Appreciating Nature Aesthetically I recall reading somewhere that beauty is a lure within Buddhism, and causes attachment towards the external world. However, I've come to think beauty may be positive in certain circumstances. This site which deals with mindfulness and other such topics suggests witnessing nature mindfully allows greater connection.

My reasoning is that if compassion is put forwards in Buddhism, especially with the Mahayana, then attachment isn't necessarily all bad. I recall reading the Dalai Lama explaining how compassion propels karma, but towards positive rebirth. Attachment towards others through compassion can benefit the individual in the present or future.

QUESTION 1: What is the benefit of aesthetic contemplation, if any?

And, in line with this, I wonder if within compassion meditation one needs to experience feeling during the meditation itself. I remember the Dalai Lama saying one should generate compassion with reasons, then focus upon the feeling. It's difficult for me to do so, so I wonder if compassion-meditation can work without immediate feeling.

QUESTION 2: Is feeling (either vedana or 'emotion') necessary for compassion meditation?

Thank you.

By saying “attachment isn't necessarily all bad,” you are somewhat timidly suggesting that “beauty and love are not (necessarily) forms of suffering.” The truth, of course, is that both Enlightenment and the path to Enlightenment are valuable because they profoundly enhance the experiences of and capacities for love and beauty (and insight). The fact that you are placing this profound truth in question is the result of a popular misunderstanding of Buddhism.

This common misunderstanding concerns the notion of detachment (upekkha) in Buddhism. A person practices detachment only as a preparation for achieving upacara samadhi in mindfulness meditation. Upacara samadhi is an objective, calm, undistracted, and focused state of mind that is conducive to psychological insight (which, in turn, is required to overcome suffering). Hence, the only reason a monk may contemplate the stages of decomposition of a corpse is to temporarily suspend any attachment to the body in order to reach upacara samadhi more easily. To practice detachment as a way of life has no value, because it does not generate insight. People who practice detachment without practicing a lot of meditation are merely increasing their suffering and delaying insight for another lifetime!

QUESTION 1: What is the benefit of aesthetic contemplation, if any?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 1: While the contemplation of beauty does not lead directly to insight, it is an indicator of progress for those people who value the experience of beauty.

QUESTION 2: Is feeling (either vedana or 'emotion') necessary for compassion meditation?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 2: In the practice of the brahmavihara, the practices of loving-kindness (metta) and joy for others (mudita) can be sources of great joy and happiness. Of course, the contemplation of the suffering of others (which arouses compassion or karuna) is painful. The practice of upekkha (usually translated as equanimity, but better translated as objectivity) is, well, objective. There is no equivalent to “emotion” in the Pali language. In Pali, vedana merely means feeling, which is not always emotional.


How do you properly practice the more abstract precepts? The precept of killing is a great baseline. Very clear: if you kill something with intention, you break the precept. The factors I can remember in the kammic disecction of the matter are: the kammic weight of the one being killed, the intention of killing (and any coupling intents), the actual action, whether or not it succeeds, if, any, regret after the action, and maybe a few more factors. Giving each a realistic weight depending on the full situation will give you an average estimate of how bad it is.

The thing is that the actual action is very clear with killing no matter how obscure the situation. With precepts like stealing, lying, or practices like wrong speech there isn't really a meter to hold yourself to. I've asked around on reddit and even here before but I haven't had a proper, well-developed answer to this.

Some answers, particularly for right speech focus on following the heart or judging based on emotions, but that is the opposite of a discerning judgment and many of us follow our subtle judgement to worse kamma, not better.

A meter of 'that which is not freely given' is pretty good but refuted by the sutta that speaks of 'stealing' a flower's smell.

Other answers focus on a middle-ground, but these do not address the right course of action in situations where property becomes non-physical, or ownership of property splits, or other complex situations not faced during the Buddha's time.

At the end of the day, there is definitely a right answer to this question, and it's important to know it for this high-speed age. You need to know this before you find yourself in such a situation because the decision has to be made on the spot. The answer exists because to a Buddha's range, there is an absolute understanding of whether an appropriation of property is stealing or not. This absolute knowledge, assuming it is not the result of direct kammic vision, can be practiced by normal people too.

Edit: For a precept like stealing, ownership is arbitrary and can't be properly defined. Abusive speech is arbitrary and again changes from person to person. What might be a violation of right speech to one person isn't to another. Lying is pretty objective, but also has its' issues in getting proper communication across. In right speech, abusive speech is subjective: some consider certain words abusive, so if you speak to them in such a manner it won't be right speech. Others might not, and then there should be no violation of right speech in that situation even though everything you do is the same. So how do you find that line of practice where you can say, "I am properly keeping this or that precept, without worrying about self corruption?"

Because of the immense depth of the teaching, different skillsets/levels of students, and complexity/multidimensionallity of life in general, Buddhist theory and practice is a set of incremental approximations, from very coarse to more refined and precise. The provisional teachings are formulated in the narrative that makes sense to each particular student, such as the eastern religious narrative, or the narrative of shamanic mysticism, or the narrative of the mainstream society. More advanced teachings make use of the phenomenological narrative, the narrative of the subtle energies, and others. Some of the very advanced teachings require stepping outside of all narratives.

Since all people are different, all operate in different contexts, it is very difficult to make universal statements that mean the same thing to all people, have the motivating/inspiring effect in all the different contexts, and generally lead to positive outcomes in all of the endless "realities" (personal narratives).

The precepts are the lowest common denominator designed to work in all these different worlds. That is, they are meant to be the basic rule of thumb that works well enough regardless of the exact interpretation.

As individual practitioner, your understanding of precepts and of Dharma in general grows and matures - and transforms - during the entire journey. This is known as the transmutation of vows.

On the very basic level, you take precepts as is, without much thinking, and implement whatever they mean to you.
Then, you realize that precepts require you to control your mind and emotions: your "want" and "hate". So your context changes, instead of thinking in terms of external actions you think in terms of your mind states. At this point you don't painstakingly deliberate about individual precepts, you make sure your mind stays sober - as long as you do this, the precepts are "automatically" interpreted and executed in the right way.
Then, you get to the level where you no longer worry about your own goodness. Instead, your concern is about suffering and happiness of others. Just like on the previous level you stopped obsessing over individual precepts, on this level you're no longer obsessed with your mind state. You know, as long as you don't seek personal benefit, don't worry about personal difficulties, as long as you sincerely wish benefit for the others, then your mindstate will be alright, and your precepts will be taken care of.
Then, as you spend some significant time practicing the above, just as you hopefully did with every level (skipping levels in Buddhism is rarely a good idea) your understanding of ethics matures to the point when you understand the relative nature of any reference point. Because you now see that nothing has the absolute truth or the absolute value, you tend to be pretty cool about things, pretty dispassionate. So in your decision-making, you don't cling to any onesided position and you tend to prefer to act in such ways that helps others be less attached to their one-sided positions. So your ethical decisions of do/dont are now guided by your desire to promote wisdom, in-depth analysis, and certainly reduce possibilities of confrontation and conflict due to radicalized opinions, onesided judgements, attachments, and other forms of non-enlightened behavior, because you see that it leads to suffering. Just like the previous levels subsumed and transcended each other, on this level you abandon the notion of "doing good to others" - since good is not something that can be universally defined. So you no longer painstakingly obsess over the calculations of how much goodness will your actions bring to each of the affected participants of your action. Instead, your new rule of thumb is: as long as my actions are expressive of wisdom, promote non-attachment due to wisdom, dispassion due to wisdom - then the net effect will be good in all the different subjective universes.
At this point, you may realize that your personal karma limits your ability to be an expression of wisdom, and under direction of qualified teacher you decide to undertake Vajrayana deity generation practice or one of the other advanced practices. Because your understanding of emptiness has matured, you are no longer worried about getting stuck in any of the relative view points. So you learn to take on a particular relative point and hold on to that until you overcome your weakness in that area. At this point your precept is to maintain integrity of the relative point you have taken, regardless of what it does to the previous 4 levels. Once you complete your training, you can use various relative points effectively when dealing with people and students in different mental contexts. In other words, #5 is just a training trick to get better with #4. In reality #4 is the top level, so that's where you want to be.

You see? So you don't have to think in terms of the 5 precepts all the time. As your insight and practice matures, your context will change - but if your understanding is right then your actions that come from your new mental context will still be correct fulfillment of the vows taken on the previous levels. Generally speaking, if you do something on your current level that looks obviously wrong on a previous level - it means you got something very confused.

Makes sense? Sorry, I know you want clarity, you want clear guidelines that can help with your day to day decision making in support of your practice. This may not be the answer you expected, but I hope it will make things clearer for you. Let me know if you have specific examples you want to analyze.


Buddhist monk education level I saw that many of the western monks like Ajahn Brahm, Ajahn Shumedho, Ajahn Sucitto etc. have an university degree. I'm 24 years old from Switzerland and I only finished secondary school with 15 years old. I tried many times to make an apprenticeship as an information scientist but failed due to my strong depressions. I was a few times in a psychiatric clinic because I tried to kill myself. The last 2 years i was just staying at home with no goals in life.

I started to read about Buddhism and meditation. I really think that this would help me out in my difficult life. I even thought about to join a monastery and become a Theravada Buddhist monk. I just worry about my education level. I saw the youtube videos from the monks mentioned above. They seem very intelligent when they speak due to their education in an university. I feel pretty dumb compared to them.

tl;dr

I went to:

1-6 primary school
7-9 secondary school

Is this enough to become a monk?

