What is bhramcharya or 3rd percept? Is it only pertaining to "no adultery" for layman or as "no sex" for monk?

If such is the case, why in ganika sutta it was mentioned as "path middle to celibacy and adultery" for ganika(female dancers)?

Conclusion:: 3rd percept varies from person to person. It is different for one who has the capacity to "no sex", one having capacity to "no adultery", one who has the capacity to "no sensual pleasures", one who has no-capacity or livelihood depends on adultery-- so "middle to adultery and no-sex(celibacy)",.........

It's main purpose is to enforce people of various livelihoods, various traditions, various spiritual-levels, various situations(incidents) to realize the cravings associated with "harmone-loss through privates, mental-exhaustance in sensual-pleasings, breaking-percepts, various-perceptions, sankharas, ignorance".

Is above conclusion true? Yes/No then justify?

(wholesomeness has essence and craving of never-dying.)

Abhramcharya means non-celibacy. Avoiding bhramcharya is not the 3rd precept within the Five Prevents. Avoiding abhramcharya is for monks or for strict followers of the Noble Path following Eight or Ten Precepts.

As for Ud 6.8, it does not appear to be about celibacy but about attachments arising in the mind due to celibacy. In Ud 6.8 (Ganika Sutta), there are lay people involved in immoral sex. Then the monks became morally outraged by this and criticized to the Buddha those lay people involved in immoral sex. Thus the Buddha remarked: both the immoral laypeople and the monks disturbing their minds via aversion to immorality are both on the wrong path.


What is the correct definition for Mindfulness? I was reading a book where author defined Mindfulness
(sati) using these three analogies from different suttas:

  The Buddha compares mindfulness to a gatekeeper for a frontier fortress. [Kimsuka Sutta]

  There’s another passage where the Buddha says that mindfulness is like a goad. Most of us have gotten away from animal husbandry and farming, and so we don’t even know what a goad is. It’s a long stick with a sharp point. You use it to poke your animals when they’re going the wrong direction, or if they’re standing still when they should be going. The implication here is that the ability to remember what’s skillful and what’s not, and to be able to give yourself a little push or a poke in the right direction: That’s what mindfulness does for you.

  And sometimes it’s more than just a little poke.

(May be he is referring to Patoda Sutta. But I'm not very sure because Buddha didn't mentioned Mindfulness in this Sutta. Please provide me correct sutta if there is.)

  There’s another passage where the Buddha says that when you see that something unskillful has arisen in your mind, then you act as if your hair were on fire. You do everything you can, as quickly as you can, to put it out. You’re relentless and mindful in being focused on putting out the fire, and nothing else.

And other definitions which is written in Wikipedia:

  Mindfulness is the psychological process of purposely bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment without judgment.

(Authour refers it as equanimity)

But as I understand, I will only call Gate-keeper analogy as Mindfulness.
And other analogies falls in the category of Right Effort and Right Resolve.

If we look at MN 117 :

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

Please correct me if I misunderstood this.

Sati

That which is mindfulness, recollection, recall, mindfulness, remembrance, bearing (in mind), not losing, not confusing, mindfulness, the Faculty of Mindfulness, the Strength of Mindfulness, Right Mindfulness: this is called ‘mindfulness.’
Therein what is mindfulness-awakening-factor? Herein a monk is mindful, furnished with excellent mindfulness-penetration, he remembers, remembers constantly, what has long been done and long been said (concerning release). This is called mindfulness-awakening-factor.
Unshakability by negligence as the meaning of the power [strength] of mindfulness
The mindfulness which on that occasion is recollecting, calling back to mind; the mindfulness which is remembering, bearing in mind, the opposite of superficiality and of obliviousness; mindfulness as faculty, mindfulness as power, right mindfulness—this is the faculty of mindfulness that there then is.

These are theravadin abhidhamma and patisambhidamagga excerpts

The Blessed One said, “Suppose, monks, that a large crowd of people comes thronging together, saying, ‘The beauty queen! The beauty queen!’ And suppose that the beauty queen is highly accomplished at singing & dancing, so that an even greater crowd comes thronging, saying, ‘The beauty queen is singing! The beauty queen is dancing!’ Then a man comes along, desiring life & shrinking from death, desiring pleasure & abhorring pain. They say to him, ‘Now look here, mister. You must take this bowl filled to the brim with oil and carry it on your head in between the great crowd & the beauty queen. A man with a raised sword will follow right behind you, and wherever you spill even a drop of oil, right there will he cut off your head.’ Now what do you think, monks: Will that man, not paying attention to the bowl of oil, let himself get distracted outside?”
“No, lord.”
“I have given you this parable to convey a meaning. The meaning is this: The bowl filled to the brim with oil stands for mindfulness immersed in the body. Thus you should train yourselves: ‘We will develop mindfulness immersed in the body. We will pursue it, hand it the reins and take it as a basis, give it a grounding, steady it, consolidate it, and undertake it well.’ That is how you should train yourselves.” https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.020.than.html


The Experience of What Arises I just read within this question that the accomplished arhats, and perhaps the Buddha, still feel pain though they lack aversion to it. I had contemplated for a long time to generate insight and reasons, analytically, to tackle the arising of negative thoughts and attitudes.

However, this process was seemingly effective in preventing the arising of negativity, but seems contrary to fully experiencing reality without attachment or aversion.

1) When a person just sits, aren't they, in a sense, with equanimity towards all that arises? Any orientation towards thoughts or experience changes with time, and it is time--in meditation--which determines the untangling of what arises.

2) Wouldn't equanimity towards all aspects of experience create a different result than either distraction or insight relative to what arises?

It's a gradual training. According to Buddha, we need to develop skill at the coarser, more invasive levels before proceeding to the more refined and subtle.

So initially we learn to stop, to suppress, to manipulate by switching attention. Then we learn to stimulate positive emotions through discursive sequences. Then we learn to tune our mood directly through immediate effort. Then we get to levels when we are practically effortless and purely contemplative, but that comes only with great mastery.

From Gavi Sutta:

  "Suppose there was a mountain cow — foolish, inexperienced, unfamiliar with her pasture, unskilled in roaming on rugged mountains — and she were to think, 'What if I were to go in a direction I have never gone before, to eat grass I have never eaten before, to drink water I have never drunk before!' She would lift her hind hoof without having placed her front hoof firmly and [as a result] would not get to go in a direction she had never gone before, to eat grass she had never eaten before, or to drink water she had never drunk before. And as for the place where she was standing when the thought occurred to her, 'What if I were to go where I have never been before... to drink water I have never drunk before,' she would not return there safely. Why is that? Because she is a foolish, inexperienced mountain cow, unfamiliar with her pasture, unskilled in roaming on rugged mountains.

  ...

  "But suppose there was a mountain cow — wise, experienced, familiar with her pasture, skilled in roaming on rugged mountains — and she were to think, 'What if I were to go in a direction I have never gone before, to eat grass I have never eaten before, to drink water I have never drunk before!' She would lift her hind hoof only after having placed her front hoof firmly and [as a result] would get to go in a direction she had never gone before... to drink water she had never drunk before. And as for the place where she was standing when the thought occurred to her, 'What if I were to go in a direction I have never gone before... to drink water I have never drunk before,' she would return there safely. Why is that? Because she is a wise, experienced mountain cow, familiar with her pasture, skilled in roaming on rugged mountains.


How do you know if you have bad/good karma? Is it possible to know if you have bad or good karma?

A lot of things have happened to me in life that is very negative. I believe partially it is my own fault because the way I am and how others perceive me, but a lot of it I don't think I deserve. I often contemplate what did I do to be on the receiving end of all my negative karma. As a result, I think negative and become very introverted and isolated.

Question: Are all the bad things that happen to me are negative karma or is it "just me"? How can I change my thoughts to be more positive despite a tremendous amount of negativity in my life?

I'm going to add a pragmatic answer, because while I think many of the other answers touched on this problem correctly, I don't find some of the explanations completely clear.

In the most basic terms 'karma' is the idea that every action you make has a reaction. If you do something, something else will happen in response. There is nothing supernatural about it, there is nothing about past lives involved, it's just a matter of what happens in response to your behaviour.

And so some of the fundamental tenets of buddhism are aimed at controlling your behaviour. This is important because it helps to control the responses to your behaviour. In other words, if you live a good life and do good things, take responsibility for yourself, treat people well, good things will tend to, but not always, happen to you. Conversely, if you do bad things and don't take responsibility for yourself, then bad things will happen to you.

So as far as karma is concerned this is pretty much all you need to know: that what I put out to the world, I get back in return.


How we collect bad karma? I'm a student, and I'm getting weird instant bad thoughts to hurt my mom without any reason coz of my anxiety. they are not delibarete by any means.but I have never hurt her verbally or physically. But this anxious thoughts annoy me a lot coz I love my mom a lot. She is the best. I try my best to avoid them. Does this collect bad karma? Please help me I feel so guilty without any reason as I never want to hurt my dear mom even with a thought. At times I feel like I overthink about it even. She doesn't know that those things exist even.

