What is buddhism point of view on money laundering? What is buddhist point of view on money laundering and combating it (AML)? Are there any suttas that can be related to this topic?

Buddhism has no view, but in regard of the Buddha and to possible explain Dhamma, money laundering is usually part of an undertaking of thieving, e.g. taking of what is not given. As how far is one direct, indirect knowingly, indirect unknowingly... adapting an unskillful action (causes eighter birth in an animal womb, as hungy ghost, leads to hell or, if getting human existence, poorness), that is a case by case question.
Taking what is not given is unskilfull, incl. the 1001 ways, in also lying, cheating, betray...
As for "combating", it's worthy to read:
Wisdom over Justice and Justice vs. Skillfulness to get the Blessed Ones understanding and objectives best possible understood.
The Buddha teaches cause and effects and should be not understood as a judge for certain wordly objectives. Best, and if even that much possible, is to combating bad things within one self first.
If taking for example the Buddhas teaching to justify of what is not the Dhammas purpose: Such would be like money laundering. (by making Dhamma as impure so that it can be used outside of the religion, e.g. bond)
How ever, laundering ones view and action and to encourage to do it likewise is always the best engaging in laundering:
No way to clean another ones mind.

Cultivating skillful ways of thought
"And how is one made pure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."

— AN 10.176
Followed by "Skillful Verbal Action" and "Skillful Bodily Action", eventually keeping then the Uposatha of the Ariyas.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


If karma is objective, how come it's cause for "good" rebirth? EDIT: I'll try to be clearer in what I want to know.

The philosophy of good/bad, like/dislike is really irrelevant.

Question: If karma is neutral, then how come "good" karma leads to "good" rebirth. These aren't my words, I've heard it being said: "good karma leads to good rebirth". What "good" means in the context of Buddhism is beside the point and why Buddhists even use the term "good rebirth" is another question. Weather or not being rich is ultimately a "good" thing, "good" karma still leads, rather conveniently, to "good" rebirth, which I take as meaning rich and healthy since that is the only interpretation I've heard.

But what I want to understand is why doing good can't lead to rebirth as, for example, a worm? Why does "good rebirth" mean to be born generally fortunate (by unenlightened standards) when karma is neutral?

I hope that clarifies.

Okay, I will take a shot. As I understand it...

Karma (Pali: kamma) cannot judge actions because 'kamma' refers to the intentional actions of persons. The result or fruit (Pali: phala) of some intentional act (kamma) is related to that act in a lawful (although complex) way.

We say that healthy habits tend to lead to having a healthy body because of a causal relationship between the action and result. If one exercises, eats healthy food, and keeps her body clean, this tends to promote bodily health. The laws of physics and biology are not judging someone's bodily habits; it is simply the case that, the laws being what they are, 'healthy choices' such as exercise  tend to lead to healthy results (cardiovascular health), and 'unhealthy choices' such as smoking cigarettes, tend to lead to unhealthy results or disease (cancer).

In the same way, according to Buddhism, the nature of the universe is such that certain kinds of bodily, verbal, and mental actions are causally related to certain kinds of results. If, e.g., one initiates good actions, i.e., one intentionally gives, is kind to others, and seeks to learn from the wise, this will tend to produce good results including fortunate future birth. As in the above analogy, the laws governing kamma are not judging you; it is simply the case that, the laws being what they are, 'good/skillful actions' such as kindness tend to lead to good/desirable results (being born beautiful), and 'bad/unskillful choices' such as intentionally killing beings, tend to lead to bad/undesirable results (short life as a human or birth in animal or hell realm).

The relationships between intentional action and its results were well-known, we hear, by the Buddha, who taught them to others. See, e.g., the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta


Desire without attachment The MahaNidana Sutta says

  “Ānanda, if one is asked: ‘Is clinging due to a specific condition?’ one should say: ‘It is.’ If one is asked: ‘Through what condition is there clinging?’ one should say: ‘With craving as condition there is clinging.’’

So the cause of attachment is desire. However, my question is

Can desire without the attachment still lead to suffering?

Can desire without the attachment still lead to suffering?

When attachment is ceased desire is ceased. When desire is ceased, suffering is ceased.

This should be understood correctly. The statement "When attachment is ceased desire is ceased" does not mean that a person devoid of attachment, has no desires. Desire is still present, but the person can freely choose what he wishes to desire. His desires are not conditioned by past kamma anymore. So, when he notices "oh this is suffering", he simply frees himself from these desires which cause this same suffering, to the point when he is completely liberated from suffering.

Desire without attachment can still lead to suffering, but this suffering is short lived, because a person with non-attachment can easily free himself from this same desire. That's how a person free from attachment identifies desires that cause him suffering. By seeing and knowing desires that lead to suffering, he acquires wisdom about his own suffering and stops it completely.

An enlightened being is free from all desires that cause him suffering. He could choose to be unwise and desire to suffer, but he chooses not to because he knows "suffering creates more suffering". Thus, because he doesn't want to create more suffering, he chooses to completely stop suffering. By seeing and knowing "suffering creates more suffering", he acquires wisdom about his own suffering and the suffering of other beings and minimizes it as much as he can.


Does the actions of one's ancestors pass down? I want to know whether the action of ancestors will be pass down to their children in the form of karma?..
A father's decision can affect his children like father quitting his job and staying at home can affect his children...but What i want to know is, if someone has a very crual father does atleast some of his bad karma gets pass down to his later generations not just to his childrens but maybe to great grand children...like for example a person's great grand father may have killed someone...and due to that this person is having a major disease...
Does karma works in this way?

People, beings find together of cause their inclinations. Relations usually as well. And grandchilden are often rebirth of their anchestors as well. Don't one forgeth that as well. So it would be not correct to say that there is no connection as there is a long time feed each other behind. So take care with whom you chose to associate. At least the smell will be on you.

That goes also toward your own behavior. Others, with similar origin may suffer from your possible behavior or benefit from your reputation according to their individual kamma in addition. There are no such as innocent phenomenas, people, as well as there are no "guilty" ones. Causes have effects and they lead all back to ones past and present deeds on touch.

But the fact that people, beings, are after the same food, certain conditions, does not mean that they act always equal. What ever one does identify oneself with it, is sooner or later suffering. So that's the reason why best possible relations are seeked to go beyond relations. It's not possible to say that you are lucky or in big misfortune to ever asked here, whether you get touched physical, or mental, right or wrong for your best, who could decide for you where to put attention on? Who could prepare your required foundation to receive what gives liberation?

See also Why beings take birth, even in most worse existences and circumstances?

So it's good to think on: Darkness here as well. "May all beings make the right choices to gain happiness for themselves with ease", is a good thought to leave it.

(Note that this is not given to leave one in trade, exchange, stacks bond, but as a tiny door for an exit.)


Anapanasati in Pali script Does anyone know how Anapanasati is written in Pali script? I failed to find a dictionary online that could give the correct script form.

Thanks!

The Anapanasati Sutta in Pali is here: https://suttacentral.net/pi/mn118

It appears there is no Pali script, per the comment made to the question:

  Emperor Ashoka erected a number of pillars with his edicts in at least
  three regional Prakrit languages in Brahmi script, all of which
  are quite similar to Pali. Historically, the first written record of
  the Pali canon is believed to have been composed in Sri Lanka, based
  on a prior oral tradition. As per the Mahavamsa (the chronicle of Sri
  Lanka), due to a major famine in the country Buddhist monks wrote down
  the Pali canon during the time of King Vattagamini in 100 BC. The
  transmission of written Pali has retained a universal system of
  alphabetic values, but has expressed those values in a stunning
  variety of actual scripts. In Sri Lanka, Pali texts were recorded in
  Sinhala script. Other local scripts, most prominently Khmer, Burmese,
  and in modern times Thai (since 1893), Devanāgarī and Mon script (Mon
  State, Burma) have been used to record Pali. Since the 19th century,
  Pali has also been written in the Roman script. An alternate scheme
  devised by Frans Velthuis, called the Velthuis scheme (see § Text in
  ASCII) allows for typing without diacritics using plain ASCII methods,
  but is arguably less readable than the standard IAST system, which
  uses diacritical marks.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali#Writing

  ‘Pāli’ is not a language, it is the name of the mūla (source)
  Tripiṭaka text, as distinguished from its commentary, which is called
  Aṭṭhakathā - this distinction between Pāli and Aṭṭhakathā only makes
  sense in the commentarial tradition - it was not (and should not be)
  used as the name of the language.

  The language of the Theravāda tripiṭaka is actually an artificially
  standardized (sanskritized) form of the original buddhist canon, which
  was written in the early Kharoṣṭhī script (only fragments of which
  survive today). Kharoṣṭhī was greatly unsuitable for writing sanskrit,
  and that is why sanskrit words written in Kharoṣṭhī appears like
  another language altogether (which is broadly called Middle-Indic, but
  is known by specific modern names like Pāli & Gāndhārī based on the
  script they are written in).