The main objective of being a monk is to attain Nibbana as soon as possible. Not to achieve recognition for being knowledgeable or intelligent. Read the story of the novice Culapantaka who couldn't even memorize 1 stanza for 4 months.

I went to: 1-6 primary school 7-9 secondary school Is this enough to
become a monk?

Being capable enough to chase away a crow is enough to be ordained as a novice. So, yes!
Keep in mind that you don't have to make youtube videos or preach to large audiences, just because you get ordained. You could simply stay in a forest or monastery, meditating. Wanting to be recognized can cause a lot of depression in a person. Work on giving up that need.


Why did Buddha choose sacred fig for meditating and austerity? Is there any reason or any sutta tells why Buddha choose sacred fig for meditation and austerity?

The ‘Asathu / fig’ Bodhi Tree (Ficus Religiosa) ඇසතු  බෝ  (අස්සත්ත) - was born, it is believed, on the same day as the Buddha Himself, who sat under that tree in his quest for Enlightenment. Also others such as Princess Yasodhara, Kanthaka Horse, his elephant, his charioteer Channa, Ven. Ananda etc. were born on the same day and year. The term Bodhi is used by Buddhists to denote any tree under which a Buddha has attained Enlightenment.

If you take the seven Buddha of the last 90 kalpa,....
Vipassi Buddha attained Enlightenment under a Palol tree (Stereospermum chelonoides) පලොල් (පාඨලී );
Sikhi Buddha under a  Etamba tree or Sri Lankan Mango tree (Mangifera zeylanica) ඇටඹ  (පුන්ඩරික);
Vessabhu Buddha under a Maha-sala tree (Shorea Robusta) ඉන්දියානු සල් (සාල) ;
Kakusandha Buddha under a Mara tree / Gulmohar tree or the Royal Poinciana (Delonix regia) මාර / මහරි / (සිරිස);
Konagamana Buddha under a Attikka (Dimbul) Ficus glomerata. අට්ටික්කා (උදුම්බර);
Kassapa Buddha under a Bayan tree (Nigrodha) නුග / මහනුග (නිග්‍රෝධ).

All Buddhas attain Buddhahood under a tree. Asathu Bodhi Tree was meant to be for Gauthama Buddha. That is why it sprung up on the day Bodhisatwa was born. Please note that trees which serve as Bodhi for all the Buddhas had sprung up on the days when those Bodhisatwas were born for the last time. A Pipila Tree had shaded Deepankara Buddha කප්පිත්ත / පතන බෝ  of the past (whom many know of from the Suttas). It is said that Maithri Buddha’s Bo Tree will be a ‘Na’ or Iron Wood Tree.


What are the three marks of existence? What are the three marks of existence and where are they found in the canon? Is there any fundamental differences in interpretation among the different traditions?

The Three characteristics of existence are part of the core teaching of the Buddha and found throughout his teachings. In essence every single compound (i.e. made of the 5 aggregates and/or the four elements) thing has these characteristics inherent in their very existence.

When one realizes with their own experiential knowledge that all things we have attachments and aversions to have at their core these three characteristics, then there is nothing to cling to, nothing to run from, there is just peace.

We understand that everything, from the universe itself down to ourselves and our loved ones are subject to change and decay(impermanence). We understand that every compound thing is subject to and can be part of the cause of Dukkha(unsatisfactoriness/suffering). Because of our attachments and aversions, nothing created can bring lasting happiness. And Thirdly we understand that there can be found nothing that we can truly identify as "self". What we take to be self is not-self. There is no inherent permanent self/identity in anything created, the "self" we take to be us is merely a coming together of the 5 aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness), processes that come into being, and eventually decay.

As far as I know( and I'd love to be proven wrong on this if anyone can link it) there is no one grand sutta solely on this specific topic, but it is inherently at the core of all of the teachings and therefore pervades the whole cannon. I agree with what Catpnosis said about there being no fundamental differences, but differences in interpretation and usage as part of the various paths.

Here are a few Suttas regarding the three characteristics:

  Dhamma-niyama Sutta: The Discourse on the Orderliness of the Dhamma

  "Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

  "Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are stressful.

  "Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

And from the Dhammapada:

  Maggavagga: The Path

  "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
  "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
  "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

I think this passage from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta speaks volumes about understanding impermanence:

  Then, when the Blessed One had passed away, some bhikkhus, not yet freed from passion, lifted up their arms and wept; and some, flinging themselves on the ground, rolled from side to side and wept, lamenting: "Too soon has the Blessed One come to his Parinibbana! Too soon has the Happy One come to his Parinibbana! Too soon has the Eye of the World vanished from sight!"

  But the bhikkhus who were freed from passion, mindful and clearly comprehending, reflected in this way: "Impermanent are all compounded things. How could this be otherwise?"

Of course Dukkha is all over the teachings.. heck it's the first noble truth:

  "Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."

And about not-self:

  Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic

  "Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

  "Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...

  "Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...

  "Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...

  "Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'


How to deal with loved ones who don't support you? I am very close to someone in my family. I have supported her through rough times and offered my advice. However, she does not support me for the one thing I want in life. I am working hard to achieve my goal (career related), but she is completely against it. I have to live with her, and interact with her everyday and I feel her negative vibes around me. It really hurts my feelings. How can I deal with this issue and maintain peace in my mind?

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Try to understand her perspective. Why does she not support your choices? What is her intentions? Perhaps she just loves and cares for you and her thinking/rational is how she is trying to care for you. If you can better understand her it will help her to better understand you.

Practice metta (loving kindness) meditation with her as your focus. Perhaps even practice loving-kindness meditation together.


How does an enlightened mind distinguish itself from all other phenomena? How does an enlightened mind distinguish itself from all other phenomena?
There is one such person amidst a crowd of other people. Somebody shouts their name, and they say, "yes, that is I. I am here. What do you want?"
After hearing his name, how does he make the connection between the hearing of his name and referencing that name to himself, so that he then responds thus, "yes, that is I. I am here. What do you want?"

The mind of a fully enlightened one is completely empty of discursive thoughts. It does not conceptualize at all. In fact, this has already occurred to an Arya being at the 7th Bhumi let alone a fully enlightened Buddha. So the answer to your question is that an enlightened mind DOES NOT distinguish itself from all other phenomena.
For references I draw from this commentary by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche on Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara.
Here is a screenshot and highlight of the table of contents of the pertinent sections:

When we turn to page 369 we see a verse describing the way in which an Arya being achieving the 11th Bhumi (full Buddhahood) knows suchness and associated commentary:

Right after this passage the next verse is an objection. I think the objection is coming from someone espousing the Cittamatra tenet system as this is the last labeled objector in the text. Anyway, here is the objection:

A little further down we see a verse by Chandrakirti himself giving a simile of how it can be that a Buddha's mind can be totally free from discursive thought all the while being of benefit to other sentient beings. This seems to be the thrust of the OP's question if I'm not mistaken:

Here's the really dispositive part. A little bit later in the text Rinpoche affirms that the standard interpretation of the text and of Tibetan Buddhist schools is that a Fully Enlightened Buddha is entirely free of discursive thought and elaborates a bit. He says the answer to your question is basically that an enlightened mind DOES NOT distinguish itself from all other phenomena:

There is so much more in this commentary and I encourage you to read all of it as it is an absolute treasure. Of course, this commentary and root text are from the masters of the Prasangika Madhyamaka and so keep in mind this as the basis for understanding the text.


Where did the Buddha speak of his difficulty in eating almsfood as a Bodhisatta? In this answer, I mention that the Bodhisatta had trouble keeping down coarse alms food, to the extent that he felt like his stomach was going to leap out of his throat. @ThiagoSilva asked in a comment where the story is found, and I can't quite remember. Does anyone have a reference handy?
EDIT: Here's an example of how the passage is described, though no mention of where it comes from:

Having enjoyed the kingly bliss which was as great as that of a Universal Monarch only a matter of days ago, he made an effort to eat a morsel of food which was a mixture of coarse and fine edible things in assorted colours. As he was about to put the morsel into his mouth he felt miserable and almost vomited with the intestines turning upside down, for he had never seen such kind of food in his life and found it particularly disgusting. Then he admonished himself by saying; "You Siddhattha, in spite of the fact that you have been reigning supreme in a palace where food and drinks are available at your pleasure and where you have meals of three-year-old seasoned fragrant rice with different delicacies whenever you like, you, on seeing a recluse in robe of rags contemplated, "When shall I eat the meals obtained by going on alms round from house to house after becoming a recluse like him? When will the time come for me to live on meals thus collected? And have you not renounced the world and become a recluse with such thoughts? Now that your dream has come true, why do you like to change your mind?" Then without the slightest revulsion he took the meal that was so rough.
(source)

I found it in the introduction to the Jatakas, which seems to be the original source:

Now the Great Being, after collecting a number of scraps, sufficient, as he judged, for his sustenance, left the city by the same gate he had entered, and sitting down with his face to the east, in the shade of Pandava rock, he attempted to eat his meal. But his stomach turned, and he felt as if his inwards were on the point of coming out by his mouth. Thereupon, in the midst of his distress at that repulsive food, --for in that existence he had never before so much as seen such fare,--he began to admonish himself, saying, "Siddhattha, although you were born into a family having plenty to eat and drink, into a station in life where you lived on fragrant third season's rice1 with various sauces of the finest flavors, yet when you saw a monk clad in garments taken from the rubbish heap, you exclaimed, 'Oh, when shall I be like him, and eat food which I have begged? Will that time ever come?' And then you retired from the world. And now that you have your wish, and have renounced all, what, pray, is this you are doing?" When he had thus admonished himself, his disgust subsided, and he ate his meal.
-- Jāt-A nidānakathā (from Buddhism In Translations, Henry Clarke Warren, trans.)