Random thoughts don't collect much bad karma. Intentional and deliberate thoughts generate karma. Habitual intentional thoughts accumulate karma.
Now, you are feeling remorse because you had those thoughts.
What you should do is acknowledge that those are random thoughts. Acknowledge that you don't have the intention to harm her.
And now you should disassociate from those thoughts using mindfulness. Just watch those thoughts as they appear but understand that they are not related to you or anything. Just watch and acknowledge it, then let it go.
Watch this video talk on YouTube on the scientific research done in this area.
From a canonical perspective, the Lonaphala Sutta explains that a trifling evil act has significant consequences for an undeveloped person but hardly any effect for a developed person.
Your remorse is part of that unintended significant consequence. But if you learn to let go, then you would have developed your mind to detach from such trifling negative thoughts.


How can an arahant still perceive without ignorance? According to the 12 nidanas, perception ultimately arises out of ignorance. How can an arahant or the Buddha still experience sense contact when all ignorance is abandoned?

The 12 nidanas are not necessarily about things 'arising' or 'created' out of ignorance.

Unskilful things are 'created' by ignorance, such as craving, attachment, becoming, (self-identity) birth & (self-identity) aging-&-death.

Neutral things are 'tainted' or 'polluted' by ignorance, such as fabricators, consciousness, mind-body, sense organs, contact & feeling.

Perception is included in the fabricators, mind-body & feeling nidanas.

It follows there are two kinds of perception: (i) ignorant perception; & (ii) wise perception (often called 'full comprehension').

The quotes below may help:

  Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities..SN 45.1

~

  Imagine, Brahman, a bowl of water mixed with lac, turmeric, dark green or crimson dye. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the
  reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it
  really was. In the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart
  possessed and overwhelmed by sensual desire... then he cannot know or
  see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of
  others, to the profit of both. Then even sacred words he has long
  studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not studied.
  SN 46.55

~

  If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there
  is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed,
  not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it
  is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its
  contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is
  totally unbound right within. SN 22.53

~

  A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained
  the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released
  through right knowledge — directly knows earth as earth. Directly
  knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does
  not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of
  earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth.
  Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you. MN 1

~

  On seeing a form with the eye, he isn't infatuated with pleasing forms, and doesn't get upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with
  body-mindfulness established, with unlimited awareness. He
  discerns, as it has come to be, the awareness-release &
  discernment-release where those evil, unskillful qualities cease
  without remainder. Having thus abandoned compliance & opposition, he
  doesn't relish any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — doesn't welcome it, doesn't remain
  fastened to it. As he doesn't relish that feeling, doesn't welcome it,
  & doesn't remain fastened to it, delight doesn't arise. From the
  cessation of his delight comes the cessation of clinging. From the
  cessation of clinging comes the cessation of becoming. From the
  cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation
  of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress &
  despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress
  & suffering. MN 38


How to make sense of the Heart Sutra I am very interested in the concept of emptiness and freeing myself of all attachments. Naturally I gravitated towards the heart sutra, the chant in particular is very moving. However I am completely baffled by the text itself. Could someone help me understand the meaning, or purpose behind the story?

I've been practicing in a zen dôjô for the last year, and have been singing the haramita shingyo a lot of times without really understanding it. Your question made me look for a translation online, and I found this (for french readers only) whose introduction says,:

  Ce texte, très court, qui se présente comme le "cœur" des sûtra bouddhistes indiens de la Perfection de Sagesse (prajñâ pâramitâ) est devenu en Chine, puis au Japon, une sorte de credo aux vertus magiques. Au nom de la vacuité, il met à mal les anciennes doctrines des quatre nobles vérités et de coproduction conditionnée.

(my translation):

  This text, very short, which presents itself as the "heart" of the Indian Buddhist sutras of the perfection of wisom, has become in China and then in Japan a sort of credo (creed) with magical properties. In the name of voidness it breaks from the ancient doctrines of the four noble truths and of conditioned
  co-arising.

From what I've understood, this sutra is about putting the 4 noble truths in a vacuity perspective. Considering this, there is no Dukkha, Samudaya, Nirodha nor Magga as they are mental constructions themselves and, thus, you should free yourself from the 5 aggregates.

Here is a humble translation from French to English of the 5th paragraph that seems meaningful to me :

  There is no ignorance and no cessation of ignorance and so forth there
  is no aging nor death and no cessation of aging and death.There
  is no suffering, origin, extinction nor path.There is no
  knowledge and no obtaining for there is nothing to obtain.


Buddhist view on Art and being an Artist I am wondering what is the buddhist view on Art and especially being an Artist? Meaning someone who creates something with an aesthetic quality that may or may not reflect the reality and express thoughts, feelings ideas etc.

As I try to study the basics of buddhism I am encountering this strange conflict when, for example (in my case filmmaking), you like to create a fictional stories, character and even entire worlds, universes.. and that often leads you away from the actual reality. Of course all the thoughts, concepts, stories, songs, plays, paintings, movies etc. in most cases have some symbolic, deeper meaning that does not changed much from the early times. They are rather variations of the "big" questions, pain, love, suffering, live and such and therefore can have the ability to enrich the viewer, provoke thinking and feeling or any other response.

But the creation process takes a huge amount of energy, and a lot of thinking about. I am not sure if that's such a good thing in the end...

I am not sure if that's such a good thing in the end.

There is a sutta which suggests that that's a valid worry: it's the "Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor"

Getting the Message by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu seems to me to soften that message, by suggesting (more specifically) that you should not inspire your audiences to greed, anger, and delusion:

  In this case, the Buddha's reticence and tact helped to make his teaching effective. A similar set of events happened when an actor asked the Buddha if there is a special heaven reserved for actors. The Buddha's reticence and tact in informing the actor of a hell for actors who incite their audiences to greed, anger, and delusion inspired the actor to respond in the same way as the soldier.

Some modern examples:

I can also find some examples of monks and nuns singing and playing music: for example here.
That is notwithstanding the fact that Music is apparently contra-indicted by the Vinaya.
Here is a Theravada monk (ordained at age 10) who composes music: including for film scores.

Music and entertainment and so on are against the Eight Precepts:

  The Eight Precepts are precepts for Buddhist lay men and women who
  wish to practice Buddhism more strictly than through adherence to the
  usual five precepts. The eight precepts focus both on avoiding morally
  bad behaviour, as do the five precepts, and on leading a more ascetic
  life.

  In Theravada Buddhist countries such as Sri Lanka and Thailand,
  Buddhist laymen and laywomen will often[citation needed] spend one day
  a week (on the Uposatha days: the new moon, first-quarter moon, full
  moon and last-quarter moon days) living in the monastery, and
  practicing the eight precepts.

  The Buddha gave teachings on how the eight precepts are to be
  practiced,[21] and on the right and wrong ways of practicing the eight
  precepts.[22]

According to the Visakhuposatha Sutta, the reason for the Eight Precepts is that Arahants refrain from music etc.:

  "[He considers:] 'For all their lives the arahants refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garments, smartening with perfumes and beautifying with cosmetics; so today I refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing ornaments, smartening with perfumes and beautifying with cosmetics. By this practice, following after the arahants, the Uposatha will be entered on by me.'

So I don't know; maybe it's a grey (not black and white) area, i.e. it's something to think about: neither always forbidden nor always recommended.


Did Siddhartha Gautam become Buddha using Vipassana alone? I am an old student of S.N. Goenka Vipassana treat. I want to know whether Vipassana alone is sufficient to achieve Nirvana or not? Did Siddhartha Gautam became Buddha using Vipassana alone? Or If he employed some other techniques what were those?

It's  unlikely.
It's reported that Gotama spent 6 years training all sorts of things before he achieved Nirvana. This training involved studying under other ascetics and practicing austerity. Presumably he learned a lot during these times, though emphasis seem to be on things he learned that weren't fruitful.
But things that aren't fruitful aren't the whole story of this period. For example, he found some teachings of his previous teachers useful and kept teaching and exercising them even after Nirvana (e.g. meditation on nothingness/suññata) -- though these practices, by themselves, were remarked as insufficient for realizing Nirvana.
Another example of useful practice is the time when he decided to divide his thoughts in two classes:

“Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me: ‘Suppose that I divide my thoughts into two classes. Then I set on one side thoughts of sensual desire, thoughts of ill will, and thoughts of cruelty, and I set on the other side thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will, and thoughts of non-cruelty.
[...] “As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of cruelty  arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of cruelty  has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I considered: ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to others’ affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to the affliction of both,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna,’ it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of cruelty  arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it.
-- MN 19

An insight (no pun intended) on the kind of person Gotama was before Nirvana can be seen from the following passage, where he was training severe ascetism:

“I would make my bed in a charnel ground with the bones of the dead for a pillow. And cowherd boys came up and spat on me, urinated on me, threw dirt at me, and poked sticks into my ears. Yet I do not recall that I ever aroused an evil mind of hate against them. Such was my abiding in equanimity.
-- MN 12

That is, even in extreme circumstances he already had some extraordinary domain over his mind or such a virtuous persona that unwholesome states of mind would not invade him in these circumstances. Also, the whole narration of the ascetism period shows how deeply dedicated he was.
That much can be read in the suttas from the period pre-Nirvana.
Many buddhists believe that this is due to his many previous lives acquiring merit and becoming such a person that would be able to, by himself, become the Buddha -- the Jataka stories illustrate that.
A complementary point of view could be to take the Dharma that he started teaching. As far as we know, he didn't taught vipassana for some 40 years, he taught the eightfold path. He also implied that the eightfold path is intrinsically the path Nirvana -- seeing one is seeing the other. In other words, this same path was discovered by all Buddhas.