  The oldest script in use was Kharoṣṭhī. The second-oldest script was
  Brāhmī. Sanskrit was written initially in Kharoṣṭhī (which did not
  distinguish between long and short vowels, conjunt consonants and
  simple consonants etc). So it became very difficult to read texts
  written in this script, even today western scholars are breaking their
  heads over whether Kharoṣṭhī texts are really in sanskrit or some new
  language (which in 1946 some have named as Gāndhāri, although such an
  independent language was never recognized at any point of time in BCE
  India). Anyways an improved script arose which was called Brāhmī
  (which did distinguish between short and long vowels) but still did
  not enable writing conjunct consonants properly (and scholars have
  named this language an early version of Pāli, which again was never
  known by that name in ancient India). With the passage of a few
  centuries, Brahmi was perfected for sanskrit, but the old ways of
  writing (which we call Gāndhāri & Pāli today) did not die out, they
  kept evolving into what became independent languages called the
  prākṛta languages (or prākrits)

  https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-script-of-pali-language

  The Kharosthi script, also spelled Kharoshthi or Kharoṣṭhī, is an
  ancient script used in ancient Gandhara and ancient India
  (primarily modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan) to write the Gandhari
  Prakrit and Sanskrit. It was popular in Central Asia as well. An
  abugida, it was in use from the middle of the 3rd century BCE until it
  died out in its homeland around the 3rd century CE. It was also in
  use in Bactria, the Kushan Empire, Sogdia and along the Silk Road,
  where there is some evidence it may have survived until the 7th
  century in the remote way stations of Khotan and Niya.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharosthi


Interacting with monks in Thailand I'm planning to visit Thailand, so I would like to know some simple local "rules" to interact with monks respecting Theravada tradition, I want to avoid behaving like a tourist that (not intentionaly) breaks the protocols, also I want to maximize the experience there, so I will list some specific topics:

How to approach to do dana? Can I offer to buy food for them or should I just give the food?
How to interact in temples or centres, can a lay person start a conversation or would it be distracting therefore not a good idea?
Should one bend or prostate to the monks? Or make the gesture with the hands (similar to praying)? In what occasions?
Any specific advise for women when interacting with Bikkhus? Not touching them? I assume they should avoid some revealing clothes as well.
Any other specific advise?

Many thanks!

You will see the monks in the early morning going on a procession called Pindapata, or Bindabat in Thai (at least I think that's how it's spelled). That is the time  you will want to offer Dana. Approach with the food and they will uncover the alms bowl and let you put the food in.

When approaching a monk you should always put your hands together at about heart level facing forwards and bowing your head so your forehead is parallel with your hands. Here is a link that talks about how to do it with a nice picture with three examples. With monks, do the version shown on the far right: http://www.phuket.com/magazine1/dos.htm

Women aren't allowed to have physical contact with monks and when receiving offerings other than food in their alms bowl in Thailand they will lay out a white cloth for you to set the offering on.

I'll edit more in if I think of anything.


kamma wise why cant i do a steady practice I have ups and downs in my practice  (time doing formal mediation - time being mindful in daily life - doing good stuff avoiding bad stuff etc)

and also ups and downs in completely mundane issues as well  being lazy not doing anything for days to do stuff for my own benefit than doing lots of stuff (washing the house - exercise etc)  than back to nothing  )

I had times in the past where i mediated every day (in retreat but also at home)  and times i did stuff like exercise study stuff etc

now im in a slump for a few months doing almost nothing  -  i wonder how is it explained kamma wise  ....  bad kamma from the past  ?  lazy kamma ?  is there no way to prevent this ?

again asking from a kamma point of view  -  how to make a steady practice  and steady good mundane stuff can be great (do i need some tipping point of good vs bad kamma done in this specific lifetime)  but more than that WHY it happens

also  : how effective is current life kamma compared to past live kamma ?  and recent kamma (1-3 months) in comparison to kamma made before (3months -99 years)

Firstly, if you keep wallowing in self-pity over your assumed past kamma, then this will not help you move forward. It's considered unwholesome. So, forget about it. Similar to the Buddha's Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, you should think about how you can get the arrow out and heal yourself, rather than examining the origins of the arrow.

Secondly, it sounds like you are afflicted with one of The Five Hindrances called Sloth and Torpor.

Here's some advice by Ajahn Brahm on this:

  Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always
  available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were. Setting
  a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate
  energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at hand. A
  young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy, because its
  world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's life, or
  one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see ever new angles
  and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from sloth and torpor,
  alive and energetic. Similarly, one can develop delight in whatever
  one is doing by training one's perception to see the beautiful in the
  ordinary, thereby generating the interest which avoids the half-death
  that is sloth and torpor.

More advice by Gil Fronsdal here. I quote some parts of it below:

  The presence of sloth and torpor does not mean that energy is not
  available. It means we are not accessing it. With a change in
  conditions, energy may reappear in a moment. This can be seen clearly
  in young children who switch from being “tired” (while shopping, for
  instance) to being energetic (about an offer of ice cream, for
  instance) in a matter of seconds. The energy level depends on whether
  they evaluate the situation as boring or exciting.

  Chronic sloth and torpor may represent a lack of meaning or purpose in
  life. In this case, the antidote might involve taking time for deep
  inner reflection or thoughtful conversations with wise friends.

  When sloth and torpor are present and energy is weak, we do the best
  we can. When they are absent, energy will naturally be stronger.
  Rather than berating yourself when you are tired or praising yourself
  when you are alert, just keep practicing. Certainly it will help
  reveal the precious beauty of your own mind.


Stop influence on mind Sitting on a chair, working. Sometime
later finding yourself sitting in a position same as one beside you.
Is this an automatic influence on mind, you are not aware of the position in which the other being is sitting ?
Sometimes while working make same mistakes as the one sitting beside or in front. The status of the mind same as the people around.
Doing those things as thought by other.
How to avoid this?
Is there any reference in Buddhism to stop this?
What is such behaviour of mind called?

There is another thing , would like to mention, the status of mind sometimes becomes same as the one who remembers you.
For e.g when someone trying to contact you for very long time via mobile, the mind becomes the person who is trying to contact you.
Is it something to do with chakra?
How to guard the mind?

Related to Andrei Volkov's answer, I don't think we need to tie supra-mundane phenomena (chakras, etc) into our explanation of why this happens.

However, in a Buddhist sense, this is very relevant and related to how the concept of self is formed. Because what we perceive as the self is not a "true inherent fact" and is, in fact, a dependent and co-arising phenomenon that occurs with many causes, it is dependent moment-to-moment on many different things. Any person who has drank alcohol can speak to how that affects a person. There are many studies about psycho-active drugs or medications of many kind which affect what we consider to be the self. In terms of company being kept, psychology can refer to it as "Mirroring".

When you speak to someone and they have expectations about you, they are not just keeping those expectations in mind- they are in fact crafting the conversation with the idea of you they have in mind. So someone who has not spoken with you in years will continue to expect you to be the same, and will craft their conversation based on this. You might then see that the conversation almost creates a slide for you. If you behave as expected, the conversation goes more smoothly. Due to attachment and aversion, we generally dislike being in awkward social situations, so when we behave in a mindless way, we get on that slide in a drive towards what we like (social cohesion) and away from what we dislike (social awkwardness). If you instead behave differently, it is like stopping yourself on the slide, standing up, and going a different direction. You throw the other person off-balance (at least for a moment, they might quickly recover) and create at least a small amount of social awkwardness. Many many people have a lot of aversion towards even momentary social awkwardness.

This also happens when you keep company with people in general, but it's especially noticeable when you are very different from them, or when they remember a different set of behaviors from the one you have now. People try to make conversations go as smoothly as they can, generally, and they do so based on their own experiences or memories.

One thing the Buddha talked about was keeping good company. In this way, we can use Mirroring to our advantage. If we have friends who are virtuous and expect others to be virtuous, it becomes easier for us to also be virtuous. So, in a mundane sense, if you find yourself behaving in a way you dislike when speaking to certain people, it's reasonable to avoid those people as a result.

If you are unable or unwilling to cut contact with these people, following the Buddhist path will be helpful. As you become less attached to social cohesion and less averse to social awkwardness, it will be easier to face the walk away from the slide. Cultivating mindfulness will also help you notice when you are being affected by others in this manner, allowing you to manually step in and stop it.


What do you say to share your deeds after you have donated something? I'm wondering do you say "sadu, sadu, sadu" in theravada buddhism, after you have made donation and want to share your good deeds with others.

No. Sadhu means something like 'well said'.

I think you're referring to sharing of merits:

Patti Dāna

Idaṃ me ñātinaṃ hotu

(May this be for my relatives.)

Sukhitā hontu ñātayo

(May my relatives be happy!)

If you want to hear the chant in action (and chant along):

http://chantpali.org/closing.html#patti_dana

Another option:
“Idaṃ me  puññaṃ nibbānassa paccayo hotu.”
(May these merits of mine be conducive to my attainment of Nibbana)

Addition:
I think it's also noteworthy that there is not one correct way to share merits. You can use your own words, in your own language, in English, Pali. Whatever feels comfortable to you. I think that an important part of sharing merits is to really connect to the meaning of the words you're saying. Otherwise it's just 'blabla'.


Does the beauty of Buddhism lie in letting seekers seek beyond the bounds of religion? When I was young I was told by a booklet that if I found a better religion, I can follow that one. I liked the idea of God centered, open-sourced religion back then so it was what kept me loyal and the reason I found out that there was more to know beyond it. Where else can a seeker go but yonder past a certain point?

When I was young I was told by a booklet that if I found a better religion, I can follow that one.
Yes! allowed as per human rights.
As per buddhist scriptures, " Respect other philosophies, compare them with my(buddha's) teachings and follow me only when you find my teachings to be better ".