The relevant Pali is "antāni parivattitvā mukhena nikkhamanākārappattāni viya ahesuṃ" - It was like the intestines, having churned, attained the state of leaving through the mouth."
The Buddhavamsa doesn't mention this reflection, saying of his first alms round simply:

nisīditvā āhāraṃ paccavekkhitvā nibbikāro paribhuñji
Having sat down, having reflected on the food, unperturbed, he ate.
-- Bv-A, nidānakathā


Maximum productive time for a meditation sit? I've been searching around forums for the maximum time that is productive to do a single meditation sit. There are lots of comments around over 20 minute mark for effectiveness and sitting for the hour is the most I've seen anyone say they sit. But what is the maximum that one should reasonably sit for before it becomes counter productive or at least diminishing returns set in?

As a side note I remember Jack Kornfield relating that a retreatant of his declared that he was going to sit for as long as it took to get enlightened. He didn't get enlightened and the whole episode didn't go that well for that individual

I find daily sits of an unbroken hour and a half to be optimum.  The first half hour is normally just enough to settle my mind and loosen the hold that the day has on me.  The next half hour is spent really honing in on my concentration object (i.e. cultivating sustained thought).  It's here that my mind begins to unify into something resembling one-pointedness.  The next half hour is where the magic happens, so to speak.  During that part of the sit - and really depending on the day - is when my body starts to drop away and rapture begins to arise.

Some days I may push toward two to three hours, but unless you are in a retreat situation, those longer sits don't necessarily get much deeper.  Your karmic obstacles simply have too much of a hold on your mind.  Only extended periods of silence and multiple 8+ hour days of meditation will allow you to progress into jhana.

Side note: my teacher's teacher knew a monk who would just randomly sit for two days.  48 hours.  No sleep, no food, no bathroom.  In full lotus.   I can't even imagine doing that!


Why does the Buddha blame Ananda asking him to remain living forever? in the Digha Nikaya 16 The Buddhas Final Nibbhana , the Buddha blames Ananda for not requesting that the Buddha live for aeons, three times.  he had only asked him twice.  Why does the Buddha blame him ? And the Blessed One answered, saying: "Enough, Ananda. Do not entreat the Tathagata, for the time is past, Ananda, for such an entreaty."

  50-51. But for a second and a third time, the Venerable Ananda said to the Blessed One: "May the Blessed One remain, O Lord! May the Happy One remain, O Lord, throughout the world-period, for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well being, and happiness of gods and men!"

  Then the Blessed One said: "Do you have faith, Ananda, in the Enlightenment of the Tathagata?" And the Venerable Ananda replied: "Yes, O Lord, I do."

  "Then how, Ananda, can you persist against the Tathagata even up to the third time?"

  Then the Venerable Ananda said: "This, O Lord, I have heard and learned from the Blessed One himself when the Blessed One said to me: 'Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it. The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it.'"
  "And did you believe it, Ananda?"

  "Yes, O Lord, I did."

  "Then, Ananda, the fault is yours. Herein have you failed, inasmuch as you were unable to grasp the plain suggestion, the significant prompting given by the Tathagata, and you did not then entreat the Tathagata to remain. For if you had done so, Ananda, twice the Tathagata might have declined, but the third time he would have consented. Therefore, Ananda, the fault is yours; herein have you failed.

aeons

It's not aeons, not living forever. It's living only until Buddha's old 100 years.

Rhys David:

  kappa (adj. n.), anything made with a definite object in view

So, the translation should be something like this:

  "O Lord!  May the Blessed One remain, O Lord! May the Happy One remain, O Lord, throughout the defined median age (Buddha defined it in DN14, AN 7.70).

Kappa in  DN 16 (Kappāvasesaṃ) means the defined median age of Gotama Buddha.

Kappa in AN 5.23 (PubbenivāsānussatiÑāṇa) means the defined age of the universe's occurrence cycle (from Brāhma's Veda which derived from Anāgāmi Brahma of KassapaBuddha, previous Buddha).

Kappa in AN 4.156 (AsaṅkheyyaKappa) means the defined uncountable years of each procedure in the universe's occurrence cycle (4 procedures per 1 cycle).

See the defined median age in Tipitaka:

DN Mahāvaggo MahānidānaSutta:

  Vipassī lived for 80,000 years.  Sikhī lived for 70,000 years.  Vessabhū lived for 60,000 years.  Kakusandha lived for 40,000 years.  Koṇāgamana lived for 30,000 years.  Kassapa lived for 20,000 years.  For me these days the life-span is short, brief, and fleeting. A long-lived person lives for a century or a little more.

KN Buddhavaṃsa, 24 Buddhas foresaw:

  Gotama Buddha's age is 100 years old.

KN Buddhavaṃsa, our Buddha said:

  Even though my age is 100 years old and lesser than the other Buddha, I can let many people enlightened, too.

***Search "vassasataṃ" and "vassa sataṃ" here. I will not post the search result direct link because it maybe overuses of a website resource.*

Atthakatha described the same.

  the Buddha blames Ananda for not requesting that the Buddha lives until touch the defined median age, three times. he had only asked him twice.

Buddha asked Ānanda only 1 time per question after Ānada request the Buddha three times. Buddha's questions are:

Do you have faith, Ananda, in the Enlightenment of the Tathagata (who has already renounced his will to live on)?
Then how, Ananda (who accepted in the Enlightenment of the Tathagata), can you persist against the Tathagata even up to the third time?
And did you believe in what you said that you have heard and learned from the Blessed One "'Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if he so desired, remain throughout a defined median or until the end of it. The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could, if he so desired, remain throughout a defined median or until the end of it.'"", Ananda?
So, they are not the same question.

  Why does the Buddha blame him ?

Buddha blames him in the second question because of the first question. Ānanda already memorized DN29, so he knows that the Buddha can't change his decision renouncement. If the Buddha didn't ask him, people will misunderstand "Ānanda, Sotāpanna, can doubt in Buddha". But after Buddha asked b.h.Ānanda by the second question, people will understand right "Ānanda, Sotāpanna, didn't ask Buddha because of the doubt, but he asks because he trusts in both Buddha's speeches (renouncement and DN29) and tried to let Buddha does follow the DN29". By the second question, people will not misunderstand in Ānanda.

See DN29:

  From the night when the Tathagata understands the supreme perfect awakening until the night he becomes fully extinguished—through the natural principle of extinguishment, without anything left over—everything he speaks, says, and expresses is real, not otherwise.

  That’s why he’s called the ‘Tathagata’.

  And the Blessed One answered,

  saying: "Enough, Ananda. Do not entreat the Tathagata, for the time

  is past, Ananda, for such an entreaty."

As I quoted DN29 above that Buddha can't change the renouncement.


What is the purpose of using a wand to hit a monk in Zen meditation? I have seen Zen monks in meditation, usually with one monk supervising. The monk supervising usually carries a wand of some sort. Every once in a while he would rest the wand on the shoulder of one of the monks and then respectfully hit his shoulder. It did not seem very forceful yet I found this confusing because to me it seemed as if it may be a method of harm or violence. I would like clarification on this practie.

Why does the supervising monk do this to the meditating monks?

Supposedly it is used to help meditator fight drowsiness. It is said that drowsiness comes from stiffness, from meditator trying to artificially restrict their micro-movements and to severely narrow their scope of attention. While right concentration is said to feel open and flexible, with body actively balancing in meditation posture and attention wide open (but not engaged nor scattered). When supervising monk sees somebody nodding, he reminds meditator of the need to expand their awareness, by gently "massaging" the shoulder with the stick :)


Does Krishnamurti claim of No Path, No Progress, No Goal fit with Buddhist thought? Quoted below is an article posted on BuddhaNet Magazine relating Krishnamurti's philosophy with Buddhism. The writer relates Krishnamurti's view that there is "no "path", no procedures, no organization, and no rules" with Buddhism referring to The Sutra of the Heart.

The writer claimed that this Sutra teaches that "There is ... no path, no wisdom, no attainment..." I haven't read this Sutra, but I have a hard time following anything which states that there is no "Wisdom"! If what the person says is true then it's wisdom and if false then there is wisdom!

Learning from other schools of thought, the critical response for anyone who says " listen to me there is no wisdom" is that what he/she says is meaningless because it fit perfectly with the liar paradox.

At the end of the article, the writer quoting to a Buddist teacher said that the Buddha "compromised" himself by teaching on the two different levels...  and that Krishnamurti's view is identical with the higher level of teaching.

  ....

  To Krishnamurti there is no "path", no procedures, no organization, and no rules that should be laid down by men for other men to follow
  on the road to enlightenment. As part of the path, Buddhists must
  observe a very typical, man-made, structure which begins at the top
  with The Three Precious Ones: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.
  Each of these pillars has subsets of rules associated with it: The
  Five Skandhas, The Eight Siddhis, etc. Some would have us believe that
  learning all these articles of faith are necessary for enlightenment.

  Much Buddhist literature suggests that in following Buddhism there is
  a great object that one must attain and that one progresses towards
  this goal as one takes each step along the path. To Krishnamurti
  setting a psychological goal and working for progress in any direction
  will only lead to more confusion and suffering. Any attempts at
  psychological self-betterment will amount to no more than just one
  more futile duplication of many similar past efforts, all of which had
  previously failed.