Major differences between breath meditation and body scan meditation? I have done several Vipassana retreats in the past. Some questions came up to me several times without being able to answer them.

What are the major differences between mindfulness of the body (e.g. Body scan/Vipassana meditation) and focusing on the breath (i.e Anapana Sati meditation)?

How can I focus my attention as it arises across my body? I am able to focus on my breath between my nose and my mouth, but when I am aware of my sensation on my legs for instance, should I stay aware of my breathing simultaneously?

For starters i am not sure how you differentiate between the two. The literal content of anapanasati sutta teaches us to examine several different aspects including but not limited to bodily sensations or breathing.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html

What are the major differences between mindfulness of the body (e.g.
Body scan/Vipassana meditation) and focusing on the breath (i.e
Anapana Sati meditation)?

Besides the obvious difference in meditation objects, there will likely be a wider range of experiences perceived during a body scan, as you become more receptive to any/all body functions, aches, hunger, et c, compared to focusing solely on the breath.
Also, scanning the body systematically too quickly can make you less perceptive to anicca - i.e. the non-permanence of a singular sensation - compared to being attentive to your breath only where you'll be gradually more attentive to subtle changes. On the other hand, shifting your attention as taught in anapanasati can aid you in practicing the discernment of mental factors.

How can I focus my attention as it arises across my body? I am able to
focus on my breath between my nose and my mouth, but when I am aware
of my sensation on my legs for instance, should I stay aware of my
breathing simultaneously?

Choose one object at a time. It will train you in maintaining singular focus (ekagatta), and will also enable you to examine how bodily phenomena transforms, or whether they are successively stilled (or not), for instance. If other sensations arises you will likely shift your attention regardless of whether you intend to or not, so focus on practicing returning your attention to your initial meditation object.


I get rapid eye movement as soon as meditation starts I saw a question about rapid eye movement when meditating, which from what I know is similar to REM sleep and the experience I had is a little bit different. As the title says I get the eye movement with in a few seconds and the only difference is the top of both my eyes hurt a little and can be distracting sometimes. Is it good that I can get this so fast?  Does it mean some kind of raise in consciousness or even more concentration may come soon?

I have only recently noticed this this week and I meditate about 20 minutes.

In short this can be due to:

past fabrications surfacing rapidly and creating uncommon experiences
perhaps less likely but a possibility is Piti which sometimes create vibrating and / or pulsating experiences

Also see: eye movement during meditation

These experiences are neither good nor bad. Also do not get attached or averse to them. In additions concentrate on the task at hand than giving importance and distracting your self when there experiences do arise in your meditation session.


Personal Relationships while on the path? Since studying and attempting to adhere to the buddhist path as a lay follower, lately I've been finding it very difficult to connect with friends who are not on the same path. I note that much of the time spent together centers on gossip, politics, and myriad of other self-centered topics. I try not to engage, and/or even change the subject, but I am the only one, so I usually resort to sitting there silently. Any words of compassion or love I attempt to offer to the conversations are generally ignored, or even mocked. I find myself asking "do I need to abandon these friendships?" If so, I would essentially be friendless. Do I seek out other likeminded folk? Where do I find them?

About 20 years ago I felt the same. People were talking about something pretty meaningless. It was not interesting. Also, according to the Buddhist precept of Mindful Speech, idle chatter should be avoided. So I stopped to spend much time hanging out with people.

Maybe 10 years later in such situations I was feeling that the talk could be deeper. We could address each other's hearts - contacting on deeper level, sincere and meaningful.

It doesn't happen just by changing subject to something more spiritual. It's more by looking deeper, into people's hearts, and opening your own heart to them.

Another 10 years later I can actually do that. People feel something interesting in me. I say something not for bringing a topic for discussion, but touching something meaningful for them.

People discuss with me their problems with children, health, alcohol, attitudes of others etc. Not in casual manner, but looking for wisdom. And I show how to discover that wisdom in themselves.

I still do not socialize much, and in companies I'm not like talking all the time.

Enjoying every moment, being present, with the mind of openness and wholeness is sufficient.

And then people feel interest in deeper talk with me, about our lives.

So I think it's a natural process. One day you leave useless samsaric concerns, later you come back to help others to expand their lives past those concerns too.


Is The Kālāma Sutta Really Libertarian? The Kālāma Sutta is often cited with approval by Modernist Buddhists as affirming a Libertarian ideology in which one need not take cognisance of anyone else's opinions or group norms, but one can simply decide for oneself what is important and meaningful.

  "Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement." (As good a definition as any)

The part of the text so often cited is the negative criteria for decision making:

  “Here Kālāmas: don't use revelation, don't use lineage, don't use quotations, don't use tradition; don't use speculation, don't use inference, don't use signs, don't use understanding based on views, don't uncritically accept what seems likely; don't use respect for a sāmaṇa. When you know for yourselves "these things are unskilful, offensive (sāvajja), criticised by
  the wise, these things undertaken and accomplished result in harm and misery‟ then you should abandon them.” My translation

The negative criteria are phrased in Pāḷi as, for example mā anussavena, i.e. the prohibitive particle (mā) with an noun in the instrumental case and no verb. So in fact it is difficult to tell what the prohibition refers to except from the context. Buddhaghosa supplies the verb gaṇhittha, the past participle of gaṇhati "to grasp". So his view seems to be that the first criteria is "don't be gripped by revelation". The context shows that these are various means for making decisions about how to behave. They are not used for testing the validity of beliefs.

Does the Kālāma Sutta really encourage libertarianism?
Why do people read the negative criteria as referring to test beliefs?
Do the Kālāmas themselves embody Libertarianism in their own lives, in this or any other sutra?

one need not take cognisance of anyone else's opinions or group norms, but one can simply decide for oneself what is important and meaningful

That's not what I read into it.

A question you should consider, one of the yardsticks by which to measure or test a belief ('doctrine', 'quality', or 'behaviour') is whether it is "praised by the wise" and "blameless".

It also states several bits of Buddhist doctrine as self-evident, for example ...

  When greed arises in a person ... it arises for harm not for welfare"

... and/or axiomatic, for example ...

  "And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering"

I think that if what you "simply decide for yourself" contradicts these (Buddhist) axioms then I don't see such a decision as being supported by the sutta.

Instead I think it's saying that if you practice the (Buddha's) doctrine then you will experience (i.e. "know for yourself") the result (and that the result will be a better result).

I find it more prescriptive than permissive, for example ...

  One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now

... is prescribing a "mind thus free from hostility".

  Is The Kālāma Sutta Really Libertarian?

I found this page on fakebuddhaquotes which gives what the author describes as a "libertarian" interpretation of the sutta ...

  Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

... and which it says is ...

  ... is a bad translation of the Kalama Sutta — so bad, in fact, that it contradicts the message of the sutta, which says that reason and common sense are not sufficient for ascertaining the truth.

His view of the sutta is,

  The Buddha’s reply is very full, but it’s clear he says that “reason” (logical conjecture, inference, analogies, agreement through pondering views) and “common sense” (probability) are not sufficient bases for determining what the truth is. It’s not that these things should be discarded, but ultimately it’s experience and the opinion of the wise that is our guide.

Further to that ...

  Now you don’t have to take everything they say as being the absolute truth. You can use your reason, your common sense, and your experience as a guide. Not all of “the wise” will agree, for example, so you’re still going to have to figure things out for yourself ultimately.

Still he claims that the criterion that "the opinion of the wise should be a guide" is often overlooked, and he describes this (overlooking this criterion) as a "libertarian" position.

IOW (to answer your question) I think the author believes that the sutta isn't really "libertarian" in that sense.

  a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective

Well that might have a parallel in Buddhism, for example The Taste of Freedom,

  As though in response to mankind's call for wider frontiers of freedom, the Buddha offers to the world His Teaching, the Dhamma, as a pathway to liberation as applicable today as it was when first proclaimed twenty-five centuries ago.

  "Just as in the great ocean there is but one taste — the taste of salt — so in this Doctrine and Discipline (dhammavinaya) there is but one taste — the taste of freedom": with these words the Buddha vouches for the emancipating quality of His doctrine.

Or for example the word ananta (endless, limitless, infinite) was mentioned in another topic that people were discussing recently.

However that's not the same interpretation of "liberty" as various modern versions of 'libertarian' some of which say (if I'm not misrepresenting them) for example that people are well-advised to arm themselves in order to be able to defend their own property with lethal violence.

If you're looking for a parallel outside Buddhism, I know hardly nothing about schools of politics or philosophy but I'd guess that Buddhism might be closer to stoicism than libertarianism; in that for example something like this sounds Buddhist to me,

  The Stoics taught that destructive emotions resulted from errors in judgment, and that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection", would not suffer such emotions.

In terms of "freedom", it doesn't mean (doesn't teach) freedom to have destructive emotions (and/or behaviours): what it's teaching is freedom from destructive emotions.

  Why do people read the negative criteria as referring to test beliefs?

You're saying it's about behaviour not belief, i.e. it's about "making decisions about how to behave".

I see that as a "belief" for these reasons:

In the translation I'm  using the Kalamas start with,

  They expound & glorify their own doctrines etc.