I liked the idea of God centered, open-sourced religion back then so it was what kept me loyal
Good, because sometimes(most of times, to be precise) philosophers dwelling in thoughts about anatta start breaking 5 percepts at mental level and become dishonest to closed-ones at body-speech level.

•••and the reason I found out that there was more to know beyond it.
Good, because your behaviour seemed to satisfy you and others in doing so. It doesn't mean that there is anything more to know beyond anatta.

Where else can a seeker go but yonder past a certain point?
Theoritically, as per buddhist scriptures-- when seeker stops even seeing/feeling/realizing h-im/er-self as 'seeker', when a state is reached where, "causes&conditions are interacting with causes&conditions", then
What seems to be yonder stops seeming because there is/was nothing to yonder to from the start.

Does the beauty of Buddhism lie in letting seekers seek beyond the bounds of religion?
Finally, yes if religion is binding you with 'Ignorance' of some atta.

May you be free from your confusion.
Metta.


problems with meditation in the morning I have problems meditating in the morning. I usually feel very tired when getting up early on a weekday and then have a limited timeframe (~ 30 min.) for meditation.

My body feels so tired, that I am unable to meditate. This is often accompanied by the tendency to get into a negative, rejecting mindstate.

Should I try to meditate anyway or try to bring up energy (going outside, cold shower)? Is it possible to influence the habitual tiredness in the morning (at least a bit), or is this exclusively a body thing?

There are two descriptions here of the Dalai Lama's morning routine:

Routine Day

When His Holiness is at home in Dharamsala, he wakes up at 3 am. After his morning shower, His Holiness begins the day with prayers, meditations and prostrations until 5 am. From 5 am His Holiness takes a short morning walk around the residential premises. If it is raining outside, His Holiness has a treadmill to use for his walk.

At Home With the Dalai Lama

At 3:45 a.m. ... At a time when only the street dogs were up, the Dalai Lama began his prostrations. ... I lost count after a while, but I figured he must have done about three dozen full prostrations. ... With his prostrations done, he walked to a treadmill tucked away by the window. He hung his prayer beads on the handle bar next to a draped towel and began to pace rapidly on the moving belt. Almost immediately he closed his eyes as he surrendered to the machine's rhythm, and meditated as he exercised. it was a much faster version of walking meditation. ... After showering, the Dalai Lama took me up to the roof of the residence. ... The Dalai Lama stared into the distance, absorbing the quiet, allowing all his senses to experience the tranquil majesty of the surroundings. ... It was chilly and we didn't stay long on the roof. After we returned to his room, the Dalai Lama immediately went into meditation. He sat on a cushion behind his desk ...

Perhaps this indicates how the Dalai Lama awakens his body before and during morning meditation.


Action committed through self-interest Is good action that is committed through self interest capable of creating good karma?
For example

one may contemplate, “if I do action X, it will produce good effects in the future for me, or it may make me look like a good person, etc.”

Are such intentions viewed as greedy?
If such intentions are rooted in greed, then it is possible to do something good out of greed? What kind of karmic effect will that produce?

Only wholesome actions can lead to wholesome resultants.

In the same way only unwholesome actions can lead to unwholesome resultants.

This is stated in the first 2 verses of the Dhammapada.

What are the unwholesome actions based in? They are based in the 3 unwholesome roots (akusala-mūla) which are greed, hatred and delusion. From these roots all other defilements emerge.

To act in a wholesome way one needs to cultivate and act on the 3 wholesome roots which are non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion (wisdom). Actions based in these roots will lead to wholesome resultants for oneself and others.

How to cultivate the wholesome roots? By following the Noble Eightfold Path. In here we have the recipe for overcoming suffering and ignorance.

Especially the Wisdom-group which contains "Right View and Right Intention" is relevant here with regard to the twin verses in the Dhammapada, since it cultivates intentions based on renunciation, good-will and harmlessness.


Ideas to Contemplate When Meditation is Difficult I wrote previously that somehow, my meditation practice suddenly became more difficult, without any cause. So, I wondered what measures could be taken. Since my objective -- for now -- is meditation once per day, any means by which I'd sit and meditate for an allotted time would be useful.

I wondered: what reasons/motives can one contemplate mentally to get that push and sit more easily? For example:

"Once I will sit down, the difficulty will diminish."
"This is part of a path leading eventually to Buddhahood."
"Meditating will help not only myself, but others."

I guess I'm looking for canonical or traditionally given reasons to invoke to motivate oneself to meditate or practice in any form.

Thank you.

We always want things to be less difficult, that's why they are difficult.

I thought,  I need things to be easy now and latter I would ease into being able to handle what is more difficult but then I found that if I faced what is difficult head on with heroic and sustained effort then over time what is uncomfortable becomes way more manageable. This was a fundamental breakthrough idea for me.


Impermanence (Anicca) and Mindfulness in general Did the Buddha meant to be attentive all the time or is that just an ideal to strive for?
If we are attentive and feel sensations do we always see the impermanence in them? So first to recognize what is going on in- or outside and then seeing the impermanence and potentially the unsatisfactoriness in them, right? But wouldn't that decrease pleasures in certain activities/objects?

That is two questions. I'll answer the second.

Things are not unsatisfactory in themselves because they don't have selves. Anicca is the flip side of Anatta (non-self). Because things are made entirely of other things and aren't independent self-entities if any one 'thing' in the universe changes then everything changes because it all interpenetrates. This is the middle way between existence and non-existence - a big debate in Buddha's time and ever since!

Dukkha (third of the three marks of existence) is what arises when we deny Anicca-Anatta. If we truly see/embrace/understand/know Anicca-Anatta then we are in Nirvana - which is nice not nasty.

So in practice we look deeply and see Anicca-Anatta which feels good. Nothing changes. Ice-cream still tastes yummy but we can see that it, along with our tongue, is impermanent and is also a product of the whole universe. Without impermanence the ice-cream would never have frozen and wouldn't melt. Without non-self the ice-cream couldn't become part of us. i.e. Wholesome pleasures increase in breadth and depth as we see them deeply.


What are the rotating cylinders in monastries, and why are they there? Sorry, as I don't know the right term for them.

But, I have noticed these huge copper cylinders(when I went to visit a temple in Dharmashala), which are kept like 5-6 in a row.

They have engravings (probably in some script) on them, and they are rotated by the people who are walking past them.

So, what are they?  And what are the engravings on them?  And why people are rotating them?

These are Tibetan Buddhist prayer wheels and they often have 'Om mani padme hum' engraved on them:

  According to Tibetan Buddhist belief, spinning a prayer wheel is just as effective as reciting the sacred texts aloud. This belief derives from the Buddhist belief in the power of sound and the formulas to which deities are subject. For many Buddhists, the prayer wheel also represents the Wheel of the Law (or Dharma) set in motion by the Buddha.

  The prayer wheel is also useful for illiterate members of the lay Buddhist community, since they can "read" the prayers by turning the wheel. Prayer wheels come in many sizes: they may be small and attached to a stick, and spun around by hand; medium-sized and set up at monasteries or temples; or very large and continuously spun by a water mill. Prayer wheels at monasteries and temples are located at the gates of the property, and devotees spin the wheels before passing through the gates.
  Prayer Wheels


Western scholars: Did the Buddha not speak the Digha Nikaya? Recently, Bhikkhu Sujato wrote:

It is no coincidence that these elaborate texts are often addressed to
the brahmins, who were the self-proclaimed spiritual leaders of the
time. The brahmins were the custodians of the most sophisticated texts
in ancient India up to this time, the Vedic literature. It seems that
one aim of the Dīgha was to impress such learned men.
The Long Discourses: Dhamma as literature and compilation

There also this introduction on Access to Insight (which cites Bhikkhu Bodhi and Joy Manné):

The "Long" Discourses (Pali digha = "long") consists of 34 suttas,
including the longest ones in the Canon. The subject matter of these
suttas ranges widely, from colorful folkloric accounts of the beings
inhabiting the deva worlds (DN 20) to down-to-earth practical
meditation instructions (DN 22), and everything in between. Recent
scholarship suggests that a distinguishing trait of the Digha Nikaya
may be that it was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract
converts to the new religion."1

Bhikkhu Bodhi, Connected Discourses of the Buddha (Somerville, Mass.: Wisdom Publications, 2000), p.31, referring to Joy Manné's
"Categories of Sutta in the Pali Nikayas and Their Implications for
Our Appreciation of the Buddhist Teaching and Literature," Journal of
the Pali Text Society 15 (1990): 29-87.

Sutta Pitaka
The Basket of Suttas

Is there evidence (such as contradictions with other suttas) suggesting the Buddha did not speak the Digha Nikaya?
In there any evidence in the suttas where the Buddha said he would teach a different modified Dhamma ("propaganda") merely for the purpose of converting Brahmins & other outsiders?
Is there any evidence in the suttas showing the Buddha was "flexible" in his teaching of Dhamma? Or do the suttas show the Buddha wished his teachings to remain consistent & clearly representative of what he taught?

Is there evidence (such as contradictions with other suttas)
suggesting the Buddha did not speak the Digha Nikaya?

The four primary Theravadin Nikayas, namely Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, and Anguttara Nikaya contained no contradiction with each other.

You may also wish to scrutinize the Buddhist Councils "convention" and their outcomes to ascertain the level of "authenticity"/preservation of the Buddha's teachings.

In there any evidence in the suttas where the Buddha said he would
teach a different modified Dhamma ("propaganda") merely for the
purpose of converting Brahmins & other outsiders?

