chapter 3
   (... final paragraphs)

  "Know, O you Bhiksus!

  The same is the case with the Tathagata, the Alms-deserving, the All-Enlightened-One, the Unsurpassed Best Trainer, the Teacher-of-Heaven-and-Earth, the Buddha-World-Honoured One. He comes as a great Doctor and subdues all tirthikas and bad doctors. In the presence of kings and all people, he says: "I shall become the King of doctors and subdue tirthikas."

  Thus we say: "There is no self, no man, no being, no life, no nurturing, no knowing, none that does, and none that receives."

  O Bhiksus! Know that what the tirthikas say is like the case of a worm that eats upon [a pie-ce of] wood, from which, by chance, there appears what looks like a letter.

  Because of this , the Tathagata teaches and says no-self.

  This is to adjust beings and because he is aware of the occasion. Such non-self is, as occasion arises, spoken of, and it is [also] said that there is the Self.

  This is as in the case of the learned Doctor, who knows well the medicinal and non-medicinal qualities of milk. It is not as with common mortals, who might measure the size of their own self. Common mortals and the ignorant may measure the size of their own self and say, 'It is like the size of a thumb, like a mustard seed, or like the size of a mote.'

  When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus.

  That is why he says:

  'All things have no Self.'

  Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self.

  What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [ni-tya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is un-changing [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman].

  This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine.

  The same is the case with the Tathagata.

  For the sake of beings, he says "there is the Self in all things"

  O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!"


For what reason did the Dali Lama's traditional daily schedule have washing before meditation? I often hear that meditation is best at the first part of the day, and it is usually recommended to meditate before eating. Yet it seems odd to me that for the Dali Lama, washing would come first and meditation would come second.

The only explanation I can come up with is that the washing would allow for enough time to pass so that the early morning 'dreamy' state of mind would wear off?

(I am not sure if the Dali Lama still follows his traditional schedule, I am talking about the Dali Lama of centuries past)

Washing is a symbolic cleansing. One finds it in the Tibetan precepts ceremony. The modern Dalai Lama washes his hands before reading too.


Things that I have pirated in the past Ever since I was a kid I have pirated and bought illegal copies of many different kind of media such as music, movies, video games and softwares.

Now as an adult do I have to pay for all these things legally? The problem is I have a family to take care of and if I had to repay all of these I might end up being in debt. The prices for these items will probably be different now anyway. Besides it will take a lot of time to remember all of the things I pirated.

The important thing is to start training.

Don't dwell on the past.

Angulimalla killed a bunch of people and still managed to not let it stop him from reaching Arahantship and your past should't be turned into a hindrance for you.

Angulimalla did stop doing stuff he would later regret and just trained.

If instead he thought 'i must make  amends for this bad thing i did otherwise [ie serve the families, help out the orphans etc etc]' he would never have made it to max lvl. He could be a nanny.

He also did not escape his kamma, which he had to endure:

  MN86:17.2: Now at that time someone threw a stone that hit Aṅgulimāla, someone else threw a stick, and someone else threw gravel.  Then Aṅgulimāla—with cracked head, bleeding, his bowl broken, and his outer robe torn—went to the Buddha. The Buddha saw him coming off in the distance, and said to him,  “Endure it, brahmin! Endure it, brahmin! You’re experiencing in this life the result of deeds that might have caused you to be tormented in hell for many years, many hundreds or thousands of years.”


Right livelihood - how many cutouts is enough? Slaughtering an animal for meat or a  person for wealth is not right livelihood, nor is it right to pay someone else to do so. So far, so good.

Modern corporations allow individuals to amass more wealth and power than Genghis Khan while not having to lead the charge from up front.

It's easy and direct enough to link Genghis Khan to the invasion of Eurasia, but it's nearly impossible to link a billionaire to a war in Iraq or Congo, though it is common knowledge that the modern economic system since colonial times promotes wars in natural resource rich parts of the world  all the time for economic gain.

The billionaire beneficiary is often on a yacht thousands of miles away, while ordering the war through middle men, board room decisions, corporate interests, political lobbyists and hedge funds.

Such specifically designed to be tenuous connections to the scene of the violence allow the shot caller to even forget there's violence.

Kind of like how when people pick up shrink wrapped meat in a supermarket it's a very different sterile experience from going out into the backyard with a cleaver and a cackling hen and returning with bloody hands.

Even in his time the Buddha did not criticize wars or say being a king isn't right livelihood. So where's the line in the sand, how many intermediaries does it take to make the wrong right?

As I understand the Buddhist approach to ethics we are all responsible for our own actions, and the Buddha defined significant actions as "intention" (AN 6.63 cetanāhaṃ bhikkhave kammaṃ vadāmi). It is the impact of our intention that is under our influence (control would be too strong a word).

How well we understand something like the food chain will be dependent on how much effort we put in. Clearly meat always comes from dead animals. More subtly we know that animals are often mistreated in the production of food. So free range eggs most likely involve less cruelty than battery eggs. Diary products always involve killing off most of the male calves very early, and rennet for cheese often comes from the stomachs of those same calves. A little research can reveal much about such things.  But ignorance is also a karmically significant intention, especially if it is based on laziness or deliberate shying away from the truth. Intending to remain ignorant so as to continue to enjoy a sensory pleasure is an unskilful action.