The question then is about "doctrine" which I equate with "belief" (even when the subject of the belief is "how to behave").
The Buddha asks them,

  What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises etc.

I'm equating that question "what do you think" with a question about belief, i.e. "what do you believe?"
The subject of the Buddha's questions is the three unwholesome roots, and I think he's saying "Buddhist doctrine is that these are unwholesome" and is asking various questions about this doctrine:

Do you believe this doctrine? Given that you do ...
Do the wise agree with this doctrine? And ...
If you practice this doctrine does it lead to welfare?

So again it's talking about doctrine, for example the belief that greed is an unwholesome root.
I equate 'belief' with 'view'; Wikipedia's description of right view suggests that it,

  ... acts as the reasoning with which someone starts practicing the path. Right view gives direction and efficacy to the other seven path factors.

So behaviour is important, but perhaps action proceeds from view, i.e. you behave a certain way because you have a view (or belief) about behaviour and about how to train your behaviour.


Did the Buddha discover jhana by himself? I was reading Ajahn Brahmavamso's book 'The Jhanas' (available freely online) in which he says that the Buddha discovered Jhanas by himself, and what Alara Kalama and Uddakha Ramaputta taught, were not related to jhana.

The reason I am requesting your time is that, there are some teachers in Sri Lanka who claim that Jhanas are a later inclusion, citing the same fact that Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta were able to teach up to the highest immaterial Jhanas, and that a Samma Sambuddha couldn't have lent so heavily on the teaching of others for his own Enlightenment. Thus, they discourage samatha meditation. Fortunately such teachers still emphasize Sati.

Would appreciate your thoughts.

I quote an excerpt of this answer from Ven. Yuttadhammo. You may read the answer for details.

  The orthodox view is that samatha meditation was not discovered by
  the Buddha and vipassana meditation was.

  The orthodox view is that the Bodhisatta cultivated samatha meditation
  countless times in his past lives before finally discovering
  vipassana.


Not-Buddhism is the highest level of Buddhism? I'm new here. I have a question regarding "Not-Buddhism" as the highest level of Buddhism.

I'm not sure where is the source, but this is the koan.

  Tozan said to his monks, "You monks should know there is an even higher understanding in Buddhism." A monk stepped forward and asked, "What is the higher Buddhism?" Tozan answered, "It is not Buddha."

What does Tozan mean by "It is not Buddha"?

The Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta shows how the Buddha treats views about the cosmos being eternal and views about the fate of the Buddha after death.

    "Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.

And another quote,

    "A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

Having a position about what is Buddhism has similar drawbacks to having a view about the eternal-ness of the cosmos. Tozan is discouraging views like "This practice Buddhist" or "That idea is part of Buddhism".


What is the relation between the Eight Consciousnesses and the Five Aggregates? What is the relation between the Eight Consciousnesses and the Five Aggregates?

Are all the 8 consciousnesses subtypes of the fifth aggregate (vijñāna/viññāṇa)? The name suggests so, but it looks strange to me: the first 5 of the 8 consciousnesses seem to be more related to the third aggregate (samjñā/saññā). I would be glad for a clarification.

All 8 types of consciousness described in Yogacara texts fit into the aggregate of consciousness, not perception. The confusion comes down to difficulty in the English translations for these terms.

The word translated as perception doesn't actually mean perception in the ordinary English sense of the word. In ordinary English perception means to be aware of something through the senses, but that is not the meaning of the word saññā.  refers specifically to the way that something is interpreted by the mind, especially in terms of pattern recognition and memory. For example, when you look at a chair, you are aware of actually seeing something (which is eye-consciousness) and at the same time you are giving an interpretation to what it is, which in this case is a chair. This second layer of gathering things together and interpreting them is what saññā is in Buddhism.


Being mindful sitting/working on a computer I find being mindful while sitting on a computer very hard.

Most movements with mouse/keyboard are happening so fast and intuitive that it's very hard to be conscious of what the actual intention (by clicking on/typing this or that) is; often this also leads me into restlessness or loosing track of time;

I'm sure this is a common phenomenon. Are there certain tricks/tips by which one can be more aware while sitting/working on a computer?

I find being mindful while sitting on a computer very hard.

Being mindful of what you are going is good but not always the right mindfulness.

What you can pratice in such a situation:

Mindfulness of posture by looking at the touch of the body with the chair and clothes
Sensations that arise in the body and mind

  Most movements with mouse/keyboard are happening so fast and intuitive that it's very hard to be conscious of what the actual intention (by clicking on/typing this or that) is; often this also leads me into restlessness or loosing track of time;

Intention does not matter if it is hard to keep track of initially. Just concentrate on the sensations that arise. Sometimes when you cannot fix a piece of code or perhaps under pressure then these situations also give sensations. Be mindful of them.

  I'm sure this is a common phenomenon. Are there certain tricks/tips by which one can be more aware while sitting/working on a computer?

Takes the whole body or the body as part by part and direct your attention to these parts. Initially when you feel a sensation on some part more on. When you can feel sensations throughout the body then they to divide and dicest the sensations to see them at more lower level of granularity.

Since you are seated mostly be mindful of your posture and sensations it brings. Once you have been in one posture for some time you might get a urge to more. Look at these sensation. Also the texture of your cloths touching you. The touch of the atmosphere on the exposed parts of your body. Heat of cold or the environment you work in and perhaps perspiration running down your body if you perspire. And also the touch of the chair. Touch of the keys when your fingers hit the keyboard.


Effectiveness of Body Contemplation (Asubha Bhavana) Does someone actively practise this type of meditation for a longer period of time? I feel like that it does not really work. Is there something to keep in mind to increase its effectiveness? I think that pictures or even better real life situations are better than self created images in order to see the repulsiveness.

Any ideas?

I didn't practise it for a 'longer' time, but I did practise it, it didn't worked because contempletion needs active memory and we really don't have memories of revulsive aspects of bodies.

Then I changed the way, I switched to looking in real world. Following are the things I saw...

Meet old people be aware of their bodies, facial features especially, pay attention to the wrinkled skin, stinky weak teeth, bad eye sight, feel the repulsiveness.
If you ever happen to be in India visit the place called Varanasi, its the dead body burning ghat for the hindus. Not only they burn it they also just throw it in river to rot, if they are poor. There are also half burned bodies all over. See that sight.
Try and attend a stomach surgery or a post mortem at a hospital.

I think this will take you too far with the body contempletion meditation.

And if nothing works contemplate on this story of buddha.


Why do monastics in certain Buddhist traditions take new names? In the Theravada tradition, and perhaps others, monastics take a new name when becoming bhikkhus/bhikkhunis. Where does this tradition come from, and what is its significance? Others don't - what's the difference?

In India, during the time of the Buddha, the vast majority of monks and nuns didn't change their names. Notable exceptions are Sariputta and Moggallana, whose original names were "Upatissa" and "Kolita" respectively.

It is not clear why the Buddha chose to call Upatissa by the fact that he was the son (putta) of Sari, or Kolita by the name of his village. The Mahavagga calls them by these names before they met the Buddha, so it may have been that they took these names earlier.

Other examples that may also have been acquired earlier are Kundala-Kesi, Bakkula, etc.

Cases of adding a descriptive to the name are common, e.g. Kumara Kassapa, Lakuṇṭaka-bhaddiya, etc.

One case stands out, that of Angulimala, who actually had his name changed by the king:

  Then the king's fear, his terror, his hair-standing-on-end subsided. He went over to Ven. Angulimala and said, "Are you really Angulimala, lord?"

  "Yes, great king."

  "What is your father's clan? What is your mother's clan?"

  "My father is a Gagga, great king, and my mother a Mantani."

  "Then may Master Gagga Mantaniputta delight [in staying here]. I will be responsible for your robes, almsfood, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for curing illness."

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html

Apart from all this, the biggest reason for later name changes is simply because names in other languages don't work for the Pali recitation required for ordination, e.g.:

  ayaṃ Noaho āyasmato Tongassa upasampadāpekkho

doesn't really work, so giving monks Pali names is considered appropriate:

  ayaṃ yuttadhammo āyasmato sirimaṅgalassa upasampadāpekkho

It seems that early on there was a tradition of naming monks after arahant disciples of the Buddha, so we get various Moggallanas and Sariputtas throughout the ages. In modern times, there seems to be some greater variation in the practice, and choosing a name for a monk has taken on significance that pretty clearly wasn't there in the time of the Buddha.

My name, for example, is chosen because I was born on a Wednesday - in fact, I was given the wrong name, because one monk thought that me being born in the morning in Canada meant that he should give me a Wednesday night name (it having been night in Thailand when I was born).

In the end,

  What's in a name? That which we call a rose
  By any other name would smell as sweet;
  So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
  Retain that dear perfection which he owes
  Without that title.

  -- William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet


Am I feeling pity or compassion? I'm confused. The 50+ year old nanny whom I hired to take care of my firstborn has just resigned a week ago. Before she left, I willingly gave her about 25% more than the salary we agreed upon. I also bought her some nice gifts for the lunar new year. I even told her to contact me if someday she need any (financial) help and not to tell anyone, including my wife. Until now, I'm still hoping she would contact me (not that I wish her to be in bad financial situation) because I really want to lighten her financial burden. So my two questions are:
1) am I feeling pity or compassion? I really really want to help her more as she told my wife she was (kind of) stressful of her financial condition.  Also, I think she had taken care of my baby so well.
2) is this an attachment?
Sorry for my lack of basic understanding of Buddhism. Thank you. Btw, I'm 34.