In the suttas, the Buddha pretty much taught the same thing to everyone. There was no "special" teachings for select groups of disciples or audiences.

Is there any evidence in the suttas showing the Buddha was "flexible"
in his teaching of Dhamma? Or do the suttas show the Buddha wished
his teachings to remain consistent & clearly representative of what
he taught?

The Buddha had over 40 years to teach. So, he did teach the same thing in many ways depending on the intellectual level of his listeners. And he had 40 years to admonish/correct disciples who developed wrong views of his teachings.


Do any Buddhist traditions emphasize pilgrimage? I'm aware that other religions such as Islam have a great emphasis on pilgrimage.  Do any Buddhist schools or traditions also have an emphasis on pilgrimage and if so where do they go? I know that there are places with particular significance for Buddhism such as Bodhi Gaya and Buddhists do go there. But is that journey actually a significant part of their practice or tradition or is it just that it's personally inspirational to go.

From my own point of view I would love to go see places of historical and religious significance to Buddhism. If I did though I wouldn't view this as part of my practice as a Buddhist. It would almost be religious sightseeing.

There are four main places that most Buddhists visit at least once in their lifetime. According to Buddha's words in Mahaparinibbana sutta those are
Lumbini, Buddhagaya, Sarnath and Kusinara in Nepal and India.

  "These, Ananda, are the four places that a pious person should visit and look upon with feelings of reverence. And truly there will
  come to these places, Ananda, pious bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen
  and laywomen, reflecting: 'Here the Tathagata was born! Here the
  Tathagata became fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme
  Enlightenment! Here the Tathagata set rolling the unexcelled Wheel of
  the Dhamma! Here the Tathagata passed away into the state of Nibbana
  in which no element of clinging remains!'
  "And whoever, Ananda, should die on such a pilgrimage with his heart established in faith, at the breaking up of the body, after
  death, will be reborn in a realm of heavenly happiness."
  DN 16

Pilgrimages however are not a significant part of the practice, but these visits can inspire us to put more effort into our practice. Some groups of people observe eight precepts and practice meditation as a part of the pilgrimage as well.   By showing reverence at these places, the person is able to purify his thoughts, speech and action. So by visiting these places with the correct mental attitude can help us in our practice as well.


How many types of lying? To fulfill a lie:

The statement must be untrue.
There must be an intention to deceive.
An effort must be made to deceive.
The other person understands the meaning.

One person says something he didn't intend to do. Realizing what he said was not truly right, he did what he said in order to fulfill what he has said. An example, someone was given a pamphlet and says "will check it later", do not want to be a liar, he check it later although he doesn't want to check it in order to fulfill what he already said.

If he just said without doing it, that is a lie. But what if do it later, will the lie cancelled?

As I understand Right Speech, the relationship between what one thinks and what one says makes the difference between a truth and a lie.

In your example, if the person says something and know that thing to be  untrue when he says it, that person just said a lie. The intention that person said the lie might not be completely unwholesome (maybe he didn't want to offend the other person etc), but nevertheless, he still is sure of not being honest to the other person and can be sure of just having done an unwholesome act. It seems to me ( but I am not completely sure about it) that the reason that person does read the pamphlet has more to do with his ego of not wanting to be considered a liar (even if only in his own eyes).

The bottom line is that all that matter is what person thinks at the moment that he speaks - if he says exactly what he thinks, he is telling the truth; if he says something that he knows it's not in line with what he thinks, he is lying.


What if the Buddha wasn't a prince? If the Buddha wasn't a prince would his outlook on life been different? If he was a farmer looking after his land, feeding his family for example, would he have simply left his responsibilities behind to attain Nirvana?

If he was the father or husband of a family that needed him, would he have left them?

The purpose of the question is to understand that the Buddha left his family who had all the comforts in life. He didn't need to be concerned with their welfare since they would be provided for. How does one relate this lives of those who do not have these safety nets?

To the first few questions the answer lies with parami/paramitas. These are the perfections which someone who made a vow to become a Buddha will have to develop to perfection for countless aeons. So a Buddha is someone who have trained for aeons until he is perfect to re-discover dhamma and teach. So his last birth will always be of a high social class.

"How does one relate this lives of those who do not have these safety nets?"

Develop the ten paramis and situations in life will change in such that one may have the opportunity.

In the Pāli canon's Buddhavaṃsa[3] the Ten Perfections (dasa pāramiyo) are (original terms in Pāli):

Dāna pāramī : generosity, giving of oneself
Sīla pāramī : virtue, morality, proper conduct
Nekkhamma pāramī : renunciation
Paññā pāramī : transcendental wisdom, insight
Viriya (also spelled vīriya) pāramī : energy, diligence, vigour, effort
Khanti pāramī : patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance
Sacca pāramī : truthfulness, honesty
Adhiṭṭhāna (adhitthana) pāramī : determination, resolution
Mettā pāramī : loving-kindness
Upekkhā (also spelled upekhā) pāramī : equanimity, serenity


Saying May God Bless you Recently I encounter a situation where one of my close people and I went see a patient. While  we were about to leave the place, my close person said May God Bless you. Me and my close person are both Buddhist. I asked why didn't you say May the triple gem bless you. And close person replied saying since they Christians I said God bless you. But I also observed that the patients people said May God bless you.

Does saying May God bless you comes under a wrong view or wrong speech or etc or is it okay to tell? I'm just curious to know since my close person is also a Buddhist"

Just think of the flip side of it @Akila… If the patient is a devout Buddhist.. still almost all  will say "may god bless you" at the time of leaving. Will they ever say "Namo Buddhaya" when arriving, or at the time of leaving? I doubt it. It is because very few know that we Buddhists say 'Namo Buddhaya' whenever we meet or depart. At the time when the Supreme Buddha was alive, it was the practice observed by His disciples to place both hands together in a gesture of worship and greet each other by saying ‘Namo Buddhaya’, whenever they met. Today, whenever Hindus meet one-another, they too bring their hands together and say ‘Namo Narayana’ or ‘Oh Namah Shivaya’. Some say ‘Namo Sairam’ when they enter the ashram of Sai Baba.

But in a way it is OK to say “may god bless you" as the point of the Buddhist teachings isn't to reinforce the identity of "I am a Buddhist and this is what I believe." It's to cultivate compassion and loving kindness and purify anger and aversion from your life. Then your focus would be on "How can I compassionately reply to these people in a way that feels authentic to me?"  You need to be able to connect with the human being in front of you, and look past beliefs and value systems and connect with their humanity.

So focus less on yourself and focus more on the other. What words can you say to bring this being happiness and reduce his/her suffering? Intention is the most important factor and can often supersede other factors. If you feel that by replying "God bless you," (which is personally my own response), this person might experience a sense of comfort, ease, and happiness that would not be experienced otherwise, then there is nothing wrong in saying it.


Evil Buddha, anyone? If a person practices mindfulness and concentration with great success but doesn't care about Noble Eightfold Path, is there a possibility of creating so to say "Evil (or at least immoral) Buddha"?
Were there any historical examples of such people?

This is highly anecdotal, but... Behring Breivik allegedly had a great interest in mindfulness meditation.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/may/22/anders-behring-breivik-meditation

It is no coincidence that Sila is such a central aspect of buddhism. You can't reach buddhahood without it:

  One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong view & for entering into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html


A question regarding Buddhist world view and sense organs and their objects I have recently started reading about Buddhism and I wonder what the world view of Buddhism is -- is it the world view that there is not one world as we think, and instead we each have our own world? When it is said in Buddhism, let's say the sense organ of the eye and its sense object: does the "sense object" here refer to the object seen (for instance a chair that is seen), or is what is meant with "sense object" the picture that I see? Same with tactile objects: is it for instance the bed I am laying on, or is it the sensation of touching the bed?

Also one question that I have regarding the sense organ of mind. It is said that the "external" sense object of mind is thoughts -- how can they be external if thoughts is happening inside the mind, or am I missing something? The view of 6 sense organs and 6 sense objects: is it meaning that there is nothing outside them, in other words there is only our experience not a world outside?

In different Buddhist traditions, this may be interpreted differently. My answer here is mainly from the perspective of the Theravada tradition.

In our minds, we have the idea of "I am the thinker" i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.

When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.

Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.

These examples go to show that objects do not have the inherent essence or meaning given to it by the mind.

What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.

What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.

This concept is called papanca in Theravada, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.

This does not mean that things don't exist, except in my mind. It means that things don't exist as how my mind thinks it does.

What about the Mahayana tradition?

Nagarjuna taught that all things are empty of inherent essence or "own being" (svabhava) including emptiness itself. Somebody tried to say that just like people are empty of a self of people, the chair is empty of a self of chairs. In my opinion, this is equivalent to papanca of Theravada.


Sleep, rest and meditation? I’m wondering what your meditation practice’s effects are on your sleep. I’m asking this because I have a strange tendency, habit of waking up with very troubled thoughts and memories of past hardships. I’m meditating before and after sleep not only for spiritual goals but also for the purposes of relaxing and letting go of these thoughts.

What are you experiences? Do you know if Buddha had anything to say on this matter?  I would love to hear what you have to say!

Thank you for your kindness,

A Buddhist

I have seen many effects of meditation on sleep. Similarly to you, before and after sleep.

I have had times when my need for sleep is vastly reduced, and I've had times when I don't want to do anything but sleep.