On the whole we have little influence beyond our own actions. We may have some influence on our intimates, but even that is limited. The point of application of Buddhist ethics is our own mind. We certainly have little influence over billionaires. But then the theory of karma supposedly takes care of this. We take care of our karma and karma takes care of the problem of the actions of others. Everyone gets the fate they have worked towards. The multi-life perspective allows for localised unfairness to persist because the afterlife sorts out the discrepancy between action and reward/punishment.

Of course these ideas of morality were conceived in an environment with very short food chains - most people probably knew the source of their food. The rich directly exploited their serfs for wealth, but this was pretty much out in the open.

And of course bhikkhus (literally "beggars") made a decision to accept whatever food they were given, excepting only when they knew that an animal had been killed specifically for the. So the bhikkhu purposefully distances themselves from knowledge of the food chain and accepts whatever comes. The morality of this seems moot from a modern point of view. Accepting alms from someone who is am arms dealer for example, would seem to be unethical.

I'm not sure it's true that the Buddha did not criticise war. He did tend to stay out of politics. But for example in the opening pages of the Mahānibbāna Sutta he subtlety dissuades Ajātasattu from attacking the Vajjis. And keep in mind that the tradition says that Ajātasattu had already tried to assassinate the Buddha. in any case the Buddhist texts are unequivocal in denouncing violence. And war is only violence on a larger scale.


Is the title of tathagata ever literal? I think it translates as e.g. "one who has thus gone".

My question is whether any historical being has ever really and in entirety "thus gone".

Perhaps in spirit, or in expression, but if e.g. Gautama really did - wouldn't we all be likewise "thus come"?

The term Tathagata is gramatically ambiguous. You can parse it in two main ways. You can parse it as Tatha+gata, "He who has gone thus" which refers to going over to the other shore, which is a title of Nirvana, or you can take it as Tatha+agata (in which case the first a in agata drops out due to Sandhi) which means "He who has come thus" referring to coming to see the truth, or as "He who has come to see thus" because the term thus here is related to the term Tathata, meaning suchness, which is another title of Nirvana.


Secular, Tradition or the pathway of the branches We come to understand the groundwork of Buddhism, along with traditional beliefs/traditions based on what the mind may declare, what tradition may teach, what the sutra may declare. Beyond the  Tripitaka, is not much of what we rely on for Buddhism outside the scope of true enlightenment? In short, in today's world doesn't secular Buddhism better fit reality?

You know, speaking personally, I've never been able to make hats work. I've tried on a lot of different hats, but no matter what, when I put on a hat I end up looking like the world's biggest doof. Some people really rock hats; hats suit them. I have to respect that, but honestly it doesn't help answer the question of whether or not we should all wear hats. It's a contentious point.

We could argue about that, I suppose, but while we do the meal is getting cold.

We all need to develop discrimination: to know what is important, and what is not, and to avoid getting tangled up in the latter. No one can discriminate for us. Spiritual traditions can help keep us on the path or hinder our development; secular independence can free us to advance or get us lost in the woods. Wear a hat, don't wear a hat; in the end it's irrelevant, because a hat has nothing to do with awakening. Either way, it's just a style we adopt for the sake of our egos while we walk the path, and sooner or later we're going to want to slough off matters of style.


Madhyamaka, Mādhyamaka, Madhyamika, Mādhyamika? Two spelling/usage questions about two Sanskrit words common in Buddhism.

First, what is the difference between Madhyamaka (ending in "aka") and Madhyamika (ending in "ika"). I have seen that the former is the doctrine or school while the latter is an adherent of that school. Is that correct?

Second, are either or both properly rendered in the Latin alphabet with or without the straight bar diacritical over the initial a: Madhyamaka or Mādhyamaka; Madhyamika or Mādhyamika.

I have seen it both ways in numerous contexts.

From Wikipedia:

  Madhya is a Sanskrit word meaning "middle" ... The -ma suffix is a superlative, giving madhyama the meaning of "mid-most" or "medium". The -ka suffix is used to form adjectives, thus madhyamaka means "middleling". The -ika suffix is used to form possessives, with a collective sense, thus mādhyamika mean "belonging to the mid-most" (the -ika suffix regularly causes a lengthening of the first vowel and elision of the final -a).

  In a Buddhist context these terms refer to the "middle path" (madhyama pratipada) between the extremes of annihilationism (ucchedavāda) and eternalism (śassatavāda), for example:

  Kātyāyana Sūtra: Thus, the Tathāgata teaches the Dharma by a middle path avoiding both these extremes.

  Madhyamaka refers to the school of thought associated with Nāgārjuna and his commentators.
  Mādhyamika refers to adherents of the Madhyamaka school.

  Note that in both words the stress is on the first syllable.

So if we are to believe this, it looks like "madhyamaka" with a short "a" is the middle path school, and "mādhyamika"s with a long "a" are its followers.


Relaxation vs Laziness In karniyametta sutta, Lord Buddha advised us to be relaxed and not to cling to the work.

How can I recognise relaxation from laziness ?

Well, if you can't recognize the difference it is laziness.

Relaxation is samadhi: the collection of mind around an object of meditation.

When we speak of conventional relaxation, what we really mean is letting the defilements do whatever they want to the mind.