Thank you for your kind answers and I'm sorry for the edit.

If you want her to contact you, it's an attachment that is going to cause you suffering. An act of Metta(loving kindness) would be calling her once in a while and checking if she is doing well. Then if she needs help, you can help her.


How should i understand "Stored up kamma"? I'm reading the book "The Noble Eightfold Path" by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. I'm currently reading about "Right View" and i have a question regarding an explanation by the author.

The quote can be found on p. 19. The highlight in the quote is made by me:

  "Kamma can operate across the succession of lifetimes; it can even remain dormant for aeons into the future. But whenever we perform a
  volitional action, the volition leaves its imprint on the mental continuum, where it remains as a stored up potency. When the stored up kamma meets with conditions favorable to its maturation, it awakens from its dormant state and triggers off some effect that brings due compensation for the original action."

How should "stored up potency" or "stored up kamma" be understood?

It's somewhat sloppy language... "stored up potency" doesn't really mean anything; it's a concept, the concept that certain experiences will somehow be related to other experiences. There is nothing in Theravada Buddhism, AFAIK, even hinting at karma being stored up, or of a continuum being imprinted.

So, it should probably be understood as conventional language, similar to explaining how a seed from one tree makes a new tree - the potency of the first tree is stored in the seed, creating a tree continuum. In ultimate reality, the continuum doesn't exist, nor the potency, the tree, or the seed.


Is Buddhism hell falsely claimed on wikipedia? Thank you all for your kind answers to my questions. I feel that this community is really different from the others. If I asked the questions I made here in my country, I would be condemned heavily by now.

Back to the question, as Buddhist hell only exists in one's mind, therefore the information on wikipedia must be wrong.

Naraka

Or is it correct? Why does no one change it?

There are instances where painful mental states or experiances are called hell. [Patala Sutta] E.g. If I do something that might ripen in being born in hell you also get the hellish feeling here and now, [Maha Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta, Cūla Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta] and in case you are born in the human world  similar pains will be experienced. [Maha Kamma,vibhaṅga Sutta, Cūla Kamma Vibhaṅga Sutta]

A more vivid description of hell is found in Bala Pandita Sutta, (Yama) Deva,dūta Sutta and Deva,dūta Sutta. Neyy’attha Nīt’attha Sutta mentions that the Buddha uses direct and indirect languages. Though these destinations may exist some of the descriptions maybe parables so you can draw an analogy of what is there to a concept that you might be familiar with as Arana Vibhanga Sutta mentions that when teaching Dhamma you should use common and familiar language giving allowance to the audience or region they are from. This does not mean that the destination are only exist in the mind or they are parables to experiences in this world.

Also the Wikipedia articles seams mix and match from multiple schools. Also it would be an idea to keep these descriptions as per the wording of the Buddha and let the reader infer its meaning.

With regard to the descriptions in the Suttas many of the experiences in hell will not have a description in common language as language is developed to describe what we come across in this world. What is mentioned would most likely give the best idea of the suffering involved in these worlds.


What is bodhisattvahood in personal practice? I've read a lot of english language scholarship on the mahayana, probably about 150 books thoroughly, with notes, though not always with very good notes. I wanted an opinion from a broadly Mahayana perspective, so here's my story.

I was a sensitive youth, and had a number of religious like epiphanies while backpacking, before a more intense near visionary one with a basic Buddhist textbook.

But this was truncated by a frank insanity: there is schizophrenia in my family. Anyway, my psychosis is doing a good job of shrivelling up with medication and therapy. But before all that, and before I clawed back some sense of Buddhism from my relatively committed reading habits, did I have an authentic religious (or Mahayana) moment? Or was it a religious delusion and / or escapism?

How do I tell? I had taken a couple of Thai meditation classes, and since then have sat with a couple of zen groups, and attended a 7 day ch'an retreat. No-one took much interest, but then I am near broken now. I'm not asking for authentication from a web community, only:

What is bodhisattvahood in personal practice: is it OK to believe one (has or) did have that quality?
Does anyone here suppose they are a bodhisattva, without any group accreditation and with little engagement - outside their own personal striving / story / narrative?

More esoteric or indeed polemical answers, are of course weclome.

Bodhisattvahood, is not really a quality, at least not in the sense you are saying. A Bodhisattva is a being striving to reach enlightenment as quickly as possible, for the benefit of all beings.

They have a set of vows that they must take and keep. They are similar to monks, except their vows are of a different variety.

I think you are thinking of the term Ahrat, or someone who has obtained nirvana. Yet the two terms are related in a way.

The thing about a realization of Śūnyatā, at least in the teachings I have heard, is that you know, there is no doubt. This is of course a direct understanding I refer to, not an intellectual theoretical understanding. Those who experience it directly do not have to ask for a clarification.

As for your personal experience, don't get me wrong, it is your experience. What value it has is not for others to determine. You must decide what impact to let it have on you. I spent years chasing after answers after an experience I had in my teenage years, and though I learned a ton about myself, and many other things, ultimately I came to the conclusion that the experience was a dead end, and not to pursue it further.

One Rinpoche who I went to talk to about the experience advised me to just passively watch and observe if it were to happen again. He explained to me about how when he was a boy he had to reach out and touch objects to ensure that they were really there.

Now just because my experience was a dead end does not necessarily mean yours was. There are two possibilities, it was a genuine experience, or it was somehow related to your condition.
Either way, it is your mind, and you can analyze it as an aspect of yourself. Where you go from here, and what you decide to do with the experience and the memory of it though, is completely up to you.


Meaning of Gotrabhu in plain English How you can explain in plain English the change of focus (from puthujjana to ariya) that takes place in this stage of insight?

There're a few different interpretations of the word Gotrabhu, which Ven. Bodhi commented to AN 9.10 in his "Numerical Discourses":

  "Gotrabhu. In his translation of Vism, where the word is used in a technical sense, Nanamoli renders it “change-of-lineage” (see Vism 672–75, Ppn 22.1–14). Mp explains this person—in accordance with the exegetical scheme of the commentaries—as “one with a mind of powerful insight that has reached the peak, the immediate condition for the path of stream-entry.” Mp is here referring to the gotrabhu mind-moment in the cognitive process (cittavithi) of the path, the mental event that immediately precedes sotapattimaggacitta, the mind-moment of the path of stream-entry. Since this scheme is relatively late and presupposes the Abhidhamma theory of the cognitive process, it is unlikely to reveal the original meaning of gotrabhu. In the Nikayas, the word occurs infrequently. In the present sutta it seems to mean simply a virtuous monk or nun who has not reached the path of stream-entry. We find the plural form at MN 142.8, III 255,6–7: “But in the future, Ananda, there will be clan members, with ochre [robes around] their necks, immoral people, of bad character” (bhavissanti kho pan’ananda, anagatamaddhanam gotrabhuno kasavakAttha dussila papadhamma). In the latter passage it has a pejorative sense, referring to those who show merely the outer marks of a monastic without worthy inner qualities."


Can't notice the breath I can't find the breath (sometimes I can, but the majority of the time I can't)

I can't notice the rising and falling of the stomach even when lying and putting my hand on it and also to notice the breath in general is very hard for me.

Now I understand I can say if I don't notice it "knowing" or "breath" etc - but then I wait and wait and nothing - and in the mean time lots of secondary objects come up. If I follow them though its not good- because you should have a primary object to build concentration, so I need an "anchor"

So when I say "knowing" and then what should I do? Just focus on my belly? And if i don't feel anything? Not even in other areas like the nose - what should I do - focus harder? Follow secondary objects only?

I have practiced for a long time now (did retreats etc) and I thought this problem would fix itself, but I still have this problem. When I meditate I do 1 hour walking, then 1 hour sitting (mahasi style).

Hmmmm... interesting. Try this: do controlled breathing for a dozen breaths (count breaths on fingers and do a moderately-slow deliberate breath-ins and breath-outs), then for a dozen breaths let the breathing happen on auto-pilot (keep counting on fingers. I assume you have twelve fingers LOL).

When you breathe deliberately you can't possibly NOT notice the breath, right? After all, at that time you are deliberately using the muscles of the chest and diaphragm to suck air into your lungs. So you should feel yourself pulling pulling pulling not too fast, slowing down, then stopping, holding a little, then going down and out out out not too fast, slowing down again, a tiny pause. It is what you yourself are doing, so you can't miss it, right?

Then when you let it happen naturally, the same attention you used for deliberate breathing should continue on to natural breathing.

Also, do you sit in Lotus / Half-lotus? Try sitting in Vajrasana - it arches your back a little more and forces to open the chest and diaphragm. Perhaps (I don't really know but I'm guessing) your breathing is too shallow because you are in the habit of blocking your lower abdomen? Vajrasana is a good posture for this kind of practice, to penetrate the lower chakras.


"For a person whose past,present and future are the same" from Dhammapada With reference to the title of the question, I would like to know if the person blessed or under a curse if for him the past, present, and future are the same?
If by unlawful acts he is elevated to a higher position when these three positions are better. He wants such a condition to perpetuate and go on.
If he is downgraded for his lawful acts, his downfall is usually bitter for him.
How to analyze the situations?