It seems meditation can release stuff. Sometimes it seems to release a kind of 'repressed tiredness' that just needs time to get out. Sometime it releases energy that means sleep need is reduced.

As I've said on another post, what would it be like if, when you wake from sleep with troubled thoughts, you take the time to turn towards those thoughts, and importantly the feelings that go with them, with kindness, gentleness and care? The troubledness, in my experience, is just something in me asking for attention. Wonders can happen when you pay less attention to the rational content of the thoughts, and more attention to the emotional content.


How come SN Goenka thought that buying milk does not lead to suffering? During the lectures on a 10-day vipassana retreat, SN Goenka made it clear that an action is unwholesome not only when it directly causes suffering - e.g. shooting at sentient beings, but also when it causes it indirectly - e.g. when one sells weapons.

How to reconcile that with the fact that milk and dairy products are available for eating during the retreats? There is no doubt that buying such products amounts to supporting the dairy industry, and causes suffering of farmed cattle.

Answers to this question suggest that eating meat or drinking milk is not wrong, as long as one does not kill the animal directly. It would mean that SN Goenka was wrong, and selling weapons is not wrong either. Do I understand it correctly?

It's all about the intentions of the individual.

According to Right Livelihood, one of the types of businesses that should not be undertaken is the business in weapons, which is "trading in all kinds of weapons and instruments for killing". These weapons are used for injuring and/or killing other beings. There is no other purpose for them. So, if you are a weapon salesman, then you have the intention of helping someone harm or kill other beings.

Another is the business in meat where "meat refers to the bodies of beings after they are killed ... also includes breeding animals for slaughter." Here, anyone participating in such a business have the intention of depriving other beings of their lives.

If you read this answer, it says that an actor can go to hell because he had the intention to inflame emotions in his audience, after inflaming emotions in himself.

On the other hand, if you read the story of the hunter's wife in this answer which is from Dhammapada 124, it is evident that the hunter's wife who brings her husband his weapons with the sole intention of obeying her husband, is not at all guilty of having the wrong intentions.

From the Theravada perspective, a person who goes to the supermarket and buys milk and meat that is on the shelf, is simply buying meat, with the intention of tasting this food. This person has no intention of depriving other beings of their lives. The animal was already dead, and this person did not choose the animal or instruct the butcher to slaughter a particular animal. Rather, this person is simply choosing a piece of dead meat off the shelf.

As Sankha wrote in this answer, even farming vegetables that are not organic, cause plenty of deaths by pesticides, land clearing and animal traps. But the person who buys vegetables has no intention to kill insects that die due to pesticides, which are used in the process of growing those vegetables.

Also, it is quite a popular idea in some cultures that you should buy a beggar food instead of giving him money, because he might use that money to buy alcoholic beverages. Then it would be your bad karma, if he becomes drunk using the money you gave him. This is not true according to the Theravada tradition. If your intention in giving money was to satisfy the beggar's hunger (because you believed him), then your karma would only be based on your intentions. But once you know the beggar's tricks, you would do better the next time by buying him food instead.


Is it ok to eat after midnight after observing the 8 precepts? if I observe the 8 precepts today,fast in the afternoon and eat at 12am the next day, is it considered a sin?

No. It's also not a cheat, when one resolves to keep the Uposatha-precepts for one day, good householder. Sadhu. Nevertheless maybe taking the Buddhas further encouragements into consideration: Sakka Sutta: To the Sakyans (on the Uposatha)
(btw. day starts with sun rise, and eating at right time means from sun rise till sun at zenith, lesser a matter of time by clock as this could be differently.)


Is drinking coffee or tea against the fifth precept? The fifth precept most directly guides us to abstain from alcohol. Coffee is a stimulant and probably so is tea. Drinking either beverage affects our mental calm and makes us behave in ways that we would not do so without having drunk it. In this sense, drinking coffee and tea is not that different from drinking alcohol. Does drinking coffee or tea is considered against the fifth precept?

In Asia, many people, including monks, drink tea. Does this indicate that drinking tea is at least not against the fifth precept?

The literal meaing there is avoiding fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

  Surā-meraya-majja-pamāda-ṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi

  I undertake the precept to avoid [that big long word]

Big long word happily rendered as "beer-cider-carelessness-intoxication-condition" by Kare.

This is talking specifically about fermented things like beer, wine, etc. Neither coffee nor tea are fermented, nor do they cause heedlessness. I've heard of monks drinking tea. (I've heard of monks smoking too, which I think isn't forbidden by this rule, although perhaps by others)

It's all well and good to look past the behavior prohibited by the precepts to see what further kinds of attachments you have that can be abandoned, but not, I think, at the cost of going back to change the meaning of the precept.

But I do occasionally see attempts at redefining the precepts to be stricter than they are. Take Sulak Sivaraksa's reinterpretation of the five precepts:

  Sulak reinterprets the five classic Buddhist precepts for the modern day.

  Individuals may not be killing outright, but they must examine how their actions might support wars, racial conflict, or the breeding of animals for human consumption.
  Considering the second precept of abstaining from stealing, Sulak questions the moral implications of capitalism.
  Stopping exploitation of women is a natural extension of the third precept of abstaining from sexual misconduct.
  And vowing to abstain from false speech would naturally bring into question how mass media and education promote a biased view of the world.
  Finally, the fifth precept to avoid intoxicants deals with international peace and justice because, “the Third World farmers grow heroin, coca, coffee, and tobacco because the economic system makes it impossible for them to support themselves growing rice and vegetables.

All good points and things worth thinking about, but these are going beyond the five precepts. The precepts are intended to take you to a point where you can examine all of your behavior to see what is skillful, what leads to affliction, etc.

But the precepts shouldn't be redefined to also include these new things. This would only lead to divisiveness between people as one person preaches getting rid of coffee and others disagree. Remember the Buddha refused to make vegetarianism mandatory for the sangha, even though the killing involved in eating meat can easily be seen to pertain to the first precept.

In the case of coffee, I could see a person getting riled up by it and possibly being less able to control their mind, being quicker to anger, etc. If this is the case, then it should certainly be examined, and perhaps that behavior should be abandoned, but this is not covered by the fifth precept.


How are the importance of sutras determined? I assume that there variations of sects within buddhism that deem certain sutras  as more "correct" or being closer to the buddha's teaching. I personally see the Lotus sutra as the "true teaching", but I know that some other sects often see the Flower-garland sutra as being closer to the "true teaching".  Is there a system for determining such assertations, or is it more based on text evidence? I have little knowledge with buddhism outside of the sect I'm apart of, so I'm interested in how other parts of Buddhism work.

In the Indo-Tibetan traditions, questions such as "what are the sutras of definite meaning? in what way are they different from sutras of interpretative, provisional meaning? what makes them sutras of definite meaning?" arise when we investigate the meaning of emptiness. This is because, since the wisdom realizing emptiness is the direct antidote to ignorance, it abandons the obstructions to liberation. Therefore, ascertaining the meaning of emptiness is of utmost importance, and it is why one has to rely on sutras 'of definite meaning' in order to do such ascertainment.

Roughly, a sutra of definite meaning is "more correct" when it comes to ascertaining the meaning of emptiness, but not necessarily with respect to other topics such as the method-side.

Thus, most texts and textual genres that mainly teach emptiness explain what sutras of definite meaning are and why they are taken to be so. They do that to show that they rely on reliable sutras, i.e. sutras of definite meaning, as opposed to sutras of interpretative meaning.

Examples of texts teachings emptiness are:

Candrakirti's Madhyamakavatara and commentaries to it,
Nagarjuna's Karika and commentaries to it,
Maitreya/Asanga's Abhisamayalankara and commentaries to it,
Texts on the Tathagata Essence such as Maitreya's mahayanottaratantra-ratnagotravibhanga,
Presentation of the Special Insight Lam Rim chapter such as Atisha's and so forth.

The introductions to the Kagyu & Nyingma commentaries of Maitreya's Ornament are worth studying in that respect. It explains the three turnings of the wheel and what is definite. (Blue-covered thick books titled Gone Beyond, and Groundless Paths)

Although the Tibetan traditions really are **Indo-**Tibetan, various Buddhist schools did not elaborate on and expanded much on Indian commentaries such as the ones I listed above. For instance, Chan (and later on Zen, Thyen, Seon) does not particularly rely on Indian sources. This means that you will hardly find what Chan masters answer to your question in commentaries to those texts. However, there are aspects of early Madhyamika (and thus Nagarjuna) even in Chan.

Nagarjuna and Maitreya/Asanga are Indian sources that have been elaborated on a great deal by Tibetan Scholars, but also by other traditions such as Tiantai, Pure Land, etc.

The Prasangika-Madyhamika school of Tenets say:

Sutras of the Pali canon are provisional and are the first turning
Perfection of Wisdom Sutras are of definite meaning and are the second turning
Sutras of the third turning are usually of provisional meaning, except those which meaning accord with the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, such as the Tathagatagarbha Sutra.
Prasangika posit that a sutra which main subject-matter is emptiness is of definite meaning. Sutras of the Pali canon that speak of emptiness are not of definite meaning because they do not teach the final view on emptiness, the lack of inherent existence.

The condensed version of the Pefection of Wisdom sutras is the Heart Sutra.