Is this fake Buddha quote synonymous with Buddhas quote in Dhammapada? Is this fake Buddha quote, 'Everything that has a beginning has an end', synonymous with Dhammapada verse, ‘All conditioned things are impermanent', the Buddha quote from the Dhammapada, verse 277?
If it's not synonymous, can somebody explain to me, how it's semantically different?

It is somewhat synonymous, just a bit simplified.
The original quote is:

yaṃ kiñci samudayadhammaṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ nirodhadhamman'ti
SN 35.74

or

"whatever is samudaya-able -- all that is nirodha-able".

Samudaya means "to come together", "to arise from coincidence of multiple conditions". Nirodha means "to stop" or "to arrest".
So the detailed meaning of the phrase is "Whatever phenomenon emerges from the coincidence of multiple conditions, it will be no more when one of those necessary conditions is removed so it no longer contributes to the arising of the phenomenon."
Compare that with "everything that has a beginning has an end". If you really think about it, the meaning is the same, but while the detailed analysis is very obvious in the original quote  it's rather hidden in the simplified one.


What happens to the five aggregates after death? What happens to the five skandhas of a particular person after death?

Do they stay together, and cause birth of a one specific person (which can be called rebirth), or do they separate?
If they separate, do they separate just into 5, or does each aggregate split into smaller parts?
If they separate, do they cause births of many different persons?

I'm interested in answers from many traditions, with references to relevant sources (scriptures, books, articles).

EDIT: I didn't get unambiguous answers to my questions, but what Suminda and Prahlad write seems to suggest that all the aggregates arise and pass all the time, but when we look at them at a higher level, we can conclude that four of the aggregates (sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness) stay together and cause a new birth of one specific person, while the remaining aggregate (rūpa, matter) separates and splits into parts. Can anyone confirm/disconfirm this?

EDIT 2: I was asked to specify what is exactly meant by "overall structure of the aggregates remain intact", when we know that the aggregates arise and pass all the time. What I mean is the continuity of the illusion called "self". I have the illusion that I'm the same person as a moment ago, even though my body, my feelings, etc. have changed. Does this illusion continue after death? According to Buddhist doctrines, is there an illusion of the continuity of consciousness? Of the continuity of feelings? Of the continuity of the body?

I watched Yuttadhammo's video about rebirth and understood that Buddhists believe in perceived continuity of the consciousness after death. Is this a canonical opinion that can be concluded from Buddhist scriptures? How about the continuity of other aggregates?

1. Do they stay together, and cause birth of a one specific person (which can be called rebirth), or do they separate?

Even when you are alive, the 5 skandhas arise together in every experience. So when you ask "do they stay together", you are asking if the experience stays. No! The experience disappears immediately. There's no staying. The skandhas in this experience are not the same as the skandhas in the next.

2. If they separate, do they separate just into 5, or does each aggregate split into smaller parts?

The 5 skandhas are grouped into 2 categories. Nāma (mental) and Rūpa (physical). Rūpa contains only the 1st skanda and the Nāma contains the remaining 4.
Usually only Rūpa can arise independently, e.g.: a log, stone, corpse etc.
Nāma always needs to arise in association with Rūpa except in Arupa Brahma Realms. But again, when you ask "if they separate", you are making the assumption that there's something fixed lasting for a certain time period. It doesn't work that way. A single experience can contain a maximum of 17 thought moments. 1 Rūpa unit lasts only for 17 thought moments and there's no example in nature to compare to the time 1 thought moment lasts but to the lifespan of another thought moment.

The mind at the time of death

  When a person is about to die the bhavanga is interrupted, vibrates for one moment and passes away. The interruption is caused by an object which presents itself to the mind-door. As a result of this a mind-door-adverting citta arises. This is followed by five javana thought moments which are weak, lack reproductive power, and serve only to determine the nature of rebirth consciousness. The javanas may or may not be followed by two registering thought moments (tadaalambana). After this comes the death consciousness (cuti citta), which is identical in constitution and object to the bhava"nga citta. The cuti citta merely serves the function of signaling the end of life. It is important to appreciate the difference between the cuti citta and the javanas that precede it. The cuti citta is the end of the bhava"nga flow of an existence and does not determine the nature of rebirth. The javanas that occur just before the cuti citta arises form a kammic process and determine the nature of the rebirth consciousness.

3. If they separate, do they cause births of many different persons?

There's no separation. When a person dies, the Nāma doesn't appear in the body anymore. Only Rūpa caused due to reasons other than Nāma continue to appear. There's only one Patisandi citta. So the death of a being does not result in multiple births.

  we can conclude that four of the aggregates (sensation, perception,
  mental formations and consciousness) stay together and cause a new
  birth of one specific person, while the remaining aggregate (rūpa,
  matter) separates and splits into parts.

Again, there's no staying. They appear together and disappear instantly. Nāma does not go from this life to the next. The first citta of the next life is a result of the Javana cittas that occur just before the cuti citta.

  I have the illusion that I'm the same person as a moment ago, even
  though my body, my feelings, etc. have changed. Does this illusion
  continue after death?

Ignorance or Moha is a cetasika. The cetasikas are the mental factors or concomitants that arise and perish together with consciousness (citta), sharing its object and basis. Cetasikas don't appear independently from the cittas. So there's nothing going from this moment to the next. But that doesn't mean the next citta cannot have an ignorance cetasika.