Dhammapada verse 421 does not say: "for him the past, present and future are the same".
The Pali is:

Yassa (whatever) pure (past) ca (and) pacchā (future) ca (and), majjhe
(middle) ca  natthi (does not exist) kiñcanaṃ (in any way) akiñcanaṃ
(not in anyway) anādānaṃ (not grasping)
He who clings to nothing of the past, present and future, who has no attachment and holds on to nothing — him do I call a holy man. (Buddharakkhita)
He who has nothing
— in front, behind, in between —
the one with nothing
who clings to no thing:
he's what I call
a brahman. (Thanissaro)
For whom there is nothing in the past, the future or the present,
having nothing and unattached, that one I say is a brahmin. (Anandajoti)


Was Buddhism during the life of the Buddha unique in the history of religion per Huston Smith? In chapter 3 of Buddhism, A Concise Introduction, Huston Smith and Philip Novak give a list of characteristics present in Hinduism at the time of the Buddha:

Authority: "talent and sustained attention will lift some people above others in matters of spirit"
Ritual
Speculation: "Whence do we come, whither do we go, why are we here? People want answers to these questions."
Tradition
Grace: "In the last resort the universe is friendly; we can feel at home in it."
Mystery: "Being finite, the human mind cannot begin to fathom the Infinite, which it is drawn to."

The authors described Buddhism as "(at the start) a religion almost entirely devoid of each of the above mentioned ingredients without which we would suppose that religion could not take root."

In particular, "Buddha preached a religion that skirted speculation." The authors quote from Sutta 63 of the Majjhima Nikāya, wherein one of the Buddha's disciples says,

  Whether the world is eternal or not eternal, whether the world is finite or not, whether the soul is the same as the body or whether the soul is one thing and the body another, whether a Buddha exists after death or does not exist after death—these things the Lord does not explain to me.

Near the end of the chapter Smith and Novak write,

  After his death all the accoutrements the Buddha labored to protect his religion from came tumbling into it, but as long as he lived, he kept them at bay. As a consequence, original Buddhism presents us with a version of religion that is unique and therefore historically invaluable

This is how Buddhism is often presented in the west, but my impression was that there were no extant texts to support it. For example, via Wikipedia, here is a seemingly contradictory claim from Andrew Skilton's A Concise History of Buddhism.

  It is important to stress that, despite modern Theravada teachings to the contrary (often a sop to skeptical Western pupils), [the Buddha] was never seen as being merely human. For instance, he is often described as having the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks or signs of a mahāpuruṣa, "superman"; the Buddha himself denied that he was either a man or a god; and in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta he states that he could live for an aeon were he asked to do so.

The Mahāparinibbāna Sutta is part of the Pāli Canon so AFAIK is as old as any record we have. Is Huston and Novak's view at odds with Skilton's? Or am I missing something? And if they are at odds, can Huston and Novak's view be supported?

To remedy this apparent discontinuity, I think it is wise to look at how the Buddha taught and what methods we proposed to attaining peace. If he were to propose a viewpoint that focused on the pragmatic path and not the esoteric, that would leave one to believe that there is no points at odds. That is not to say that there is not a Buddhist phenomenology or ontology, but that the Buddha did not propose the investigation as a proper means of attainment.

Regarding the Sutta mentioned by Andrew Skilton:

  Kappam va tittheyya kappavasesam va. Comy. takes kappa not as "world-period" or "aeon," but as ayu-kappa, "life span," and explains avasesa (usually "remainder") by "in excess."

  Comy.: "He may stay alive completing the life span pertaining to men at the given time. (Sub. Comy.: the maximum life span.) Kappavasesa: 'in excess' (atireka), i.e., more or less above the hundred years said to be the normally highest life expectation."

  Among the numerous meanings of the word kappa, there is, in fact, that of time in general (kala) and not only the duration of an aeon; but the meaning "life span" seems to have been ascribed to it only in this passage. Also, the meaning "in excess" for avasesa (usually "remainder") is unusual.

  The four constituents of psychic power (iddhipada) are concentration due to zeal, energy, purity of mind, and investigation.

Access to Insight note on Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Now, let us look at how the Buddha taught and the overall focus of the teachings.

In the Alagaddūpama Sutta  (MN 22) the Buddha discusses views and will help in the search for your answer. It is much too long to summarize in the post, but it provides an underpinnings of the pragmatic aspects

The Dīghanakha Sutta is another sutta we can look at to see how the Buddha viewed esoteric fixed views:

  “There are these three kinds of feeling: a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling, and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. On the occasion when one feels a pleasant feeling, one does not feel either a painful feeling or a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. One feels only a pleasant feeling on that occasion. On the occasion when one feels a painful feeling, one does not feel either a pleasant feeling or a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. One feels only a painful feeling on that occasion. On the occasion when one feels a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling, one does not feel either a pleasant feeling or a painful feeling. One feels only a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling on that occasion.

  “A pleasant feeling is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to vanishing, fading, ceasing. A painful feeling is also inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to vanishing, fading, ceasing. A neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is also inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen, subject to ending, subject to vanishing, fading, ceasing.

Here we see that the Buddha, focused on what we perceive rather than views about what we perceive. Earlier in the sutta, he discusses some Brahmans view with respect to please: All is pleasing to me, All is not pleasing to me, and 'A part of me is pleasing; a part of me is not pleasing'. The focus here is not a categorical answer of what is and is not pleasure, but how we relate to the pleasure and the nature of the pleasure.

  “Kassapa, the statement, ‘With the one who acts being the same as the one who experiences, existing from the beginning, pleasure & pain are self-made’: This circles around eternalism [see Appendix Two]. And the statement, ‘With the one who acts being one thing, and the one who experiences being another, existing as the one struck by the feeling’: This circles around annihilationism. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathāgata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications…. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

Acela Sutta

The point I'm trying to make is that the Buddha was very thoughtful in how and why he answered questions. He focused on what led to the end of suffering, which was not focusing on the esoteric teachings (in most cases). We see time and time again that he speaks in terms of suffering and the cessation of suffering. Thus I conclude, that there is no disconnect between the two.

This is not a direct answer persay, but I hope this can spur further discussion

References:

Skill in Question: How the Buddha Taught by Thanissaro Bhikku

Buddhist Romanticism by Thanissaro Bhikku


Is yoga an acceptable form of meditation for a practicing Buddhist? Yoga is a form of mediation which involves physical exertions as well as inward examination.  Is this an acceptable form of meditation for a Buddhist?  Are there any sects of Buddhism which focus on meditations which involve physical exertion?

It depends on what your definition of 'acceptable' is.  Will it benefit you?  Absolutely.  For one, a case can be made that yoga is a mindfulness-of-the-body meditation and that it can even go beyond that - incorporating other aspects of sati (mindfulness).  I think it's also safe to say that all five of the hindrances can be temporarily suppressed during intense yoga and may even give rise to access concentration (upacarasamadhi).

Still, I don't think it's a perfect substitute for the kind of meditation the Buddha taught.  For starters, I wonder whether true jhana is available to someone in an asana other than a variant of the lotus position.  You'll be able to attain some amount of samatha, but the degree will be lessened by the effort it takes to maintain the other asanas.  Outside of lotus, I also don't think you'd be very stable, physically speaking, and that you'd probably just wind up falling over!  But maybe you aren't even looking to attain jhana.  Who knows!  There is precedent that such states aren't a prerequisite to enlightenment.

As per 'sects' of Buddhism that use physical excursion, well, there is a rich tradition of doing prostrations, schools like Tendai have their mudras (but I'm guessing that's not the kind of exertion you're talking about), and many martial arts schools with a Zen slant pay strict attention to bodily position - especially Japanese styles like iaido (and come on - meditate with a sword?  How cool is that!).

So yes - beneficial, absolutely.  A true alternative?  Mmmm...probably not.


Who was the Buddha's teacher? When Asita muni had told to King Shuddhodhana that

  " If he
  becomes a householder, he will become a universal monarch.
  But if he goes forth from the home to a homeless life, he will become a fully enlightened Buddha."

Asita was sure that the child would not remain a householder.
So when Asita was known all that, may we suppose him Buddha's teacher and if wasn't then who was Buddha's teacher.

Between Gayā and the Place of Enlightenment the Ājīvaka Upaka saw me
on the road and said: ‘Friend, your faculties are clear, the colour of
your skin is pure and bright. Under whom have you gone forth, friend?
Who is your teacher? Whose Dhamma do you profess? I replied to the Ājīvaka Upaka in stanzas:
I am one who has transcended all, a knower of all, Unsullied among all
things, renouncing all, By craving’s ceasing freed. Having known this
all For myself, to whom should I point as teacher?
I have no teacher, and one like me Exists nowhere in all the world With all its gods, because I have No person for my counterpart.
I am the Accomplished One in the world, I am the Teacher Supreme. I
alone am a Fully Enlightened One Whose fires are quenched and
extinguished.
I go now to the city of Kāsi To set in motion the Wheel of Dhamma. In
a world that has become blind I go to beat the drum of the Deathless. - Ariyapariyesana Sutta

Having seen that there is no being in all the worlds who can be his counterpart let alone be his teacher, the Buddha appointed the Dhamma he realized as his teacher.