Chan masters were initially called 'Lankavatara masters'. However, the Lankavatara Sutra was so difficult to understand that, later on, as Chan popularized and became less provincial, the Avatamasaka Sutra (Garland of Flowers Sutra) took over. Thomas Cleary made an amazing translation of this particular sutra, about than 1'600 pages. Furthermore, the introduction of the English translation of the Avatamsaka states that according to Chan:

The Avatamkasa was taught by Buddha in a pure Land, after he showed the aspect of achieving enlightenment and before he taught the sutras of the Pali canon. It is of definite meaning.
Sutras of the Pali canon & Perfection of Wisdom Sutras are the second turning of the wheel, and of interpretative, provisional meaning.
The Lankavatara Sutra, Tathagatagarbha sutra, etc. are the third turning and, like the first turning, of definite meaning.

The third turning of the wheel sutras explain the three natures. It is called 'the turning of correct differentiation (between what is and what is not truly existent)'. The condensed version of the Avatamsaka is the King of Prayers.

Pure Land Buddhism highly regards the following three sutras:

Infinite Life Sutra,
Amitabha Sutra,
Meditation Sutra.

However, I do not know whether they posit them as being 'of definite meaning', and which turning of the wheel they claim these sutras belong to.

My answer is all in all very incomplete.


Does Buddhism have a notion of providence leading unbelievers? Whenever an unbeliever starts inquiring regarding Buddhism or the Buddha's teaching, do Buddhists see this as providence leading the unbeliever to Buddha's faith or something else? Does Buddhism's notion of providence extend beyond karma?

Buddhists do not believe in a creator God nor in his or her divine providence. Buddhists believe in the law of cause and effect. When someone encounters the Buddhadharma it is because the causes of such a meeting are established and manifest.

There is no notion of divine providence and it is held that the law of karma is sufficient and necessary to explain how people encounter the Buddhadharma. Hope this answers your question.


What Lord Buddha said about "practicing"? When we practise some thing, we will get a new skill or improve a current skill. Similar effect happens when we do karma. There is also a result. Is practise another form of karma ?

Is life all about practises ? Will most  of our future depends on our current practises ? Is KARMA = PRACTISE ?

I asked a similar question here: Is understanding a practise ?. But didn't manage to ask as I want.

Is life all about practises ?

Generalizations are dangerous, but i'd still say that buddhism deals primarily with reducing defilements/refraining from behaviors that are not beneficial. At the same time, the noble eightfold path also encompasses attaining new habits.

A summary would go something like this:

Guard (the risk of unbeneficial habits, not yet established)
Abandon (unbeneficial habits already established)
Develop (beneficial habits, not yet established)
Maintain (beneficial habits, already established)

https://suttacentral.net/an4.14/en/bodhi

  Will most of our future depends on our current practises ?

For a layperson, all actions bear consequences for the future.

"I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do"

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


Can Buddhism be fundamentalist? Is it fundamentalism if Buddhists believe Buddha's path is the only path, and that all other spiritual traditions or sects are false? And if so, does it exist much in Buddhism?

By fundamentalism, I mean a person believing that their path is the only path, for them and others who believe like them.

I.e. can a Buddhist see another spiritual tradition as valid, even if it is not Buddhism? Such as an agnostic or a mystic from that tradition?

Let's put it this way - a Buddhist is a person who has taken refuge to the three jewels, follows and walks the path taught by the Buddha. Those who do not, are obviously not Buddhists already, rendering your question un-applicable.

Having said that, Buddhist respect other traditions as long as they do not violate the five precepts, and acknowledges that if other paths do not end "true-suffering", then they are not to be pursued.


Is watching the heart beat (instead of watching the breath) a known form of meditation? In Anapana there is no regulation of the breath.

As I understood it, it's meant not to control your breath while meditating, but just let flow. Sometimes it's difficult for me not to control it, so I thought about watching my heart beat. Something I have less control of than my breath.

Is this kind of meditation known?

The only time I've seen the heart-beat mentioned in a similar context, is when Trungpa Rinpoche discussed beginner-level practice:

  ...Usually hinayana-level student works with reality using exclusively phenomenological methods. He pays attention to his heart-beat, he watches his breathing, controls his posture and gait, how he eats, how drinks water etc...

The reason the breath is watched (as was explained by Trungpa Rinpoche) is because breath is the window onto the state of mind, or rather, the state of the entire mind-emotions-body continuum:

  If there is an out-breath conditioned by the mind, he is aware that the out-breath was conditioned by the mind. If there is an in-breath conditioned by the mind, he is aware that the in-breath was conditioned by the mind.
  --from Ānāpānasmṛti Sutra (EA 17.1)

One you get access to your state of mind by seeing how your breath is "conditioned by the mind", you use the feedback of the breath to work on calming and gladdening the entire body-mind:

  ’Breathing in, I am aware of my whole body. Breathing out, I am aware of my whole body.’ He or she practices like this.
  ‘...calm my whole body...
  ‘...feel joyful...
  ‘...feel happy...
  ‘...aware of my mental formations...
  ‘...calm my mental formations...
  ‘...aware of my mind...
  ‘...make my mind happy...
  ‘...concentrate my mind...
  ‘...liberate my mind...
  --from Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118), as translated by Thich Nhat Hanh

I'm not sure heart-beat alone provides the same level of insight into the state of body-mind as the breathing, even though it is related. If you think about the two from signal theory perspective, breathing is amplitude-modulated while heart-beat is (low) frequency modulated, so necessarily heart-beat is a lower-resolution signal. Although as Trungpa Rinpoche says, there is no reason it cannot be used as a secondary indicator, along with stomach and chest tension, face mimics, gait / body language etc.

More importantly, regarding your comment about it being difficult for you not to control breath. As per the above quotes, I don't think the point of (anapana) meditation is to watch breath without controlling anything, nor to regulate the breathing directly. The point is to use breath as a feedback for working with body-mind.


What causes the arising of fear that the sense of "me" will be threatened by the fruition of my practice? When practicing meditation (samatha and vipassana) intensely it feels like the sense of self is disintegrating and breaking apart. What causes that?

The Pali suttas teach self-identity is born from craving. For example:

The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &
delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend
Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the
Blessed One. MN 44
He assumes form to be a self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now
what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is
the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed,
run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact
with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. SN
22.81
And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are
subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
pigs... elephants, cattle, horses & mares... gold & silver are
subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.
MN 26

From when you were very young, your mind attached to things due to both craving & fear. For example, as a baby, your body was hungry and you attached to your mother, who was the source of food. Or when you were lonely & frightened, you craved your mother's attention. Since your children, your life has probably continued like this. While you may not crave your mother for food & comfort, you probably have sought pleasures & attention from other things, so to escape the instinctual fear of being alone, bored & restlessness. From these objects the mind craves & attaches to, a sense of self-identity is born, such as: "My mother, my toys, my food, my friends, my girlfriend, my boyfriend, my husband, my wife, my profession, my sport, my favourite pop star, my favourite movie, etc".
Meditation is similar to being alone. Because the sense of self-identity is built upon external attachments, the sense of self-identity can reduce &/or break apart in meditation. What remains is the original fear the mind has been escaping since it was born into the world.
If your mind is naturally strong, you endure this fear until it passes. Even the Buddha did this, as described below:

So when fear & terror came to me while I was walking back & forth, I
would not stand or sit or lie down. I would keep walking back & forth
until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear & terror came to me
while I was standing, I would not walk or sit or lie down. I would
keep standing until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear &
terror came to me while I was sitting, I would not lie down or stand
up or walk. I would keep sitting until I had subdued that fear &
terror. When fear & terror came to me while I was lying down, I would
not sit up or stand or walk. I would keep lying down until I had
subdued that fear & terror. MN 4

However, there are meditators unable to endure this fear. For example, i listened to a Western monk of 30 years who has given up on even trying to overcome this fear. He spends most of his time as a monk talking & teaching.
This lecture has a good introduction about what the 'self' is: Anattā and Rebirth
by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu


Jobs indirectly related to the meat business According to the Vanijja Sutta on Right Livelihood:

  "Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business
  in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

The first precept forbids taking of a life.

The ability to freeze, store, transport and sell meat later was not possible in the time of the Buddha.

Questions:

Is it ok for someone observing the first precept and Right Livelihood, to be a frozen meat retailer, supplier or importer selling frozen meat sourced from elsewhere (but is not involved with the actual farming and slaughter of animals)?
Is it ok for someone observing the first precept and Right Livelihood, to work as a cashier or general worker in a supermarket or hypermarket (e.g. Tesco, Target or Aldi) that sells many things including frozen meat?
Is it ok for someone observing the first precept and Right Livelihood, to work as an employee in a logistics company (like FedEx) that stores and transports all types of products including frozen meat?
Is it ok for someone observing the first precept and Right Livelihood, to work as a chef or waiter in a restaurant that serves meat dishes, using only frozen meat (no live animals)?

The reason the Buddha suggested we abstain from certain things is not because of the morality of the actions themselves, but because of the effect these actions have on our minds.

The fact that you are even asking this question illustrates there is some sort of mental suffering/inner conflict that has arrisen. This is the suffering we are attempting to avoid by abstaining from specific actions. This is what the Buddha warned us of.

You are always free to do whatever you wish! I would just suggest you not do something that brings you suffering.