  I watched Yuttadhammo's video about rebirth and understood that
  Buddhists believe in perceived continuity of the consciousness after
  death.

Venerable Yuttadhammo is talking about the continuity of experiencing. He's not implying a panchaskanda going from this life to the next or from this moment to the next.


Is Bhikkhu allowed to keep his food in refrigerator for next day or for long period? From Theravada view;

Recently, I saw the video and I am not sure whether a monk can store food in a refrigerator; From my understanding, a monk cannot store food for next day. I believe this should be in the list of 227 rules but I cannot confirm.

Another small question: Is this common sight to see a refrigerator in a monk's room in Theravada monastery? Keeping it like a personal one.

Is Bhikkhu allowed to keep his food in refrigerator for next day or for long period?
Not proper food, only certain types of edibles:

The Four Sorts of Edibles
Any nutriment that a bhikkhu puts into his mouth is classified in four
groups, which specify the time limits during which he can consume or
store them:
(i) Food — Limited from Dawn to Noon (Yaavakaalika)
(ii) Fruit juices — Limited to One Day (Yaamakaalika)
(iii) Medicinal-tonics — Limited to Seven Days (Sattaahakaalika)
(iv) Other Medicines — For All One's Life (Yaavajiivika)
-The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople

This is also what I've seen in some western monasteries.

Is this common sight to see a refrigerator in a monk's room in Theravada monastery?
The few times I've been in a monk's private room, I never saw one. But in the same housing (under the same roof), it's common.


How does buddhism describe what exactly, or where exactly, or how exactly, consciousness exists? As a computer scientist interested in the origin of the universe and the mind, I finally have found some ancient stuff of the type of substance and depth I am looking for, the Abhidhamma. The first part of the Vibhanga (one of the sections of the Abhidhamma) talks about "aggregates" or "heaps" or "groups", Skandha. This to me seems like it is near the foundation of what a computational model of consciousness would need to consider, as consciousness is one of the types of heaps or skandha.
My question at this point in learning about this is, how exactly is consciousness structured in this model? Where does consciousness exist exactly. As a human being, I feel my body, but my conscious awareness feels like it is in the center of my brain, literally at a pin point. I can understand and model how a consciousness can use sensory organs to perceive information, but I don't understand how the consciousness itself can form. If everything is information in the end, or bundles of flowing information like these heaps/skandha, how does it aggregate and flow in a bundle in such a way to generate consciousness which you can feel?
I can even go so far as to imagine something like a biological cell with its complicated machinery going so far as to gain control over its environment, so that as a machine it is so complex and highly functional that it acts like a conscious being. This isn't too hard to imagine. But what is hard to imagine is how the consciousness is stored, or where it is! How can I perceive and feel the perception is in the center of my brain? What does skandha and the Abhidhamma have to say about this, it's structure?

As a computer scientist you are bringing some baggage with you that will continue to get in the way of what you want to find in the Dharma. I am speaking from the perspective of a computer scientist that spent thirty years looking into the same questions you are asking, ultimately finding the answers  in contemplative practice.
While consciousness is categorized in the Dharma in ways that may have led you to believe that consciousness is some thing that exists separate and apart from its cognitive contents, reaching out to contact that content, the actual structure, which you can discover first-hand through meditative practices (today’s mindfulness meditation being the first baby-step on the path) is the inverse of what you believe it to be.
For me, the ultimate roadblock on the path you are following was explaining human creativity (rather than explaining it away), because, upon analysis, the proposed solutions to explaining it always assumed the result, and thus were never more than magical thinking. An example is the foundational belief, found widespread in many fields of knowledge, that order arises randomly—and sticks around—without some organizing principle driving it. That’s magical thinking.
Consciousness of some object being taken as a structure of real things harboring a ghost in the machine that somehow imparts a new feature onto its dull matter, no matter how subtly the mechanism is crafted, must assume as a given, the ability to know, be aware, or be cognizant of those skandas you’ve read about. It’s not to be found in dull matter, so you have to turn the problem around.
If you want a textual reference to an in-depth treatment of mind, and specifically “where is mind?” I highly recommend the Surangama Sutra, also known as The Sutra of Heroic Progress. There are three extant English translations of it, with my favorite being the Goddard translation because of it’s conciseness (repeating material being skipped), and the lengths gone to by the translators and the editor, Goddard, to not use unfamiliar terminology.


What does Buddhadasa say about rebirth after the break-up of the body? i came across the teachings of Buddhadasa, he seemed to preach that rebirth is just a state of mind cycled throughout the days; greed, lust, peace, etc.  That makes sense. But did he talk about what happen after break up of body or conventional death?  Am i missing something?  so if that is true, then eventually everyone will reach Nirvana at the end if we wait long enough (because according to him, there cant be cycles of state of mind if there is no rebirth)? Did he present new idea of   of rebirth or I still have a lot more to read from Buddhadasa?  I can't seem to find his ideas of literal rebirth.   Thanks.

Buddhadasa taught "literal rebirth" is something mental, in the here-&-now. Since the Pali word "jati" ("birth") literally refers to something mental, why would the superstitious speculative idea occur that an imaginary "physical rebirth" is "literal"?