  The typical pattern of human behavior that we always seem to fall
  into, perhaps by virtue of conditioning, is the "work for a reward"
  stereotype. One finds a religion and sees something desirable in it
  which becomes an object of attainment. The next step is to devise a
  plan to acquire the object, and finally, with great deliberation we
  set about to carry out that plan with hard, unrelenting work.

  Krishnamurti tells us that the "work for a reward" operandi has been
  tried countless times by homo sapiens, but it has never led us to
  anything new or different in the area of spiritual enlightenment. What
  do we make of all this? Buddhist leaders round the world tell us that
  there are Buddhist goals and a path of hard work and attainment for
  reaching these goals.

  Here again Krishnamurti seems to be more in agreement with the very
  core of Buddhist teachings than the Buddhists themselves. The Sutra of
  the Heart of Transcendent Knowledge sounds more like Krishnamurti than
  does many of the Buddhist teachers: "There is ... no path, no wisdom,
  no attainment, and no nonattainment ..." Here Krishnamurti is telling
  us to live up to the precepts of this great Buddhist Sutra. He is not
  telling us to follow a path, but to under stand that there is no path.
  He tells this just as bluntly and simply as the Sutra does. There is
  no apparent sympathy or embellishments for the benefit of those who
  either fail to understand or for those who have beliefs in goals to
  which they must continue to cling.

http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm

The idea there is no path is itself a path, which obviously has a goal. If there was no goal, why did KM teach?

The Buddha's path, properly comprehended, is the abandonment of craving & letting go. This is similar to what KM was attempting to teach but, unlike KM, the Buddha comprehended there is actually a path (patipada) or method (gamini).


Literature on ending Samsara on micro scale I believe in patterns, and patterns of patterns, where scale is of secondary importance. Much like a fractal. The formula is more fundamental then the form.
From there on, I believe that the mind will always be delusional. That is inherent to the formula by which it operates. The hypothesis is supported by the following: an illusion arises when the mind perceives something with an error. Hence the mind will never have a 100% accurate map of reality, and thus will always be delusional to some extent.
Bridging to Samsara: I do not believe that there is an end stage, that it is boolean like: you either are in samsara, or you are not. I believe that to be true for very specific 'mental puzzles' though (more on that later). So I think, like with all things, that samsara is a concept. If you think of samsara to exist by itself, it is an illusion.
Moving forward from this point of view I think that samsara can be experienced on a micro scale and macro scale. Macro scale would be to exerperience the end of samsara on the level of a life time. In the reality frame from which we now both view this webpage. Micro scale would be to experience the end of samsara during a meditation session.

Let me give an example of ending samsara at micro scale. I am meditating on the feeling of my body which is reflecting mental effort. Then suddenly I find myself inside this story (my mind is wandering). The theme of the story is aligned with the bodily feeling that I was focusing on. The central theme is that I am trying to do something, I try to solve something like a mental puzzle. I am trying to do this inside a context which hosts a 3D environment, full of visual and other sensory perception, a memory and entire past, etc. So it looks like a life-time. Not 'my' life necessarily. I may even be in a complylety different role or life than the one I am currently experiencing. Now the crux is: when I come to realize what I am mentally doing, and that there is no need to do it, I let go. That moment the entire environment fades, or I stay there and be in control of keeping it alive (only for a while). Much like a lucid dream. I can choose to wake up out of it, or just enjoy the scenery while being freed from this mental strain. That what I was doing, comes forth from craving and desire and illusions. So the moment I realize myself and fully see what I am doing, I can let go. No moment earlier, because when I do not see fully what I am doing, and I would attempt to let go, I would fool myself. With that, the environment collapses or when I put effort in, I can keep it alive for a while. The thing is: I am freed from the mental strain.

The reason I am relating all this to the cycle of birth and death is that: the entire environment, experience of self, the role I have there and what not, seems to be in function of self-reflecting. To find out what I am doing and learn about myself. And as soon as I let go, I die there. The environment goes away or I am no longer in the role that I was in.

Now my understanding of ending Samsara from a Buddhism perspective is that it is described at the scope of a life-time. I am wondering, is there any literature that talks about ending samsara at a more micro scale level. Like the example experience I gave above? From my personal experience I come to the conclusion that there are too much similarities between the meditation experience described above and my life, that is likely for them to have their root in the same formula, only on a different scale, like a fractal pattern.

First of all, let me confirm that your perspective is valid. Most of my teachers held similar views. For example, my Zen Master used to say that rebirth occurs every second. My Tibetan Buddhism teacher said that rebirth in the higher worlds occurs when we enter Jhanas, and that an entire realm is created right at that moment - just like you said. At least two other teachers said things that amounted to the same idea: the world is a hallucination being constructed by our mind and in order to exit samsara we must stop constructing it. I remember one teacher saying the biggest challenge with students was to achieve what he called "immediacy", getting them shift attention to their mind on the moment-by-moment scale.

(I used to think that this sort of explanation was an upaya, a clever trick designed to lead people to psychological realizations. However, the further I go, the more I see for myself that this "reality is a construct" explanation is not a metaphor but is true in the literal sense. In my recent encounters I was demonstrated some very advanced techniques that put some strain on my structure of reality, to put it mildly.

Whether this world is real and dharma is ethical and psychological, or this world is a dream we dream and dharma is literal, the moment-by-moment phenomenological perspective remains valid. This is what Buddha called "the safe bet" - his teaching remains an invariant that is correct regardless of the exact interpretation.)

There is not much literature on the topic however. The closest I've seen are the works by Buddhadāsa, a Thai Theravada reformist. He held that "dhamma is akaliko" (timeless) means it plays out on moment-by-moment scale. He insisted on phenomenological explanation of rebirth. Among his books there is a rather detailed analysis of Twelve Nidanas done from this phenomenological perspective.


Madhyamaka, theravada and mahayana Why is Mahayana Buddhism not a form of solipsism (epistemological, methodological, metaphysical) if the first school of Mahayana Buddhism was the Madhyamaka school from which then yogachara originated, which is considered solipsism? It turns out that the Madhyamaka school should be solipsism like Mahayana Buddhism itself, or I don't understand something? Also, why is theravada Buddhism not solipsism (methodological, epistemological, or metaphysical) if the Terevada doctrine is completely dependent on one's own experience and awareness? Thanks you

so•lip•sism sŏl′ĭp-sĭz″əm, sō′lĭp-►
n.    The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and
verified.
n. The view that the self is the only reality.
n. The belief
or proposition that the person entertaining it alone exists and that
other people exist only as ideas in his mind

That being the definition of Solipsism non of the schools of Buddhism will have anything to do with it.
The Buddha refuted most of the solipsistic schools in his time and taught non-self.


Do people in the Narakas (or non-human realms) remember their past lives? I'm asking about what ancient traditionalist wrote or believed, particularly the ones the reified the narkas, i.e. took them literally.

Us humans don't normally remember our past lives and this is made explicit in Mahayana, where one of the qualities of a Buddha is that they can remember past lives.

If people are reborn in hells and they don't know why they are there, I'm not sure how effective the punishment is. Did anyone come up with a rationalization for punishment for crimes they don't remember, or did people in the hells remember what they did?

Yes, they do know the kamma that lead them there. In fact, the governer in hell (king Yama) is regarded as a nice person who tries to help them recall any of their past good deeds before throwing them away to torture. If they happen to recall any good action, they'll be turned away to be born again in a higher realm. Such an instance is given in Devaduta sutta where king Yama tries to remind a new entrant of the five deva messengers that instigate people to do good in the human world.

There's a nice background story to a Dhammapada verse where king Pasenadi consulted Buddha on hearing some weird sounds at night and this turning out to be four of his former friends now in Lohakumbhi hell trying to convey him a message on consequences of their sexual misconducts.

  Meanwhile, King Pasenadi, obsessed with sexual desire, could not
  sleep, and kept thinking out how he would get rid of the husband in
  the morning and take his wife. At about midnight, he heard some eerie
  sounds; actually, these were the doleful voices of four persons
  suffering in Lohakumbhi Niraya . Hearing those weird voices, the king
  was terrified. Early in the morning, he went to the Buddha, as advised
  by Queen Mallika. When the Buddha was told about the four voices the
  king heard in the night, he explained to the king that those were the
  voices of four beings, who were the sons of rich men during the time
  of Kassapa Buddha, and that now they were suffering in Lohakumbhi
  Niraya because they had committed sexual misconduct with other
  people's wives. Then, the king came to realize the depravity of the
  deed and the severity of the punishment. So, he decided then and there
  that he would no longer covet another man's wife.
  http://what-buddha-said.net/Canon/Sutta/KN/Dhammapada.Verse_60.story.htm

As for other realms, hungry ghosts and devas are also said to recall the kamma  that brought them there. Petavatthu and Vimanavatthu provide a number of stories of monks who encountered such beings and heard their stories.


Reason(s) for being born as men and women Does anyone have an explanation as to how Buddhism explains the reason(s) as to why and how humans are born as men and women? What governs the gender?

The Aggañña Sutta gives a creation style account of human development. In it it says that humans were originally asexual and only later differentiated and grew sex organs. To quote

  And as they did so, their bodies became coarser still, and the
  difference in their looks became even greater. And the females
  developed female sex organs and the males developed male sex organs.
  And the women became excessively preoccupied with the men, and the men
  with the women. Owing to this excessive preoccupation with each other,
  passion was aroused, and their bodies burnt with lust. And later
  because of this burning, they indulged in sexual activity.

Bear in mind though that these is a feeling that the entire sutta is a satire on the  brahminical claims regarding the divine nature of the caste system.


Paramatha and samatha meditation Can ultimate paramatha reality ever be observed or realized with only samatha concentration meditation on a concept?