Why is real magic not a good illustration to realize Truth? Many monks achieved various levels of perfections and some were extraordinary by human standards like passing through walls , walking on water, levitating in the sky, dying then arising etc...
If Monks have compassion , which they have , then why don't they show us or show me the magic which they perfected? Because if they show me some real magic then my belief on the permanence of physical laws will vanish.
Mostly I believe in the permanence of physical laws like no person can go through wall or that what will go up will come down or that if slapped I will be in pain...and so on... This belief in permanence of physical laws came into existence in my consciousness as given the exact causes exact similar things were happening since I took birth. Real Magic will break that belief. And once I my faith in the absoluteness of the laws of Universe is broken I will start questioning the reality. I will start asking what all in not permanent ? I will start wondering if Universe doesn't work by those laws then which laws ? Should I conclude there is no permanent law ? Desire for investigating will develop as desire of investigation is one the 7 factors of awakening.
Therefore for the sake of humanity why don't Monks show magic and convert the lay people into Buddhism?

In short ,why real magic is not a good illustration to make one realize the Truth of impermanence of all physical Truths.?

If Monks have compassion , which they have , then why don't they show us or show me the magic which they perfected?

It is out of compassion that the magic is NOT shown to you. I am just not finding a right reference for this sutra but I have read that the Buddha once admonished a monk showing magic to lay people saying;

  Monks, attracting people to Dhamma by showing magic is like a
  prostitute attracting clients by pulling up her skirt.

This is a very important thing to understand, that people should come and follow the Dhamma for all the right reason and that right reason is 'to end suffering'. If monks would have started showing magic to preach Dhamma, the whole purpose of Buddha would have defeated because people should have come to Him to gain powers.

Because if they show me some real magic then my belief on the permanence of physical laws will vanish.

No that will not happen. If I will show you I can fly in the air, you won't think that gravity is impermanent, your mind will make a new idea about some physical law that was helping me levitate.

Mostly I believe in the permanence of physical laws like no person can go through a wall or that what will go up will come down or that if slapped I will be in pain...and so on... This belief in the permanence of physical laws came into existence in my consciousness as given the exact causes exact similar things were happening since I took birth. Real Magic will break that belief.

This is the same question you were asking about Gravity. No, with seeing real magic your belief in permanence will not fade, you will, in fact, start believing in some other strange things, and this time they will be strange. And further you will start craving for that magical power instead of the Dhamma.

And once I my faith in the absoluteness of the laws of Universe is broken I will start questioning the reality. I will start asking what all in not permanent ? I will start wondering if Universe doesn't work by those laws then which laws ? Should I conclude there is no permanent law ? Desire for investigating will develop as desire of investigation is one the 7 factors of awakening.

You have already known that things around you are not permanent, is that not enough for you to develop the desire of investigation into Dhamma?

Further, I will state that the laws of physics that you are pointing out is not something you can ascribe the quality of being permanent or impermanent. I will like you to read the book called The Science Delusion nu Rupert Sheldrake. In that, he has shown that even the speed of light that is held constant is in fact not really constant. That book has answers you are looking for and not levitating monks.

Therefore for the sake of humanity why don't Monks show magic and convert the lay people into Buddhism?

For the sake of humanity, they are NOT showing the magic. That's not how you convert people and convert into what?

In short, why real magic is not a good illustration to make one realize the Truth of impermanence of all physical Truths.?

You are misunderstanding 'physical truth' with the description of processes. The physical truth like a gross body can be clearly seen as impermanent and the truth like 'law of gravity' is a description of the process which itself is proof of impermanence. The law is the proof you are asking proof of the proof.

Real magic will lead you astray, it's for the street shows not for the Dhamma.


What makes Brahmas come back to human world at death? If a human dies after obtaining a Jhana(and preserved it) he definitly gets his rebirth at a Brahma world.

So, what makes a Brahma come back to human world upon death? Is it possible that he was unable to preserve the Jhana?

Everything is impermanent. What the Brahma enjoys is the Pala or fruit. The fruit of any Karma including that arising from developing the Jhanas also passes after sometime. If you develop the Jhanas they also have a finite duration which you can have them before you loose them. The duration can vary based on past pratice, but as always finite. As in many cases if you lose the Jhana before the point of death then you will not be able to go the Brahma world as you need to have the Jhanas at the point off death for it to bear fruit.


Disclosing Spiritual Experiences I've read that the Dalai Lama tends not to disclose his own spiritual experiences.

Is it bad to disclose meditative or spiritual experiences as visions and such? Is there a difference between monks and lay practitioners in this respect? Again for monks and lay holders: what occurs if someone is lying or inauthentic about a spiritual experience?

Also, how does one know if a spiritual experience is a genuine one?

Thank you

From AN8.67, this is ignoble:

  Saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, but you haven’t. And saying you haven’t seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you have

From AN8.68, this is noble:

  Saying you haven’t seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you haven’t. And saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you have.

Together, these two considerations create a powerful disincentive to make claims, simply because one might be speaking out of delusion and would therefore be speaking ignoble expressions. Essentially, not saying anything about personal attainments is wisest.

Yet even with this in mind, one might assert a personal experience--how can a listener know the truth of such?

  You can get to know a person’s ethics by living with them. But only after a long time, not casually; only when paying attention, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.

One comes to know the truth of oneself and others in deeds rather than speech. For more detail, study AN5.100, which discusses the claims of different kinds of teachers including the Buddha himself:

  A person will be recognized by their own deeds.


Which is a certified/authentic guide to entering Jhnanas? By far I have came across only Ajahn Brahms book which gives detailed instructions on entering Jhnanas.
If I google for any other instruction manual I get this link.
I don't doubt Ajahn Brahm at all but I havent read any reviews or blogs or internet postings of anyone who has entered Jhnanas through the instruction set of AB.
The link seems to be talking on similar lines but different language.
Is there a certified, peer reviewed instruction manual to entering Jnanas?
Can you provide any other instruction manual link preferably if you have experienced it.

First, without being explicitly jhana,  to get the citta into samadhi, like here
https://suttacentral.net/an10.2/en/sujato
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/sn/05_mv/sn05.55.040.than.ati.htm#p1
  there is, before, 'sukhaṃ vediyati'', meaning pleasant vedana or ''sukkha''.
Before the pleasant vedana, there is ''kāyo passambhati'', which is a tranquil body. Before, the  tranquil body, there is ''pītimanassa'' which is mano having piti. Before mano has piti, there is ''Pamuditassa'', which is the experience of joy (of being moral and rejecting thought of delight on kama and ill will, which makes you keep the 5 precepts and all those rules about morality). Before the joy, there is a lack of regrets.

This stuff about  eagerness for renunciation, seeing drawbacks, and nirodha is the discriminating factor between a success and a failure to reach sotapanna or arhanthood through the jhanas,
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/04_fours/an04.178.than.ati.htm#p1

Like the buddha said about him, https://suttacentral.net/an9.41/en/sujato, he claimed that renunciation of sensuality was good, but his citta was not '' confident'' in it. And as usual, the citta is not inclined towards renunciation due to a lack of seeing a danger in sensuality. Once he saw this danger, he managed to get the jhanas.

Now explicitly for the jhanas. First there is a whole vagga about jhanas
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/03_kv/idx_34_jhanasamyutta.htm

second, the usual way to enter the first jhana is to be ''aloof from sense-desires, aloof from unprofitable states,'' from the typical formulation http://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/4jhana.html#1-cl
 and the buddha says that samasamadhi is precisely those jhanas
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn45-008.html#sammasamadhi

so the situation where somebody is ''aloof from sense-desires, aloof from unprofitable states,''  should stem form the joy and lack of regrets from being moral and seeing drawbacks of cravings for and delight in sensuality.


Always analysing deeds: sati and samadhi In daily Life, I always trying to focus on single good thought so no space for bad. When I did something, I tend to analyse it wether it is good or bad. It is deep most of the time because I am trying to follow five precepts. It seems like I am doing nothing wrong. So I trying to understand deeper clingings (klesha) that are not visible to outside. Most of the time, I am stuck in a loop.
But,
I recently realize that I'm living in a different world. I am far away from the real world. I was trying to improve samadhi but it weaken the sati. Trying to have a single thought feels heavy to mind. Focus on environment feels calm/less heavy/simple.
So How am I improve the situation? I think I have some kind of fear of doing something wrong. Focusing on something good prevent coming wrong thoughts to mind. I heard these kind of advices from monks. But this prevent having sati.
Should I have a general idea of good/bad deeds and stop trying to have a single thought always so I can be aware about the environment (have sati)? Have a specific time for a day to reflect about deeds did during the day.
Are there any sutta which contrast sati and samadhi?

It seems like you have developed a method of suppression which is favoured in the Theravada tradition - under certain circumstances. This isn't bad if done correctly, but you may find that whatever is suppressed must then find the next path of least resistance, usually through our emotions which, in turn, shapes our behaviour. This might be why you feel your sati has been weakened. These instances require emotional and mental discernment. They must be understood or known and that understanding or knowing must come from an observation that is not informed by our regular mental and emotional conditioning. This is sati. This is correct attention. Sati and Samadhi are very different, but they often  acquaint each other as part of the Nobel Eightfold Path.
Developing healthy emotional intelligence is key because the way in which we respond to emotional upheaval determines the quality of our dhamma path. Virtue and morality (sila) practice is considered a critical and fundamental prelude that serves to strengthen and lubricate the dhamma path in ways that will permanently and radically change the mind, behaviour and feelings. Having healthy emotional intelligence at the outset is similar to servicing your car prior to a long journey - and even along the journey, we stop off and continue to service the car. In the same way, we give correct attention to our emotional and mental state as often as is needed so that we are able to see how our behaviour is influenced by our thoughts and our environment. So, this kind of virtuous pursuit is aided by being open and receptive rather than being trained onto one modality: the single good thought. I'm not saying your method is wrong, just that different situations call upon different forms of sati or a different kind of attention.
In some instances, I have found it helpful to let whatever occurs occur. This often means letting go of dhamma concepts and throwing caution to the wind. I make mistakes and I give my apologies, but I learn valuable lessons about myself, people and the complexity of social dynamics. I think this kind of raw human intimacy cannot be given the substitute we call dhamma, but I think it helps to have a reasonable ability to manage your own emotions.
We all have our different skill sets in dhamma, and you may not have found what's most useful to you at this moment or perhaps something needs tweaking a little. There's a lot to be said for trial and error. Largely, I'm an observer; I watch, study and examine my own behaviour and others' behaviour through the magnifying glass of dhamma. Sometimes I throw myself in there, sometimes I don't. It's nice to have the choice.