The word 'birth' ('jati') refers to the production of 'beings' (per SN 12.2). Suttas such as SN 23.2, SN 5.10 & MN 98 say 'beings' ('satta') are merely 'views' & 'verbal designations' born of 'strong clinging'. Therefore, 'jati' or 'birth' is something 'mental', in both original Buddhism and in modern Hindu India.

As for he answers to your questions, they can be found in the book by Buddhadasa called Two Kinds of Language.

  Now, going a little higher, we come to the word "birth" (jati). In
  everyday language, the word "birth" refers to physically coming into
  the world from the mother's womb. A person is the born physically only
  once. Having been born, one lives in the world until one dies and
  enters the coffin. Physical birth  happens to each of us only
  once. This birth from the mother's womb is what is meant by "birth"
  in everyday language.

  Now let's consider the word "death". Death in everyday language means
  that event which necessitates putting something in a coffin and
  cremating or burying it. But in Dhamma language, the word "death"
  refers to the [traumatic; sorrowful; suffering] cessation of the idea mentioned just a moment ago, the
  idea of "I" or "me". The [traumatic; sorrowful; suffering] ceasing of this idea is what is meant by
  "death'' in Dhamma language.

About the later-day corruption of 'jati' into something 'physical', Buddhadasa said:

  People language is used by the ordinary people who don't
  understand Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so
  dense that they are blind to everything but material things.

Such worldly people are so dense & blind they label as 'materialists' those who don't subscribe to superstitions of 'physical rebirth', which is illogical & contradictory, given it is they, who believe in 'material physical rebirth', who are obviously 'materialists'.

In summary:

'Literal rebirth' is something 'mental'.
Believers in 'physical rebirth' are logically 'materialists'.
Buddhadasa appeared to say there is only one life.

As for the term 'kaya', found in the translated sutta phrase: 'break-up of the body', it does not necessarily mean 'physical body'. 'Kaya' literally means 'group' or 'collection'. MN 44, for example, says the 'sak-kaya' is the five aggregates. Since the quality of the five aggregates are changing from moment to moment, particularly in the common worldly 'person', obviously the phrase 'break-up of the kaya' may not refer to the termination of life.

For example, as soon as I log off Buddhism Stack Exchange, obviously the aggregates answering this question (such as the sankhara aggregate thinking with the thought content of this question; and the visual consciousness of the sense object Buddhism Stack Exchange) will end.


Looking for a Sutta wherein the Buddha talks about dreams In the Dhamma talk "Sleeping and dreaming", by Ajahn Punnadhammo, he mentions that in the Anguttara Nikaya (no specific sutta mentioned) the Buddha talked about the origins of dreams and different kinds of dreams.
He taught that some dreams could be visions of the past and future, messages from Devas and "Wind in the belly" meaning random content with no real significance.
What sutta is this?
Thank you for your time.

"When the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened — was still just an unawakened bodhisatta, five great dreams appeared to him. Which five?"
AN 5.196


How does one experience or understand the experience of others? I have found that if i do not share or understand the perspective of others, it is difficult to appreciate their point of view so that one is able to be the viewer as opposed to the actor. How does one experience the experience of others?

I understood the question as, how to listen deeply, without imposing our will, our ego or impatience on the speaker.

First we must still our mind of all chatter and impatience, which isn't possible without daily meditation and mindfulness, so we must learn to practice properly.

If we are to be strong to help others, we must practice correctly.

Second, we develop compassion and loving kindness towards the speaker. When our mind is not caught in its own web of suffering, compassion comes easily.

Having developed the heart of compassion and loving kindness, we listen mindfully. Such deep listening, where we offer our true presence to our friend or partner will be much appreciated.

To be effective, we must practice deep listening regularly, by being present in the moment, and allowing our heart of compassion and kindness to open.


What is the origin of the Five Enobling Virtues? "The practice of precepts helps one to cultivate five ennobling virtues which correspond to each of the precepts. The first is the cultivation of compassion; the second, generosity and non-attachment; the third, contentment; the fourth truthfulness; and the fifth, mindfulness and clarity of the mind."

I found this quote with a reference to The Five Precepts and the Five Ennoblers (pañcasīla-pañcadhamma) by Prince Vajirañāṇavarorasa --
but I can't locate the text anywhere or find anything about it. Can any one shed some light on this?

I found it here for free download:

The Five Precepts :
The Buddhist Golden Rule
By His Royal Highness the late Supreme
Patriarch Prince Vajirananavarorasa

I found it linked from this page: 'The 5 Precepts' at dharmaflower.net.

The quote you're looking for is on page 2:

  Contrasted with the negative virtues of precepts, there is also a set of five
  positive practices, which correspond to them, thus forming a complete practice
  of virtue. They are:

  Loving-kindness and compassion.
  Patience in the right means of livelihood.
  Contentment in married life.
  Truthfulness.
  Watchfulness.

The precepts are described further on pages 4 through 34. Starting on page 34 it begins to describe the corresponding virtues; for example it starts with,

  The Five Ennobling Virtues

  The qualities of a virtuous person are mentioned in the scriptures, referring to
  precepts (síla) and ennobling virtues (kalyana dhamma). One who has fully
  observed the precepts is not necessarily one who is equipped with virtue. For
  example, when such a person happens to see a drowning man while he is
  passing by in a boat, he is morally bound to stop the boat and to save that
  man.