How open are current Zen Buddhism masters to teaching westerners? Would it be acceptable to travel to Japan or China and seek out masters of Buddhism to learn from them? Would they accept the opportunity or is it expected of everyone to seek out their own truth on their own?

Thich Nhat Hanh is a world renowned Zen master who has monasteries in France, USA and several other countries. He teaches and ordains students and monks from all cultures and ethnicities.

His method of teaching is especially suited for the modern age, since Eastern or Western, cultures are increasingly all the same thanks to globalization.

I believe Western students will benefit most from working with such teachers, who understand both cultures. Firstly, there's no language barrier, secondly, the western manners and habits won't cause offense or impede progress, and thirdly, the teaching is especially suited for the intellectual Westernized person.

I believe Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh to be no less than a living Bodhisattva, a jewel among teachers. He doesn't teach anymore after an illness a couple of years ago, but his Plum Village tradition still carries on along the path he charted.

One could also travel to Japan or China, many do, but finding a good teacher there can be hit or miss without knowledge of the language, culture and traditions. Ultimately though it is not the teacher, but the student who plays the largest role in enlightenment.

There has been no one who has not been enlightened for want of a good teacher. When there is ardent desire to learn the Dharma, the Dharma will seek the seeker out.


Mindfulness is leading to anxiety and depersonalisation So I was doing breath meditation each day for 30 mins or so for around 2 years. Then over the past year I have found that it is causing me to feel strange and anxious when doing everyday tasks. When I meditate I don't feel the symptoms but during the day when I have to start thinking the symptoms come.

When its at its worst loud sounds can make me feel very odd (e.g. someone shouting or laughing suddenly and loudly). However, if I have to speak and have a conversation then the symptoms tend to go.

It's very frustrating because meditation has been such a great interest for me and has helped me so much in lots of other areas that I am reluctant to give it up completely. I am a pragmatist though and if the right move is to give it up completely then I will do that.

Has anyone else had any experience of this or got any advice. Obviously its a tricky thing to advise on as you don't know the entirety of the situation but any help would be really appreciated.

Cheers

Simple answer: It's a phase, it will pass.

Detailed answer: Mindfulness meditation doesn't result in a strictly upward curve in terms of clarity or perceived well being. This is one of the reasons for getting guidance from someone experienced, so that they can give you proper feedback on whether you are making progress or not.

If you don't have a teacher/can't find one, I can give you some tools for self diagnosis, let me know in the comments. But be warned, self diagnosis has its own issues and assuming oneself to be in different stage can cause unnecessary and needless suffering that one can do without by just sticking to regular practice.

http://static.squarespace.com/static/5037f52d84ae1e87f694cfda/t/5055922624acbaa64592c1c3/1347785254496/

refer to rows 2 (possible current stage) and 3.1 (possible reason for worsening symptoms)


Practical advice on not eating after noon My question is mainly to monks and nuns in this group, but I welcome answers from others as well.

If one were to give up eating solid food after the midday, as instructed by the Buddha to his Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni, what practical advice would you give such a person in order to avoid getting gastritis and stomach ulcers?

This advice seems relevant (by a gastroenterologist and published in Canada's largest newspaper):

Fasting tips for those with gastritis and peptic ulcer


Do Asimov's three laws make a robot a Buddhist? Would the imposition of Asimov's three laws of robotics make a robot act in a Buddhist manner?

  A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

In this case I think we can associate "human" with "higher power or morality" - be that suttas, kamma, laws, or whatever.

Animate being are created through Dependent Origination, Nutriment, etc. The Buddha's teaching is for such beings. The part is morality, concentration and wisdom. Even this laws may engrain morality I am not sure if concentration and wisdom can be developed by a robot. A robot may have memory of the teachings but cannot practice. So robot cannot become Buddhist by practice.


The Buddha was male, so was he an "alpha male"? The Buddha was male, so was he an "alpha male"? It's a facetious question. Are Buddhas e.g. submissive and androgynous? I am asking because 'alpha male' is a recurring idea in Western culture right now, and I wondered what Buddhism and the imitation of Buddhas' character, has to say about that.
An answer claimed androgyny is "consistent with Buddhist philosophy".
No self may imply submissiveness, in some ways: not putting your own "me" and "mine" first.
'Alpha male' is strongly tied to the senses and wealth, status etc.. Which clearly Buddhas reject as mundane. So I was thinking "no"; but perhaps Buddhism offers a critique of 'macho'.

Please see the sutta quote below of AN 7.51.
The Buddha was neither alpha male, beta male, alpha female, beta female, androgynous, dominant or submissive (from a gender-identity perspective).
Rather, he was unbound and free of all such binding gender identity views.
He was not even self-identified as a human being - he was simply the Awakened One - also please see this answer.
From AN 7.51 (or numbered AN 7.48 here):

A woman focuses on her own femininity: her feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So she focuses on the masculinity of others: masculine moves,
masculine appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine
voice, and masculine adornment. She’s stimulated by this and takes
pleasure in it. So she desires to bond with another. And she desires
the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient
beings who are attached to their femininity are bound to men. This is
how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
A man focuses on his own masculinity: his masculine moves, masculine
appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and
masculine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he focuses on the femininity of others: feminine moves, feminine
appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine voice, and
feminine adornment. He’s stimulated by this and takes pleasure in it.
So he desires to bond with another. And he desires the pleasure and
happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient beings who are
attached to their masculinity are bound to women. This is how a man
does not transcend his masculinity. This is how one is bound.
And how does one become unbound? A woman doesn’t focus on her own
femininity: her feminine moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways,
feminine desires, feminine voice, and feminine adornment. She isn’t
stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it. So she doesn’t focus
on the masculinity of others: masculine moves, masculine appearance,
masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and masculine
adornment. She isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure in it.
So she doesn’t desire to bond with another. Nor does she desire the
pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond. Sentient beings
who are not attached to their femininity are not bound to men. This is
how a woman transcends her femininity.
A man doesn’t focus on his own masculinity: masculine moves, masculine
appearance, masculine ways, masculine desires, masculine voice, and
masculine adornment. He isn’t stimulated by this and takes no pleasure
in it. So he doesn’t focus on the femininity of others: feminine
moves, feminine appearance, feminine ways, feminine desires, feminine
voice, and feminine adornment. He isn’t stimulated by this and takes
no pleasure in it. So he doesn’t desire to bond with another. Nor does
he desire the pleasure and happiness that comes from such a bond.
Sentient beings who are not attached to their masculinity are not
bound to women. This is how a man transcends his masculinity. This is
how one is unbound. This is the exposition of the teaching on the
bound and the unbound.”


Asking about Parent-Child relationship karma. Is it bad if I don't wanna go visit my dad? My parent seperated since I was young and I was rise by my mom.
Right now my dad is not in a good condition and unfortunately my aunt and uncle from my dad's side doesn't like me much. Too be honest I don't wanna face with my aunt. I know she loves him so much and she hates me because I choose to stay with my mom. I don't know what to do.

For example today I told my mom I will go visit my dad but mom said she needs me to have a dinner with her.so she told me to go visit my dad the other day...

If I don't go visit him.. Will it be bad ?

I know this is such a stupid question but it is hard for me to make up my mind. When I see my dad It is not so peaceful inside because of the people around him...

Your question is very important, but difficult to answer, since within Buddhism answers are not always what we want to hear.
Your father and his family members are experiencing there own karma, which in this case is not good for them or pleasant for others.
Within yourself you should try to find loving-kindness for their suffering. You can accomplish this by realizing that the bad manner that they use with you is a lesson in how not to behave. Try to find compassion. This will help your mind to accept, and realize that your visit with them is temporary...when it is over do not dwell on it.
In Tibetan buddhism all sentient beings were once our kind and loving mothers. We try to remember that in our dealings with others. It is not always easy, but you will be a better person if you have compassion for all others.


How to identify a sotapanna (stream enterer) I just wan to know whether there are any measurements advised by the Buddha to identify a stream enterer (sotapanna). I know for a fact that from the stream enterer and above, all four types have given up on self doesn't tell that he/she is enlightened or in this state or not.

So how are we to find these noble people? Are there any instructions and where is it cited?

I have posted this book before, here it is again: Sotapanna Handbook (or available here).

It's a compilation of 50 or so suttas where Buddha mentioned stream-enterer (free from publisher).

Yes, Buddha gave us tools to measure ourselves.  Please notice that there is no tool to measure other people's progress.  Only Buddha had that quality, not even his great disciples ever proclaimed progress in others.

And for reference why one should not judge other's progress (stream-enterer, once returner, etc..) is from Migasala Sutta, Buddha told Ven. Ananda

  "I alone, Ānanda, can measure their measure or one like me."

The reason i feel it should be told because some teachers would proclaim their students to be such and such for some other questionable purpose.

summary of migasala sutta

  Ananda visits Migasālā in her home and is questioned as to why both
  Pūrana and Isidatta, the former of whom was a brahmacārī and the
  latter not, should both have been born in Tusita, as sakadāgāmins.
  Ananda offers no explanation, but consults the Buddha, who declares
  that Migasālā is but a foolish, frail, motherly body with none but
  mother wit; how, then, could she understand the diversity in the
  person of man? (purisa-puggala-paropariyañāna). The Buddha then goes
  on to divide men into six classes according to their capabilities and
  attainments. It is not possible for anyone, save a Tathāgata, to
  measure persons.