The word 'samatha' ('tranquility') is not synonymous with 'samadhi' ('concentration').

Regardless, both 'samatha' ('tranquility') &^ 'vipassana' ('insight') occur in tandem when right samadhi ('concentration') is developed (refer to MN 149).

If fact, the ultimate paramatha reality cannot be observed or realized without samatha (tranquil) concentration (samadhi) meditation.


When is the best time for ordination? When exactly is it worth considering to ordain as a monk?
Is it something that happens automatically during the path, that is, (a) special experience(s) or insight into the three characteristics?

Is strong uncomfort experienced when living the monastic life?

Thanks

When you become dispassionate in continuing the lay life or when you get enough confidence that you can successfully fend off the temptations of lay life, it is worth considering ordination. I would suggest staying in a monastery or a meditation center first, continuously for about 6 months while keeping to the 8 precepts to see if you can handle it well.


What do buddhists do in a situation of war where all able-bodied men must become soldiers? I was reading a chapter called "The Buddhist Stand on the Death Sentence" on p. 390-393 in the book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda. In here it is written that the law is supreme and that buddhists must always respect and obey the laws of the country they live in and that if they break the law they must also accept the punishment.

Then in the end of the chapter he talks about the situation where war breaks out and all able-bodied men are to be conscripted as soldiers by law of that nation.

Being a soldier requires one to maybe engage in killing of other beings or maybe become forced to commit unwholesome actions that one does not want to do since it will break the buddhist ethical code and precepts. But if they choose not to do it they will be breaking the law of that nation.

What do buddhists do in that situation?

Thank you for your time.

Lanka

That would be an unfortunate situation. Many 'Buddhist countries' have and are fighting wars where people who are Buddhists are engaged in warfare.

What can a Buddhist do if he is conscripted?
Not all Buddhists are at the same level of virtue, tranquility and wisdom. So it would depend.
Some may refuse to kill and harm and face the consequences.
Others may seeks vocations which does not involve killing.
However, if you are to go to the front

Be mindful

Accept responsibility

Never 'delight' in killing or harming, even an enemy

Contemplate the drawbacks of hate, the ego, self-views (collective and individually)

Once a week keep the Uposatha practice (re: Visakha uposatha sutta)

Practice metta (to one's colleagues and even the enemy, remembering that one could have born into the other side, and be fighting his current comrades.)

Samsara is a dangerous place, there are many times and places where hearing and practicing the Dhamma is impossible. So it is also worth considering to contemplate 'what do buddhists do in situations which are conducive for the Dhamma?'. Many waste such rare opportunities, squander it chasing after sensual pleasures and feeding the ego.


How to help non-Buddhists understand a young person's desire to be ordained as a monk? Many non-Buddhists do not understand the appeal or the benefits of becoming a monk. They may not be able to understand why one would want to live such a simple life, and they may not take the decision seriously.

What are some of the "selling points" for ordination (particularly as a young person just over 18) that a non-Buddhist would understand? Are there any organizations or resources for non-Buddhist families or friends of Buddhist monks (aspiring or otherwise)? How can one help a non-Buddhist loved one understand one's desire to be ordained?

Selling Points

According to the Buddha's teaching in the Samaññaphala Sutta (DN 2), there are a whole host of benefits to the life of a samana (i.e. a monk). In brief:

Freedom from requirement to engage in secular society (social engagements, civic duties, etc.)
Freedom from requirement to engage in secular employment (living as a mendicant means no need for money, etc.)
A blissful state in the here and now (through a moral code, sense restraint, and tranquility meditation)
Wisdom and understanding about reality (through insight meditation)
Supernatural mental abilities (astral travel, reading minds, remembering past lives, etc.)
Freedom from mental defilements of greed, anger, and delusion (through the attainment of nirvana)

I think that about sums it up better than I ever could :)

Resources

Normally a monastery would be the best source; often for Westerners intending to traverse the globe to ordain, that isn't as easy as it should be.

The Internet has some resources on monkhood for lay people, at least in the Theravada tradition. Here's a couple:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/layguide.htm

Coming To Terms

For my parents, actually practicing the teachings themselves helped somewhat; once they understood the benefit of meditation, they were better able to accept what I was doing. Of course, it was only once I'd ordained and they saw how it wasn't really a brainwashing cult that they really opened up and actually appreciate it.


Were all of the historical Buddhas born on today's planet earth? Were Buddhas always born on planet Earth or they can be born on any habitable planets across the universe?

How does one Buddha gain knowledge of the existence of the the previous Buddha/Buddhas?

These are things we can only speculate. There later works which might have covered these topics though, but cannot vouch for how accurate they are.

Best cause of action by a Buddhist is to practice the Dhamma to gain realisation and wisdom. Who know, perhaps you might get some insight into this also. (Don't make it your goal to find these type of answers, but practice to awaken wisdom.)

Also the Buddha did not encourage to ponder on unproductive question through I am curious my self.

In my opinion. I don't think it is this planet. Last 4 buddhas were in the current world cycle but it is hard to believe it is this planet, but having said this, the social environment would have been similar to Indian during the times of the current Buddha, where there was much activity in search for the truth. (Also a Buddha to be looks if it is conducive time and county before he is born.)


What is one's relationship with the world upon attaining Nirvana (and how do we work to get there) There seems to be this ongoing debate both within the Buddhist Tradition itself and with the world-at-large as to how a practitioner should relate to the world. The Buddha himself forsook his family and all worldly-pleasures in pursuit of a spiritual life prior to his enlightenment. Such practice and attitudes has largely been preserved within the Theravada tradition. The Mahayana, in particular its Chinese strain, stressed on the ability to heal the world within and without, to relate to all sentient-beings in a loving way through the practice of Metta and Karuna - the Bodhisattva way of life. Compared to the Christian Gospel of love, the Buddhist doctrine seems so much more rational and pragmatic - Metta is just a means to an end, not an end in itself; it is practiced just to help the yogi remove obstacles from his or her road to nirvana. It is not uncommon to find Buddhists who are aloof to worldly affairs and loving relationships - the yogi who chose to lead a life of solitude and inner-peace, in place of worldly pursuits; the vagabond who chose to wander in this world so that he may find his true home in another. My question would be: How should an aspiring Buddhist aim to lead his life and relate to the world?

From my own experience, at certain point in one's practice, one's ties with the regular world reduce so much that one no longer gets any energy from participating in mundane affairs ("There is nothing further for the sake of this world").

At this point one has only two choices: either go 100% hardcore ascetic ("Arhat") or engage with society in the teaching/helping capacity ("Bodhisattva") - either openly or secretly. One can't really be "normal" anymore, pursuing success and entertainment, since one's value system no longer goes up to worldly goals. So if one were to engage with the world lukewarmely on samsaric terms - then one would either die miserable death, or regress badly -- hence only two reasonable choices. I suppose this is why it is often said that once you go far enough there is no turning back.

As to which option is preferable, I think it's totally up to personal inclinations. Some people are very self-sufficient and very comfortable being the end in themselves. For them the peace of minimalism is way more agreeable than the high drama of Bodhisattva's path. Other people need to get energy from the outside, so they chose to give something, to get something in return.


Niddesa Translations I've hunted around a bit online but haven't found much besides some vague "probably not" answers. Has anyone ever come across an English (or other western language) translation of both parts of the Niddesa? I have the Pali Text Society's printings thanks to the Internet Archive, and enough resources to get started learning Pali if I need to, but figured I should try asking here before I attempt that.

You can find a Sinhala translation of the Mahaniddesa and a Sinhala translation of the Culaniddesa on SuttaCentral. Both were translated by A. P. de Zoysa.
From there, you can copy and paste the Sinhala texts into Google Translate, and get it translated into English or another western language of your choice.
For example, I managed to translate the first paragraph of Mahaniddesa 6 in Sinhala to:

This life is definitely short. ”Life is the existence of life,
dependence, existence, control, life, sense of life. Again, in two
respects life is short, a little, life is short because it exists,
life is short because it is small in nature. How can life be short in
existence? Lived in the past emotional moment. Not alive. Will not
live. Does not live in the future psyche. Did not live, did not live.
Did not live and did not live in the present time mentality. Will not
live.


The bliss of nirvana without sensation Some sensations are neither good nor bad, when I think there is an absence both of pleasure and pain.

But what about nirvana itself? Obviously there is no vedana to it.

Is its "bliss" something like the memory of neutral sensation?

I just wonder if that's what it's like to be without the three poisons of attachment aversion and ignorance.

A basic answer is, Nirvana is zero attachment and zero aversion. Imagine how you'd feel if you had zero attachments and zero aversions, not even a slightest hint. That is Nirvana.

I'm not sure what the orthodox position says about vedana, but from my perspective it should still have vedana. It is just, when pleasant vedana arises, you see it arising, and when it ceases you see it ceasing. When unpleasant vedana arises, you see it arising, and when it ceases you see it ceasing. No attachment and no aversion - therefore no suffering.

Could you say the absence of suffering is bliss? Yeah, kinda - you could qualify it as a very subtle form of bliss, a #0-thickness bliss.

Have you ever had a dream in which you fly so high that there is nothing left but sky on all sides around you? They say, the experience of dharmakaya is like that. Another comparison I heard from teachers is what astronauts feel on the orbit - constant free fall. It is scary at first, because you feel like you're going to crash - but you can get used to it and even be functional.

So I guess that must be the feeling: the absence of suffering due to attachment/aversion, but also the absence of any kind of comfort you normally get from having some kind of reliable ground. Could we call this the bliss of endless free fall?