  If he cannot be bothered to do so, in spite of his ability, and he leaves the man
  to drown. However, one can say that he has not broken any precepts, but he
  has certainly lost something higher than precepts and will surely be severely
  censured for his positive lack of virtue.

The rest of the article (through page 49) describes the virtues.

I've just started reading it, an interesting text and author. Wikipedia says ...

  He helped to institutionalize Thai Buddhism.

... and I think this was probably a primary function of this text based on how it reconciles Buddhism with the needs of a state. A striking example:

  From the point of view of both Buddhism and the state, killing is held to be a capital crime. In the case of Buddhism, a Bhikkhu (monk) who is guilty of such an offense is called a defeated one (parajika) and is to be expelled from the Order of Monks (Sangha).

  In the case of the state, unless the accused can prove himself to be deserving of leniency due to some reasonable excuse, the law of the country generally metes out some form of capital punishment or mitigates this to life imprisonment."


How should I view others sufferings I cannot affect? Through Vipassan meditation one can learn how to guard ones mind against externalities and not be affected by emotions. I believe that trying to follow this meditation to view the world from an unemotional state with actions not guided by emotion would definitely help me to be more aware and more awake, as well as have a happier and calmer mind. However, my concern is the following:

Does not letting externalities affect you mean ignoring externalities? I know that this meditation will help me feel better, however is it morally right to ignore the suffering of the world so that I could feel better?

Firstly, meditation isn't about becoming an unemotional robot, it is about living a life not being control by your emotions, it's completely different! You can either be the master of your mind or the slave.

There is a big difference in ignoring the worlds suffering, compared to understanding the root cause of all suffering. As for the suffering of the external world, i would recommend studying and contemplating the 4 Noble Truths. Once you realize that ignorance is the root to all suffering, then you will view the world completely different.

Also if you want to help the suffering of the external world, i would suggest not increasing the suffering of others, that would be a good start, and to achieve that, it would be for you to continue your practice into freedom, then you can be an example for others!!

I hope i have been of some help.

Metta.


How does Buddhism describe God? I've encountered many ideas about the identity of God, ranging from the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent as in Judeo-Christian cultures, to that of one who has reached enlightenment. Is it suggested that Buddha is God or that Buddha is one who has attained enlightenment, leaving breadcrumbs behind for others to follow and that another being is God. Or does Buddhism reject God? Or something else that I'm missing?

For Buddhism, If you define God as someone who created the world, God does not exist.

But if you define the God as someone who is superior to other beings, then god exist.

However, such a god exists only for a period of time, then one day the god will go down to another level (I mean rebirth) as an angel or human.

The Lord Buddha is not a God.

In Tripitaka, there is a lesson about how the world is created and how god came to exists.


Is there any proof that Budai was an actual historical figure Does any online site refer to evidence that this monk ever existed as an actual historical figure? If the person is believed to be so important and famous as next Buddha then where is the tomb?
Refer to wikipedia

Many Chinese Buddhists believe he was a reincarnation of Maitreya, the person who will become the next Buddha after Gautama Buddha.

There is research and writing to proof Budai monk is a historical figure around 10th century and under category of Buddhism Zen teaching.
The source found that seems not having enough of a specified quality and could not be suitable to Junior Buddhist.
"The sources available to modern scholars concerning Pu-tai' s life are deficient". The materials give merely a nebulousaccount,  all  are  agreed that he was  a mysterious  cleric whoperformed  miracles.
Reference
https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Budai
Hsiao, Bea-Hui (1995) Two images of Maitreya: Fu Hsi and Pu-tai Ho-shang. PhD thesis. SOAS University of London.
https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/28925/


Can students evaluate qualifications and accept a person as their teacher? Assuming students are unenlightened, how can students have the chance to evaluate qualifications and accept a person as their teacher?

For example, recently there have been more sexual misconduct issues with famous teachers, such as Sogyal Rinpoche. Obviously, the students here were unable to evaluate the teacher.

What is the method for students to evaluate qualifications and accept a person as their teacher?

How can a person that knows very little of the Buddha's teaching evaluate if a person is a Buddha?

One can immediately eliminate from consideration any teachers who might incur censure per AN8.88:

The lay followers may, if they wish, make a proclamation of confidence in a mendicant who has eight qualities.
They don’t try to prevent the lay people from getting material possessions. They don’t try to harm lay people. They don’t insult and abuse lay people. They don’t divide lay people against each other. They don’t criticize the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha. They’re not seen at an inappropriate place for collecting alms.

Note that many of the contemporary Sangha/teacher crises would raise doubts and lack of confidence because of the above.
The Rhinoceros Sutta suggests that we be prepared to wander alone as necessary in our search, not wasting our time, yet open to meeting the Sangha as found:

Follow that friend who’s deeply-learned,
Dharma-endowed and lucid, great,
knows meaning leading out of doubts,
fare singly as the rhino’s horn.


I Seem to have Developed the Faculty of Introspection But Not Mindfulness (Contact) Alright, this will probably sound odd for most people on here: I cannot seem to place my mind on an object, as in make my attention rest upon an object as to define it more or emphasize it. However, I've managed to (from what I understand) diminish gross excitement and gross laxity, meaning I can sustain concentration but this concentration is not of an object. I'm merely looking at the object, not concentrating on it. I'm having much trouble develop the mental factor of contact, which may seem impossible but I don't know how to explain this better. Any advice? Thanks!