Should I have a general idea of good/bad deeds and stop trying to have
a single thought always so I can be aware about the environment (have
sati)? Have a specific time for a day to reflect about deeds did
during the day.

The general idea of good and bad comes from preconceived notions, man-made conceptions that only produce stress. For example, good and bad define each other and the void in the middle is called stress. In Buddhist thought, we can see this as attraction and aversion leading to sorrow, lamentation, pain and suffering. Having said that, I think it can be helpful to generalize good and bad for the sake of orientation. But, ultimately, whatever knows morality knows it from a place beyond conceptions. Keeping to the basic precepts is enough for most people. I would't discount the single thought practice; it just may not be practical all of the time.
Adjunct to this, some Theravadins have hundreds of ridiculous rule sets that constrict the practitioner such that they lose their autonomy to systematic regimes. Now, sometimes I dwell in arcane regions of the cosmos to try and understand humans from a new perspective, but this I could never understand.

So How am I improve the situation?

Studying the Noble Eightfold Path.


How do different traditions define "intoxicant"? Since the mapping of Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS) began about ten years ago, around 500 new subsatances  has been discovered. This is a somewhat different situation than what was the case 2500 years ago.

Some NPS are not illegal, and even it they are defined as pshychoactive they're not intoxicating but more like caffein ("upper") or melatonin (for sleep) or valerian (calming).

What defines - in the different traditions - whether taking an NPS is against the five precepts or not? Is it the intention with which you take the substance? Is it the effect? Neurobiological damage? Physical damage? Frequency? Does legal status come in to the picture?

Is this something one should take directly with the teacher? Or something you can define according to your own conscience?

Let me first explain the original Pāli version of the fifth precept, according to what I learnt from prof. Richard Gombrich, who knows Pāli well and is a Theravāda scholar, but is not a Buddhist.

  Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

The last three words are the same for all precepts and mean "I undertake the rule of abstaining from". The key word here is surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā. It is a compound that can be split as follows: surā-meraya-majja-pamāda-ṭṭhānā. The literal translation is surā-meraya-majja-carelessness-occasion. Surā, meraya and majja are names of three intoxicating drinks, but we cannot be sure what they exactly were. So if we look at it literally, the rule deals with three specific drinks, and whether and how it shoud be extended to other intoxicants is a matter of interpretation.

The use of pamāda (carelessness) is even more interesting. Since it is a part of a compound, the grammar rules of Pāli tell us very little about how it should be interpreted. So the literal reading of the fifth precept could be either

  I undertake the rule of abstaining from surā, meraya and majja, because they cause occasions for carelessness.

or

  I undertake the rule of abstaining from surā, meraya and majja, in so far as they cause occasions for carelessness.

Coming back to your question, there is no agreement among Theravāda Buddhists on which of the two readings should be used. There are quite a few who interpret it according to the latter reading and don't think that consumption of small amounts of alcohol is against the precept. But in any case, there is an agreement that surāmerayamajja should interpreted as alcoholic beverages in general. There is, however, a controversy on whether the precept is applicable to smoking.

To sum up, various Buddhist traditions have surely different views on that matter, but in any case, the word pamāda seems to be the key. It is what defines intoxicants, and - for traditions that allow some use of intoxicans - defines the limits of their use.


Explaining non-attachment to the very attached I've been told by someone close to me that my meditation and desire to let go are very threatening to her. She sees sense desires, ego and attachments as very natural and wholesome, and my way of life as a threat or a questionable choice at the very least. She's aware of Buddhism and renunciate ideals, but thinks the Buddha was an idiot for leaving his family and palace to chase nirvana.

This was the essence of an hour long conversation, so there's lots I am leaving out. Seeing that I was very cheerful after an hour long harangue only infuriated her some more.

Some of the more colorful comments here:

  You're like the cartoonist who draws cartoons of Mohammed and incites
  terrorists. By meditating all the time you are trying to be perfect,
  you're actually making fun of us who don't meditate and like our egos.
  I get angry when I see you meditate.

  How can you smile? Stop treating me like a child, you don't know
  better than me. I know what I am saying, the world thinks like me, not
  like you.

I'd like to put it out there for general comment, but my specific question is, what to do when Dharma is (un)intentionally violent like this?

How can I help or at least not hurt these people in my life?

(I was reminded to ask this when I came across: Right speech in social situations)

p.s. Being a vegetarian I'm used to such comments from people who think I am trying to be better than them. It became less of a problem over time, but it's of a much larger magnitude w.r.t Dharma.

Sounds like your realization of Emptiness is not complete. Evidently, there are still some leftover attachments in you, specifically attachment to Dharma. Have you read Choguyam Trungpa's work? "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" comes to mind.

Have you worked with live Zen teachers or with higher levels of Tantra? Integrating Samsara and Nirvana is not a joke, and it is exactly simple but insightful women like this that were almost designed to call our bullshit.


Difference Between Belief and Valuing Just as in Buddhism one's views and self are questions of importance for well being, I noticed my difficulties relating to spirituality relate precisely to those two topics.

On the one hand, I don't hold the belief in the intrinsic existence of the self and of views in general.

On the other hand, in writings I produce there arises  views and self-related imagery which betray an attachment to those two things. In my fiction, there's great and visible conceit, a kind of obvious self-valuing. In the theoretical texts I write, the valuing of certain views is obvious. In both cases, it seems more a question of attached valuing than truly holding definitely those things as true.

Why am I valuing these (created views and self) with cherishing and esteeming, but still feel (perhaps out of some delusion) that they are not intrinsically real? What are the mental factors involved?

It's a mental conflict many practitioners face every day. I humbly submit how I perceived the cause and effect behind it:

1) You learn (i.e. intellectually) that Buddhism teaches the self is an illusion. However, you haven't realized (in both senses of the word) this yet.

2) Your self (Western psychology would say your ego) doesn't like this idea. Nor does your id. They perceive it as death. (In Zen for example attaining Buddha-hood is called "Great Death"). "If the self is an illusion, I don't actually matter/exist"

3) Ego and id will manifest more vigorously and alluring as you practice more, fighting against their "impending doom". They will cling to anything that affirms your individuality or negates your knowledge of the illusionary nature of self. To a certain extent, you could even consider it an instinctive survival mechanism.


A good mood/satisfaction [This is a double question. I am unsure of Buddhism.SE in relation to posting to questions vs one per post]
So today, Like many teenagers, I went to school, a place where I am surrounded by friends and challenges. Today there were many pleasant moments, both mentally, emotionally, and sensually.

One thing that isn't unique to this day, is simply getting tired. Over the past few years, I've noticed that getting tired usually makes me more interested sexually, though I think this is either a longing for intimacy, or (more likely) experiencing normal sensory experience as more sensually, ever so slightly. During such episodes of routine tireless that occasionally arise, as is natural I crave sleep.

Sleep seems like a pretty blissful state, in that it does not really experience any highs, nor lows. I've read that to not experience any desire is greater than fulfilling ones desires. Is this equality 'simply' achieved through mindfulness? How would you recommend pursuing this?

I noticed that a distinctive attribute of pleasure is that generally, I don't want it to stop. Not that moderation is impossible, but its hard to draw a line with pleasure that is truly satisfying. Are some pleasures more satisfying? Or is the only path to satisfaction enlightenment, being detached from desires?

Regarding characteristics of pleasure & pain, MN 44 says this:

  Pleasant feeling is pleasant in remaining, & painful in changing, friend Visakha. Painful feeling is painful in remaining & pleasant in changing. Neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is pleasant in occurring together with knowledge, and painful in occurring without knowledge.

Regarding your sleepiness: once the need arises, I'd try to substitute some of it for meditation, trying to focus on the breath, and not go anywhere else in your mind. Just sticking with it.

If you can get yourself to a state where you can enter meditation and gain refreshment and enjoyment, you'll have made very good progress, and that choice will now be more readily available to you wherever you are. But like anything worthwhile, it takes persistence and dedication to attain. So try to use this motivation for rest that you have right now as a catalyst for developing good qualities.


Under what conditions does a Samyaksambuddha arise? Buddha arises. In the past there were several Buddhas. And it is said that in the future there will be at least one.

My question is under what conditions does a Samyaksambuddha arise?

My question is under what conditions Buddha arises?

There's no set patterns. For example Buddha Gotama came during a relatively uneventful period where human life span was within normal range. However, for the future Buddha Metteyya to arise, per DN 26, life on earth must undergo some very drastic "downswing", and then some recovery, and finally thru some great upswing before He'll appear.