Another way to describe Nirvana, is as death of ego. Imagine you have lost everything. All hopes, all promises, all meanings - nothing left. Because you lost your valuables and futures, you have nothing to lose. Because you have nothing to lose, you have nothing to fear. Which makes you into a kind of superman, just a very sober superman, because you no longer get intoxicated or carried away by childish illusions. No hope, no fear. That's another way to see it.

Now combine the two images: the endless free-fall with no grasping onto anything  and no suffering, with no ground, no home, no hope and no fear, everything lost and everything gained, very sober and absolutely stable in infinite agility. That's what they say Nirvana feels like.


What is the difference between approaching the idea 'no-self' and the act to 'depersonalize'? In modern days, 'de-personalization' is seen as negative and in some cases, a symptom of an emotional disorder.

In Buddhism, seeing through no-self/identity view is the minimum criteria to attain the first level of enlightenment.

These two concepts, seemingly similar; fundamentally, they could be different.

Question:

Are these two the same or not? Shall they be separated or mutually embraced in our daily lives?
As a layman Buddhist, how can we approach this ?

Depersonalisation as a psychiatric disorder is something traumatic.

Depersonalisation as enlightenment is calming, blissful & liberating; based in the wisdom of seeing the stress & abandoning of attachment & aversion.

It follows the depersonalised enlightened person can act, behave or interact harmoniously in the world.

The depersonalisation of the enlightened person can be a “secret” only know to them. An external person may never ever suspect or know the enlightened person is depersonalised; let alone enlightened.


Unintentionally killing insects when playing sports and running I jog everyday and teach children how to play basketball. There are some insects on the path where I jog and on the basketball court, and I’m sure we unintentionally kill a few of them. We live in a place where there are lots of trees and forests so it would be difficult to get rid of bugs. Am I violating the first precep?

Formally the Vinaya, or Buddhist monastic law, states this about killing:

  pli-tv-bu-vb-pc61There is no offence if it is unintentional; if (he is) not thinking; if he does not know; if he is not meaning death; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer.

In particular, notice that ignoring the knowledge that there are living creatures on sports grounds is also intentional and therefore harmful if one proceeds to practice sports and thereby kill insects. How to resolve this?

One observes that small creatures flee the sun. Because of this, one can skillfully choose a time for sports when small creatures will be safe from harm. Children will understand this logic, therefore adults can as well.

Intention therefore affects skillful means. If we play sports intending entertainment, then stadiums emerge along with massive environmental impact, death and destruction. Yet if we exercise for harmony and coordination, then the "need to kill" evaporates and our relationship with the world decreases suffering skillfully. Even a monk walking meditation can intend to walk peacefully without stomping and therefore with less killing.

But cowering inside afraid to step out and kill an insect is also wrong because it is self-mortification. Bodies need exercise for health. Children need physical practice that promotes teamwork. So a balance for all enters consideration.

Unskillful choices generate suffering. Skillful choices end suffering.  The path revolves around the skillful.

  AN3.69:9.1: There are these three skillful roots. What three? Contentment, love, and understanding.


Which is the easiest of the four paths for a novice lay practitioner? In the Yuganaddha Sutta (AN 4.170), there is described the four paths stated below. Insight refers to vipassana and tranquility refers to samatha.

Development of tranquility before development of insight
Development of insight before development of tranquility
Tranquility developed in tandem with insight
Mind's restlessness concerning the Dhamma well under control (I guess this is "dry insight")

Of these four paths, which is the easiest, smoothest and most pleasant to a novice lay practitioner? And why?

Or is this question invalid, because meditation, insight and jhana is not suited to the lay practitioner?

Please provide quotes to support your answer from the Buddha's words, if possible.

I personally suspect that it is tranquility (at least the first jhana) before insight.

In this essay, Henepola Gunaratana promoted tranquility before insight:

  The Buddha is constantly seen in the suttas encouraging his disciples
  to develop jhana. The four jhanas are invariably included in the
  complete course of training laid down for disciples. ... Though a
  vehicle of dry insight can be found, indications are that this path is
  not an easy one, lacking the aid of the powerful serenity available to
  the practitioner of jhana. The way of the jhana attainer seems by
  comparison smoother and more pleasurable (A.ii,150-52).

However, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu has a different view in this video from timestamp 9m 34s, where he said:

  Samatha meditation - these meditations exists. There's no question
  that there are meditations out there that will not lead you to
  enlightenment. They can't, because they are not focused on reality.
  They are creating an illusion in the mind. The only way that they
  could lead to enlightenment, is as I said, if you use that to gain
  insight. ... and because of the strength of the mind, you can see it
  clearer than you would have, otherwise. It's kind of taking a
  shortcut, but having to do a lot of preparation. So, not gaining
  anything (during this preparation phase), except for these nice states of peace and calm, and maybe
  some magical powers along the way, which is probably best suited for
  someone living in the forest. So, which should be first? It's
  totally up to you ... if you want to start with just vipassana, it was
  very clear that ... the Buddha gave this (vipassana) as the quickest
  way. A monk came up to the Buddha and said, "I'm old and I don't have
  a lot of time and my memory is not good, I don't want to learn a lot,
  give me the basics of the path" .....

So, there's obviously two camps out there. On one side, those who promote tranquility first like Ven. Henepola Gunaratana and Ajahn Brahm. But on the other side, you have those who promote insight alone or insight first like Ven. Yuttadhammo or S.N. Goenka.

And then there's the interesting opinion in this answer by Dhammadhatu and this answer by Andrei Volkov, which imply that attainment of Jhana through meditation is not for lay people, which is echoed by Ven. Yuttadhammo's statement that samatha meditation is "probably best suited for someone living in the forest".

The sutta was spoken by Ananda. It is not the words of the Buddha. The Buddha taught samatha & vipassana are developed in tandem (MN 149; Dhp 372); as demonstrated in MN 118 (when it is properly understood). In short, given the path is the Eightfold Path with Three Trainings, how can there be a path that separates wisdom from the development of the path?

  Any view belonging to one who has come to be like this is his right view. Any resolve, his right resolve. Any effort, his right effort.
  Any mindfulness, his right mindfulness. Any concentration, his right
  concentration: just as earlier his actions, speech, & livelihood were
  already well-purified. Thus for him, having thus developed the noble
  eightfold path, the four frames of reference go to the culmination of
  their development. The four right exertions... the four bases of
  power... the five faculties... the five strengths... the seven factors
  for Awakening go to the culmination of their development. [And] for
  him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight. MN
  149

Also, insight cannot occur without tranquility because true insight, as described in many suttas, results in dispassion (viraga). A mind with dispassion will naturally have tranquility. Wrong concentration can lead to developing some degree of tranquility, but genuine insight cannot exclude tranquility. The fact the Goenka & Mahasi (Yutadhammo) paths rarely discuss tranquility shows the "insight" ("vipassana") they preach is not genuine vipassana but just a form of indoctrination.

As for the idea of "novice lay practitioner", this is contrary to the teachings of the Buddha. For example, Sariputta & Moggallana were novices yet the Buddha immediately knew they would be his chief disciples. Also, the Buddha rarely taught meditation to lay people. Most lay people do not have the conditions to develop jhana. Therefore, the questions here are not realistic. Lay people should develop morality so to avoid unnecessary problems with their lives.


Five Precepts - did Buddha really preach them? The five precepts are (from wikipedia)

I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.
I undertake the training rule to avoid sensual misconduct.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

I am very new to Buddhism, but from what I'm understanding right now, Buddha's teachings are very simple.
The first 4 rules make sense. They are all forms of practicing detachment.

But the 5th... it's too human. Too specific. I just don't see Buddha teaching it to his disciples.

It's the same as with Ānantarika-karma, where the last crime is creating a schism in the sangha (the community of Buddhist monks and nuns). It's too specific and so Buddhist oriented. Once again, I just don't see Buddha teaching it.

The question is, did Buddha teach the five precepts?

The five precepts are mentioned in Dhammika sutta. The main reason for teaching the fifth precept is said to be that intoxication easily instigates people to break other precepts by concealing the seriousness.

  "Now I will tell you the layman's duty. Following it a lay-disciple
  would be virtuous; for it is not possible for one occupied with the
  household life to realize the complete bhikkhu practice (dhamma).

  "He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor
  should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either
  strong or weak, in the world.

  "A disciple should avoid taking anything from anywhere knowing it (to
  belong to another). He should not steal nor incite another to steal.
  He should completely avoid theft.

  "A wise man should avoid unchastity as (he would avoid falling into) a
  pit of glowing charcoal. If unable to lead a celibate life, he should
  not go to another's wife.

  "Having entered a royal court or a company of people he should not
  speak lies. He should not speak lies (himself) nor incite others to do
  so. He should completely avoid falsehood.

  "A layman who has chosen to practice this Dhamma should not indulge in
  the drinking of intoxicants. He should not drink them nor encourage
  others to do so; realizing that it leads to madness. Through
  intoxication foolish people perform evil deeds and cause other
  heedless people to do likewise. He should avoid intoxication, this
  occasion for demerit, which stupefies the mind, and is the pleasure of
  foolish people.
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.14.irel.html

As for creating a schism in the sangha, my understanding is that this is not applicable for laypeople. Only monks are capable of causing a split. But a layperson can be a cause indirectly which isn't a severe offense.


What are some of the sutra's related to the Twelve Links (Nidanas)? Jarāmaranam,
Jāti,
Bhava,
Upādāna,
Tanhā,
Vedanā,
Phassa,
Salāyatana,
Nāma-rūpa,
Viññāna,
Sankhārā,
Avidya.