I cannot seem to place my mind on an object, as in make my attention rest upon an object as to define it more or emphasize it.

Many beginners have this problem. There are couple of solution:

Breath Meditation

When doing breath meditation when starting be aware of your surrounding like the sounds, touch of your shirt or air touching your body. Do this for a few minutes only. When doing breath meditation and you realise your mind has gone to a sound realise that and then stay with the sound and your breath for a short while and then bring it back. If this has caused any through proliferation and other sensations in the body look at them for a short while. These sensation can trigger other distractions so realise their presence and ensure equanimity towards them (if not already not their develop it). If there is a pleasant smell you might have delight in it and this might be turning up other memories which intern triggers other thoughts and memories in associating with the sensation, what you recognise this as and your mental reaction.

Awareness

in developing awareness it might be worth while to try to switch from object to object. You can try systematically scanning your body.

  However, I've managed to (from what I understand) diminish gross excitement and gross laxity, meaning I can sustain concentration but this concentration is not of an object.

In Buddhist meditation your object should be a wholesome object. So see that you are concentrated on. Concentration by definition (in some traditions) your mind being in one object when there is many.

  I'm merely looking at the object, not concentrating on it.

Looking at the object is perhaps the same as staying with the object.

  I'm having much trouble develop the mental factor of contact, which may seem impossible but I don't know how to explain this better.

This is very difficult to see consciousness arising from contact. These can only be seen if at all at very later stages of the practice. So don't worry about it.

Basically progress is: object > contact > conciousness > Feeling > Perception > volition > thinking > pondering of each of the sense door

Try to catch the train at the stage of Feeling > Perception > volition > thinking > pondering


Spirituality is making me anhedoniac! I only find pleasure in working on my goals and achieving something every day.

Female bodies don't seem much attractive anymore but out of habit I masterbate after every 3 days just for the sake of it. I don't even get an orgasm after ejaculation. It is bland. Boring. And I have lost a lot of attraction for all the mainstream things.

This all have started happening after I did 10 days Vipassana Meditation Course. Everything feels empty.

I only find excitement in my work and time spend with close friends.

Any thoughts? I am worried about my anhedoniac sexual activities as I am still in my 20s

Anhedonia is a diagnosable medical condition. Please consult a doctor for evaluating your condition. Your spiritual practice might have revealed a medical condition, especially if nothing gives you pleasure. Spiritual practice does lessen craving, yet normally other joys blossom accompanied by happiness in seclusion and meditation. Continued practice should strengthen spiritual bliss. If you are not experiencing spiritual happiness, consult your spiritual teacher as well.


Being more spiritual I have been practicing different kinds of meditation for a year and more. But I don't know where I am and what my next step is. What should I do ?

There are five opportunties for spiritual freedom:

AN5.26:1.1: “Mendicants, there are these five opportunities for freedom. If a mendicant stays diligent, keen, and resolute at these times, their mind is freed, their defilements are ended, and they arrive at the supreme sanctuary.
AN5.26:2.1: What five? Firstly, the Teacher or a respected spiritual companion teaches Dhamma to a mendicant. That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how the Teacher or a respected spiritual companion teaches it. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. This is the first opportunity for freedom. If a mendicant stays diligent, keen, and resolute at this time, their mind is freed, their defilements are ended, and they arrive at the supreme sanctuary.
AN5.26:3.1: Furthermore, it may be that neither the Teacher nor a respected spiritual companion teaches Dhamma to a mendicant. But the mendicant teaches Dhamma in detail to others as they learned and memorized it. That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how they teach it in detail to others as they learned and memorized it. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. This is the second opportunity for freedom. …
AN5.26:4.1: Furthermore, it may be that neither the Teacher nor … the mendicant teaches Dhamma. But the mendicant recites the teaching in detail as they learned and memorized it. That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how they recite it in detail as they learned and memorized it. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. This is the third opportunity for freedom. …
AN5.26:5.1: Furthermore, it may be that neither the Teacher nor … the mendicant teaches Dhamma … nor does the mendicant recite the teaching. But the mendicant thinks about and considers the teaching in their heart, examining it with the mind as they learned and memorized it. That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how they think about and consider it in their heart, examining it with the mind as they learned and memorized it. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. This is the fourth opportunity for freedom. …
AN5.26:6.1: Furthermore, it may be that neither the Teacher nor … the mendicant teaches Dhamma … nor does the mendicant recite the teaching … or think about it. But a meditation subject as a foundation of immersion is properly grasped, attended, borne in mind, and comprehended with wisdom. That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how a meditation subject as a foundation of immersion is properly grasped, attended, borne in mind, and comprehended with wisdom. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. This is the fifth opportunity for freedom. …

Although meditation alone is mentioned in the fifth opportunity, be sure to investigate the other four. Importantly, the teachings are mentioned again and again.
Study the suttas. Find a teacher and good spiritual companions. You will need all three to help develop meditation, wisdom and ethics together.

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view.
AN2.126:1.2: What two?
AN2.126:1.3: The words of another and proper attention.


Did the Buddha know God? I recall reading or hearing, I don't know how long ago, that the Buddha knew the God that many religions believe is the creator. The story is that this powerful, long lived God was around when the universe came into existence and believed he was responsible for the creation. But I've not been able to recall or find the the source. Is there such a story in any of the Buddhist writings or commentaries?