I believe they operate inversely and wanted to see further how this inversion is illustrated in the Pali canon.

The best survey of suttas on Twelve Nidanas that I have seen can be found in "The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A comparative study based on the Sutranga portion of the Pali Samyutta-Nikaya and the Chinese Samyuktagama" by Choong Mun-keat.


Where can I get Buddha's teachings of the Dharma practice? I've tried several Buddhist traditions (Zen, Diamond Way) and none of it really worked for me. So now I intend to give it another try, but in a way, which is tailored to my personality. This time I want to do it

on my own (working with teachers or mentors did more harm than good for me, both in spiritual and in professional spheres) and
without things that I don't need, especially without the idea that the purpose of Buddhist practice is to achieve enlightenment (the reason for me to practice is to reduce my suffering in this life; I don't care about enlightenment or rebirths or Karma) and without communicating with other people (again, experience shows that this doesn't help me at all).

Is there a way to obtain Buddha's description of the practice in English, German or Russian? If yes, where?

Note that I'm not interested in later interpretations of his words. I want to learn what he himself said about how to practice (what exercises, rituals etc. he recommend, i. e. something you can do). I'm also not interested in philosophical stuff.

I want to

take his original texts (those parts, which most likely come from Siddhartha Gautama himself, not later additions),
devise a set of "procedures" (e. g. meditations of different kinds, exercises) and metrics,
regularly estimate the quality of my practice (the better my practice, the less suffering there is in my life), and
modify my practice (the procedures and intensity of doing them) so that the quality increases with time.

I cannot measure the amount of suffering directly, but I can estimate it. For example, the happier I am, the harder and more effectively I work (my experience is that I can't be really sad or euphoric, when I'm immersed in certain kinds of work). The latter two parameters (amount of productive work per week, number of tasks of comparable size completed per week) can be measured using timetracking and project management software. Both of them are estimates of the amount of suffering in my life.

...without things that I don't need, especially without the idea that the purpose of Buddhist practice is to achieve enlightenment...

If we walk the path to the higher goal, the lower goals will be fulfilled along the way.

  ...the reason for me to practice is to reduce my suffering in this life...

Sooner or later, we'll realize that the only way to reduce our suffering in this life, is to help reduce the suffering of others. To have the strength to do it, we'll need very strong motivations.

  For example, the happier I am, the harder and more effectively I work...

There is nothing wrong in using the teachings to achieve mundane goals. However, this achievements are only temporary, and if we are not able to see this, they will only lead to more suffering.

Our ultimate purpose is using the practices to liberate ourselves of all relative conditionings, not only to improve them.

Tenzing Wangyal Rinpoche


Places offering samatha retreats / training I'm looking for a place to train in samatha. I want to master jhana and time is not an issue. I can also do volunteer work in exchange for training. Any recommendations?

There is Pa-auk Forest Monastery in Myanmar (Burma). A good friend just spent a year there. He did a fair amount of research before settling for Myanmar and he also spent months in a temple in Thailand beforehand. According to him, various monks from Korea as well as Sri Lanka, etc. go to Myanmar thinking that qualified Dharma teachers are difficult to come by in their countries. It seems likes "The place to be." He also said that "Most practitioners require between three and eight years of dedicated effort to obtain the full set of jhanas."

I do not know much about Pa-Auk though. For instance, I do not know whether they train lay people as well.


How to let go during meditation? During meditation, how do you let go? I focus on my meditation object but thoughts come in and with them is an attachment to any particular thought. Is this okay, should i just keep my focus on the object and eventually it will float away?

Thank you again my friends.

The way you deal with it depends on the type of meditation. But for beginners, whether you cultivate Samata or Vipassana does not make so much difference in that respect.

It is usually advised to beginners to emphasize the application of alertness. Alertness is like a spy: it is a mind that check where you find yourself, how you are doing, whether you still focus on your object and in what way. The more alert you are, the less inattentive you are. When you are not alert at all, you wander without noticing that you are wandering. In other words, it is advised not to try to hold onto the object very tight, but to often check how you are doing. In the beginning, you will lose your object of concentration a great deal, so you will have to realize that you lost your object as often. This is bound to happen. You can not simply set out to stay with your object without loosing it in the beginning, for that would not be realistic. So, your goal as a beginner ought to be something like "I will notice every time I lost my object", "I will not wander for too long", "I will not be inattentive and dive into objects mindlessly" rather than "I will hold onto my object so tight I will never ever loose it." It is a way of saying that on the outset, the cultivation of alertness is more important that that of mindfulness.

There are exercises you can engage in, that will show you how "funny" your mind is. Hopefully they will help you find a way to cultivate concentration. For instance, sit for half an hour in a meditation posture, and tell yourself "Whatever happens, wherever my mind goes, it's fine by me. I will not interfere, I will not judge, I will not try to change its course. I will simply step back and observe." When you do that, your mind behaves surprisingly well. But as soon as you stop observing it, it goes wild. There is an idiom that goes "When the cat's away, the mice will play".

On the opposite side, you can try to not think of an elephant for a couple of minutes. Set out to purposely not think of an elephant, for two minutes. Try very hard. The more you purposely try not to think of an elephant, the more you think of it. In fact, once, I received this instruction "not to think of pizza for two minutes", and I managed quiet well when, instead of setting out to not think of a pizza, I told myself "It's okay if you do. Just observe your mind." Why? It is because when you do that, you take a step back, you disengage from the external object, you do not dive into it. Whereas when you plan to not think of this or that, you will tend to dive into whatever you are not supposed to think of. It shows you that, if you lost your object of concentration because you were thinking of something else, it will not get better if you are forceful and beat yourself up, and regret loosing your object, etc.

Of course, you mind wanders because it lacks habituation. Actually, it's used to jump from one thing to the next. It's good news: there is nothing that doesn't get easier through training. Another thing is that your mind wanders because you do not see things the way they are. That is why, even if you want to cultivate Samata, it is good to sometimes engage in analytical meditation on death, impermanence, suffering, and so forth. Because this will support your non-attachment, non-anger, etc. Not attached, your mind will wander less. Not angry or frustrated, when you will loose your object, you will not want to be separated from your "failure" so badly that it will hinder your concentration.


What are the physiological effects of mindfulness based meditation? I was meditating on the breath recently and I noticed that my breath slowed to a significant extent (not a huge insight admittedly). So this made me wonder if anyone has measured the effects of mindfulness type meditations on the body while the person is meditating. For instance what is the affect on breath rate, blood pressure, heart rate, the hormonal system and so forth.

This is a bit technical, but shows the positive effects from meditating in some key hormones we produce related to health and stress. I was discussing it with my girlfriend (she is endocrinologist and not buddhist) and she was quite surprised with it.

If you want you can skip to the end of the text to see the conclusion

  " Previous studies of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique as
  a possible means of countering effects of stress have reported altered
  levels of several hormones both during the practice and longitudinally
  after regular practice of this technique. In this prospective, random
  assignment study, changes in baseline levels and acute responses to
  laboratory stressors were examined for four hormones-cortisol, growth
  hormone, thyroid-stimulating hormone and testosterone-before and after
  4 months of either the TM technique or a stress education control
  condition. At pre- and post-test, blood was withdrawn continuously
  through an indwelling catheter, and plasma or serum samples were
  frozen for later analysis by radioimmunoassay. The results showed
  significantly different changes for the two groups, or trends toward
  significance, for each hormone over the 4 months. In the TM group, but
  not in the controls, basal cortisol level and average cortisol across
  the stress session decreased from pre- to post-test. Cortisol
  responsiveness to stressors, however, increased in the TM group
  compared to controls. The baselines and/or stress responsiveness for
  TSH and GH changed in opposite directions for the groups, as did the
  testosterone baseline. Overall, the cortisol and testosterone results
  appear to support previous data suggesting that repeated practice of
  the TM technique reverses effects of chronic stress significant for
  health."

source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9226731/


Can someone point me the Sutra that explains the fall of Human civilization? There is a sutra about the downfall of our civilization. It explains how some people flee the urban life and live in far away places while others go into a Killing spree/ War. It also features how the people who fled come to their senses and how they build a proper society again. This is a Sutra in Sutra pitaka (Theravada).

Can someone name this and give me a link?

This is found in Cakka,vatti Siha,nāda Sutta


Is 'be thankful to your parents, for they brought you life' incongruent with Buddhist thought? It appears to me that this is incompatible with Buddhist teachings. Life will bring suffering, and it'll not be a kind and easy journey. So why be thankful?

On the other hand, if you weren't an arhat then you were going to be reborn in some way. If you were born in some type of affluent family with good values etc., then I guess you could be thankful.

From the Anguttara Nikaya 2.32

"I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world.
"But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father."

Gratitude is a Buddhist concept. Below is an essay on Gratitude in Buddhism by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Anguttara Nikaya The Further-factored Discourses


Any manuals on the development of "sympathetic joy" and or "gladness" apart from Visuddhimagga? As titled. I wonder if there are other methods of development outlined elsewhere?

There're quite a lot of essays on the Brahmavihara written by Vens. Thanissaro, Buddharakkhita, Siriwardhana, Nanamoli, etc. and of course in the Nikaya suttas themselves. See various links here and here


Can the dhatu elements be considered as permanent? Can the dhatu elements (earth, water, wind and fire) be considered as permanent?

As far as I can see any thing is impermanent. What is impermanent defies description or conceptualization.

Here is more info on the subject.
http://www.buddhanet.net/cbp2_f4.htm

  All things arise due to causes and conditions. As causes and
  conditions are impermanent and will cease one day, all things will
  also cease correspondingly. When there is rising, there will be
  falling; when there is existence, there will be extinction. The rising
  and existence of things has its natural tendency towards cessation and
  extinction. It is like a wave; it comes and goes. Thus, when one sees
  the truth of "what this is, that is; this arising, that arises", one
  should also see the truth of "when this is not, that is not; this
  ceasing, that ceases". The Law of Dependent Origination pointed out
  the possibility of ending worldly suffering. It shows the way of
  liberation that corresponds to the Law of Cause and Effect.

  "When one is born, one will die.  One who admires high status will
  fall one day."

  This is the natural Law of Cause and Effect. It is also an inner
  implication of the Law of Dependent Origination. It can be called the
  Cessation Process of the Law of Dependent Origination.

As soon as one starts discussing permanence, it is already in the field of impermanence. Intellectual understanding may suggest a path. The practice of the path can lead to the unknowable. No one who has been here has ever said anything that could describe it.


Why does/would a "Bodhisattva" burdens himself and instigate others as well? Why does/would a "Bodhisattva" burdens himself with the choice of becoming a Buddha (avoiding extinguishing dukkha) and instigate others as well to do so?

Given that this world is full of "Bodhisattvas", there is not one being who is not just here to help others out, why does a Bodhisattva instigate others to stay on this normal course of birth and death?

Does he need food to nourish his undertaking and fearing to find nobody and nothing as reason for further becoming?

Or what is the reason to instigate others to do such a work?

Just to become one day wise and listen to what the Buddha say and trap others who have the same blindness for it? (Given that the Teachings of the Buddha of our time is still available)

Or do they assume that there are no teachings which lead them out for now?

A Bodhisattva 'instigates' others because he wants what is best for others (full enlightenment together with its causes). From this viewpoint, 'abiding nirvana' is thus not what is best for others,  because it is not the one final result of the one final vehicle (i.e. the Mahayana path).

There are two obscurations:

Afflictive obscurations - all the afflictions - which prevent one from achieving abiding nirvana, and
Knowledge obscurations - the imprints left by previous moments of ignorance - which prevent one from achieving perfect enlightenment, omniscience.

If he completely abandoned afflictive obscurations (which an arya bodhisattva does anyway from the 8th  bhumi), the practitioner would be free from the conception of inherent existence, but he would not be free from the appearance of inherent existence because such a mistaken appearance is  caused by knowledge obscurations. A bodhisattva does not aim at merely abiding in 'abiding nirvana', but wants to be completely free from all mistakes and thus be able to enact the welfare of others.

The bodhisattva does not set out to merely get rid of afflictive obscurations and achieve abiding nirvana. He set out, from the entry into the Mahayana path, to get rid of knowledge obscurations and achieve what Mahayana call 'full buddhahood', 'perfect enlightenment', 'omniscience', 'the four kayas', 'non-abiding nirvana'.

The wisdom directly realizing emptiness is said to be 'the mother of all three types of enlightenment - that of the shravaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the bodhisattva' because it is a cause of enlightenment. However, it is a Mahayana belief that full enlightenment (that of the arhat-bodhisattva, an arya buddha) can not be achieved by cultivating the wisdom-side alone. One needs the method-side, namely bodhicitta, the six perfections, and so forth.

Knowledge obscurations can only be removed by way of developing the two wings that are method and wisdom. When the wisdom directly realizing emptiness is conjoined with bodhicitta, that wisdom becomes what is called 'ultimate bodhicitta' and that puts an end to what prevents one from achieving omniscience, the omniscient mind of a buddha, buddhahood, perfect enlightenment. That is why a bodhisattva cultivates bohdicitta, which is 'the wish to achieve enlightenment for the benefits of all sentient beings'.

The classical analogy goes: the wisdom realizing emptiness is like an axe while bodhicitta is like the strong arm. You need both the axe and a strong arm to cut the tree (that is here knowledge obscurations).

We say that from the path of seeing, an [arya] bodhisattva comes back in samsara but is not wandering in samsara. So his aggregates are not contaminated anymore, and there is no 'true suffering' involved. It is not the case that he will suffer for eternity. This is because he does not come back under the power of karma and afflictions, but under the power of compassion and aspirational prayers.


Autobiographies of Buddhist masters Can you recommend any good autobiographies of Buddhist teachers and monks? I'm currently reading Getting Off, A Portrait of an American Buddhist Monk and I find it very interesting.

I can thoroughly recommended Dipa Ma-The Life and Legacy of a Buddhist Master, a short biography of Dipa Ma, She was an housewife, mother and highly developed Buddhist teacher living in Calcutta. I think it's inspirational, particularly for people interested in how to practice Buddhism in the modern world.

Also I've been personally recommended Wild Ivy which is an biography of Hakuin the 18th century Japanese Zen master. I haven't personally read this but I have attended study groups when we have been taking reading from this and it is excellent.

Finally Gautama Buddha: The Life and Teachings of The Awakened One is a well recommended recent biography of the original Buddhist teacher. I have received a fair few personal recommendations that this is a good one even if you think you are very familiar with the story of the historical Buddha.


does all of buddhism depend on dependant co arising? If co-dependant arising is shown to be false or contradictorary, would all of Buddhism fall ?

anatta, shunyata, nirvana as extinction-cessation, momentariness and and so forth seem to be based on this law-paticasamutpada/pratityasamutpada ?

is this Buddhism's crutch?

It's not like "buddhism" "depends" on a "law" - it's just that D.O. is the most fundamental observation about how things work.

It is an observation about how the world of representation develops, from complete nondifferentiation to having appearance of distinct sentient beings who are born, die, suffer, argue and fight with each other.

And it's basically like, "hmmm, this appearance of distinct sentient beings with all their troubles only exists in the world of representation, and outside of representation none of this is applicable!" and "therefore, if we learn to deconstruct our own representation, we can transcend its limits and griefs" and "so, it makes sense to study how representation develops, this might give us clues into how to deconstruct it".

But if you want to prove it false, you'd need to prove false the very idea of representation (aka subjective experience aka consciousness). As well as the idea that subjective experience is something that does not just pop out of nowhere but grows over time.

Both of these are obvious facts known first-hand. We all have subjective experience. And we all remember how it developed when we were children. Do you want to try and prove this false?


Maintaining the emotional state achieved in meditation through the rest of the day I've been practicing meditation for a while now, basic breathing and mindfulness meditation, and lately I've added some contemplation to my "routines", usually with music, and the result is absolutely phenomenal. In those 20-30 minutes I literally reach an emotional bliss that is unequal and it has transferred to my daily life and helped me a lot. I literally was suicidal some months ago and awareness and facing my issues with meditation along with Buddhist philosophy literally saved my life.

Now my problem is if i keep this, please don't take this as arrogance, "Buddha state" ,only connected to my meditation time and broken moments of the day would that not be also attachment?. Is having the ability to at any moment be aware and blissful the desired Buddha state?. Is this something that will come with the more practice than I have or am i missing something that will improve even more my meditation experience?

This pleasurable state that you are attaining during meditation is simply the result of concentration. These states can be developed in different directions within the Buddhist path, but if their place is not properly understood, they can in time become a hindrance.

This bliss isn't enlightenment unfortunately. The goal of Buddhist meditation is to attain clarity of mind and concentration in order to see that reality is impermanent, unable to give us stable and lasting pleasure, and non-self. When these are fully realized, the mediator will be able to at least temporarily let go totally of all attachment and experience the happiness of Nibbana (or Nirvana in Sanskrit), a happiness that is totally distinct from everything else in this world. When this is realized repeatedly, one can eventually become a fully enlightened Arahat, in which one is perfectly happy at all times because has no attachment and is content with whatever comes to be.

In order to progress towards this enlightenment you must understand that these states are a step on the path, and that they are a powerful tool, but not a goal in and of themselves. At this stage you have a choice in how to continue in practice. Option one is to continue to practice meditation the way you are (although there will come a point when the music will prevent deeper concentration, but if you really want to, continuing it for now isn't the worst thing in the world). It is possible to develop this into a powerful state of concentration and peace called Jhana in which the perception of the body totally vanishes. A good book explaining how to do this (you might be able to find it in pdf form here: http://www.dhammatalks.net/ ) is the book Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond by Ajahn Brahm. He has a lot of other books on practicing the Jhanas as well.

Eventually, even with attaining jhanas, you will need to also develop a quality of mind called Vipassana. You can switch over to practicing Vipassana meditation now as well, or you can switch later. There are several different styles of Vipassana meditation. There is the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition of Vipassana meditation, the Goenka tradition, and some of the practices of the Thai forest tradition such as meditation as taught by the Ven. Thannisaro Bhikku can be classefied as Vipassana meditation.

One of the best resources for learning the Mahasi Sayadaw style meditation can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLvU7ppM4vE&list=PLAFC00C07636BE277
It is taught by the Ven. Yuttadhammo, an excellent monk who I can personally attest to as having tremendous wisdom and teaching ability. I consider myself to be a follower of his even though I myself don't practice the Mahasi Sayadaw method, I find his advice to be spot on. I would also highly recommend watching this video of his as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjUkzRcNhK8

You can find some writings of Ajahn Thanisarro on that dhammatalks.net site. He can also be quite helpful although he isn't very explicit in talking about vipassana specifically, if you want to continue your concentration style practice this is good because he incorporates both aspects of teaching. He has a book of meditation instructions here: http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/EachAndEveryBreath_v130117.pdf