The God you speak of, is known as the Great Brahma or Mahabrahma, the first being to appear in the Mahabrahma plane, when the world expands again. Also, take a look at the 31 planes of existence.

The story you're looking for is in DN1:

  "There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is
  contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara
  Brahma-world. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture,
  self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they
  continue thus for a long, long period of time.

  "But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While
  the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a
  certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the
  exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and
  re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made,
  feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in
  glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.

  "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns):
  'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment,
  due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their
  merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and
  re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There
  they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving
  through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long,
  long period of time.

  "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the
  Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator,
  the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that
  are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is
  the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings
  might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these
  beings have come.'

  "And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be
  Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the
  Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator,
  the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that
  are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the
  reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here
  after him.'

  "Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who
  re-arose there after him.

  "Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come
  to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has
  gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and
  right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration
  that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately
  preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus: 'We were
  created by him, by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the
  Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the
  Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the
  Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable,
  eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like
  eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to
  this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.'

Footnote on Ābhassara Brahma-world (by Bhikkhu Bodhi):

  The "world of streaming radiance," the sixth of the fifteen planes in
  the fine-material world (rūpaloka), the lowest order to be exempt from
  the onset of world destruction. The Brahma-world mentioned later is
  destroyed by the conflagration but reappears at an early stage.

The same being is also referenced in DN11:

  "When this was said, the gods of the retinue of Brahma said to the
  monk, 'We also don't know where the four great elements... cease
  without remainder. But there is Brahma, the Great Brahma, the
  Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the
  Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father
  of All That Have Been and Shall Be. He is higher and more sublime than
  we. He should know where the four great elements... cease without
  remainder.'

  "'But where, friends, is the Great Brahma now?'

  "'Monk, we also don't know where Brahma is or in what way Brahma is.
  But when signs appear, light shines forth, and a radiance appears,
  Brahma will appear. For these are the portents of Brahma's appearance:
  light shines forth and a radiance appears.'

  "Then it was not long before Brahma appeared.

  "So the monk approached the Great Brahma and, on arrival, said,
  'Friend, where do these four great elements — the earth property, the
  liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease
  without remainder?'

  "When this was said, the Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am
  Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the
  All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator,
  Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall
  Be.'

  A second time, the monk said to the Great Brahma, 'Friend, I didn't
  ask you if you were Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the
  Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the
  Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have
  Been and Shall Be. I asked you where these four great elements — the
  earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind
  property — cease without remainder.'

  "A second time, the Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am
  Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the
  All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator,
  Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall
  Be.'

  "A third time, the monk said to the Great Brahma, 'Friend, I didn't
  ask you if you were Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the
  Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the
  Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have
  Been and Shall Be. I asked you where these four great elements — the
  earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind
  property — cease without remainder.'

  "Then the Great Brahma, taking the monk by the arm and leading him off
  to one side, said to him, 'These gods of the retinue of Brahma
  believe, "There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not know. There
  is nothing that the Great Brahma does not see. There is nothing of
  which the Great Brahma is unaware. There is nothing that the Great
  Brahma has not realized." That is why I did not say in their presence
  that I, too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without
  remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing
  the Blessed One (the Buddha) in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go
  right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question.
  However he answers it, you should take it to heart.'


Does Vesak means Vaishakh? Vesak means on the day Buddha born and is word Vesak (Pali; Sanskrit: Vaiśākha) means Vaishakh month by marathi calendar(Maharshtra, India)?

Vesak is the day marking the birth, enlightenment, and passing away of the Buddha, which according to traditional accounts all occurred on the full-moon day of May. Vesak (by that I mean the three events) has nothing to do with the Vaishakh Month in India.It is just that the three event happen to fall on this month.

The three great events that took place on Vesak day in the life of the Buddha are - the birth of Prince Sidhartha, the Bodhisatva at the Royal Park of Lumbini, His attainment of the Perfect Enlightement in his 35th year under the shade of Sri Maha Bodhi at Buddha Gaya, and His Parinirvana. His Pari-nibbhana, at Kusinara in the Sala Grove, Upavartana that belonged to Royalty of Malla-occured on the Vesak Full Moon Poya Day. It is renowned as the most sacred Poya Day in the Buddhist world over.

Although the recognised Vesak Full Moon ‘Poya’ (holiday) Day falls in the month of May, there is an additional Vesak Full Moon called "Adhi Vesak Full Moon Poya Day". This Adhi ‘Poya’ occurs once in 3 years, due to the change of planentary movements. There are 365 days in an year. According to astrology (SriLankan ‘Nekath’), they calculate a year usually as 360 days. The planets rotate round the Sun. Sometimes the course of the planetary movements change. According to astrological calculations, this leads to an additional month.

Here I should mention the name of Sir Ponnambalam Ramanthan, who was a Member of the Legislative Council of Ceylon from 1879 to 1892, Solicitor General from 1892 to 1906, a member of the Legislative Council from 1911 to 1921, and from 1924 to 1930. A Barrister by profession, he was elected by a broad coalition of Buddhists and Hindus. He supported the efforts of the Theosophical Society to establish Buddhist denominational schools. He worked tirelessly for Hindu Buddhist unity. He was responsible for making Vesak, the birth anniversary of the Buddha, a public holiday in colonial Ceylon.