What would a Buddhist country's law be? Does Asian countries has Buddhist law in their parliament/government?
Is there thing like this?
As we can see that Asian countries like Japan, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Mongolia, South-Korea, North-Korea, Hongkong. In these counties mostly people are Buddhist so I've to know if there is Buddhist law for parliament or government for Buddhist country. And if there what is it or what it'd be?

The guiding principles of an ideal king it to follow is the Dasavidha-rājadhamma

Dāna (charity) — being prepared to sacrifice one's own pleasure for the well-being of the public, such as giving away one's belongings or other things to support or assist others, including giving knowledge and serving public interests.

Sīla (morality) — practicing physical and mental morals, and being a good example of others.

Pariccāga (altruism), being generous and avoiding selfishness, practicing altruism.

Ājjava (honesty) — being honest and sincere towards others, performing one's duties with loyalty and sincerity to others.

Maddava (gentleness) — having gentle temperament, avoiding arrogance and never defaming others.

Tapa (self controlling) — destroying passion and performing duties without indolence.

Akkodha (non-anger) — being free from hatred and remaining calm in the midst of confusion.

Avihimsa (non-violence) — exercising non-violence, not being vengeful.

Khanti (forbearance) — practicing patience, and trembling to serve public interests.

Avirodhana (uprightness) — respecting opinions of other persons, avoiding prejudice and promoting public peace and order.

King Asoka incorporated this into his rule and perhaps some other monarchs historically.
Sri Lankan constitution does gives the following provision.

The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the
foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State
to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all
religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA (As amended up to 15th May 2015) Revised Edition – 2015
Thai Monarchy seem to have it engrained:

Thai concepts of monarchy have their origins in Sukhothai, founded in the early part of the 13th century and generally regarded as the first truly independent Thai kingdom. Here, particularly under the reign of King Ramkhamhaeng the Great (1275-1317), was born the ideal of a paternalistic ruler alert to the needs of his people and aware of the fact that his duty was to guide them. Such forms part of Dasavidha-rājadhamma, or the ten precepts of kingship, which – rooted in the tradition of Theravada Buddhism – encompasses such virtues as willingness to give and sacrifice for a greater good, morality, honesty, open-mindedness, diligence, compassion, perseverance and righteousness.

Thai Monarchy
But not sure the Dasavidha-rājadhamma is directly found in the constitution or any legislature any of the modern day Buddhist countries. At least it is not the case in Sri Lanka. Mainly because the constitution and legislature is modeled what was inherited from the British rule and constitutions and legislation of other countries.


Subtle sensations in Vipassana and Zen In Vipassana retreats (as taught by Goenka) there is a relevant emphasis on bodily sensations that may arise.

They first ask you to do Ānāpānasati (to focus on sensations above your upper lip and below your nose, whil breathing) and then to scan your body, with the goal of perceiving sensations that may arise

On the other side, in Zen (soto), at least in my experience, they do not tell you what to focus on, and it seems that there is no emphasis on bodily sensations.

I asked to a Zen meditation teacher if he ever feels something in his body while meditating. His answer was ''No''.

So, my question is

How can it be that two traditions have so radical approaches to our body ?
Is it true that in Zen there are no stages where bodily sensations arise ?
If subtle vibrations arise while doing Zen, what is the right approach to them ? Ignore them ? Analyze them ?

How can it be that two traditions have so radical approaches to our body ?

They have different teaching methods. Also, zazen is not usually presented with discrete steps (though there are some milestones), as opposed to the original "sati" meditations (anapanasati, satipatthana)

  Is it true that in Zen there are no stages where bodily sensations arise ?

I've never heard this said.

  If subtle vibrations arise while doing Zen, what is the right approach to them ? Ignore them ? Analyze them ?

The stock phrase in zazen is "you just sit".


Which are considered to be the oldest suttas? Though I've seen dating of mahayana suttas here and there in passing with some analysis, I understand the pali canon has suttas of many ages. For example, one collection I've often heard to contain many old suttas is the Itivuttaka.

However, I've don't recall seeing any information about dating of specific suttas, or what criteria for estimating the age are used. Is there a set of suttas which has been identified as the possibly oldest texts?

I was told that the Sutta Nipata is a one of the oldest collections. I'm no Buddhist scholar so I can't help with any great textual analysis of the sutta. However Thanissaro Bhikkhu says here that the The Parayana Vagga is quoted in other (more recent) parts of the Pali Canon so this makes it a good candidate to be considered one of the oldest. To quote the relevant part of the passage

  There is evidence that these sixteen dialogues were highly regarded
  right from the very early centuries of the Buddhist tradition. [...]
  Most of the Cula Niddesa, a late addition to the Pali canon, is
  devoted to explaining them in detail. Five discourses — one in the
  Samyutta Nikaya, four in the Anguttara — discuss specific verses in
  the set


How to get rid of thoughts of grandiosness? By practising the eight fold path and meditation I have been able to get over lot of suffering as a result of my past created by my mind. I am able to get over self pity, hatered, anger by following the advise of friends in this forum...

But now that I am over the past my mind has started playing new game...it starts painting pictures of grandiosness...like it presents me with illusions like i will be as great as the Buddha...I will be the Buddha and have followers...i will have super powers...i can fly etc etc...

Its getting difficult to control these thoughts in meditation...its a kind of hindrance I didnt read in any book...

I want to attain silent present moment awareness...is there any sutta which can help me with overcoming this maya of my mind?
Is there any help?

from my own experience with mindfulness meditation over past 10 months (and a slightly longer interest in zen buddhism and Jungian psychology), I can understand what is your struggle.
Accepting and understanding my own self pity, hatered and anger was a big step for me, yet it has opened me to a completely new set of aspects of my personality that were hiding in the background, undeveloped and a little bit scary at first.
But frankly, is there something that worries you about your thoughts of becoming something greater? Is it possible that you are not used to be someone better? Or that you are angry about these thoughts? That you pity yourself because your progress was undermined by these new emotions?
For me it was exactly this. So I took a step back because I found myself in the power of emotions I was originaly trying to understand.
The great thing about mindfulness meditation is that we are able to notice all of these emotions and thoughts (even grandiosness), understand why they appeared, cherish them for a short time and let them go.
I wish you a lovely day!
Martin


what is the love described in Buddhism? I heard from Buddhist monks love is "kamachannda" and definitly a "Klesha"(hindrance).When I analyze the definition of love in in Oxford Dictionary it states;

An intense feeling of deep affection(a feeling of fondness or liking.)
2.A strong feeling of affection and sexual attraction for someone.

So this is a match with "channda"(liking)
logically no body love something or some one which dislike.
Once I search single word for "metta" in English; Universal love (as mention in "What's the Buddha thought by Ven.Walpola Tero) and this is the common interpretation for "metta". So is loving wrong thing to do?what is the difference of love and metta? Is love an attachment?

You know that feeling when you like/love something or someone so much that you feel the pull, you want to have it, you have this sense of string attached to your stomach pulling you to the object you're fond of?

That's what the word "kama" stands for. It's the pulling aspect of love, the "I like what you're doing to me and therefore I want you".

Metta/Maytri has a different meaning. You know, when you are in love with someone, you like everything about them: the way they look, walk, talk, eat - anything. And even their bad habits and mistakes look cute, because you accept the complete person, it is absolute 100% unconditional acceptance. So the word metta stands for this kind of acceptance or tolerance, when you take the person as he or she is, without judgement, without shame for them, you just take them exactly as they are.

So in Buddhism this desire to have someone ("love") is recognized as a problem. While unconditional acceptance ("love") of everyone, including oneself, is a virtue to be cultivated.


Buddha's advice for after enlightenment I've heard a few pieces of advice the Buddha gave to arahants, but not much. What are some teachings the Buddha gave to arahants to guide them towards further growth?
(Edit)
I want to clarify a bit what I mean for I feel I didn't do an adequate job of explaining my question.
After enlightenment, there is nothing more to be done, but a phenomena seems to occur. The self is known to be illusory. The bodymind (the forms within experience that was previously identified with) continue to appear and slowly seems to embody the enlightened perspective.
This is outlined in this quote from this answer which was posted here on this forum in the past.

A Hinayana arhat abandoned afflictive obscurations by way of realizing emptiness, but has not abandoned knowledge obscuration. He has achieved abiding nirvana. Therefore, although they are free from the conception of true existence, and from true suffering, they are not free from the imprints of ignorance (i.e. knowledge obscurations). We say that it is like removing garlic from a container: the smell will still be there. So, because they still have the imprints of ignorance, (1) they are not free from the appearance of true existence, and (2) they are reborn with a mental body, due to the imprints of ignorance (in our case, we are reborn to due karma and afflictions).
A bodhisattva is a person who generated effortless bodhicitta (the wish to achieve enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings). Since effortless bodhicitta is the entry gate to the Mahayana path, he entered the Mahayana small path of accumulation. When he cultivates wisdom, it is conjoined with emptiness and that makes his mind vast (due to bodhicitta) and profound (due to realizing emptiness). He wishes not to abide in individual liberation (abiding nirvana) but to be free from the extreme of peace (abiding nirvana) as well as from samsara. Therefore, he wishes to achieve non-abiding nirvana, which is the attainment of a buddha.
A Buddha abandoned both afflictive and knowledge obscuration, having generated the path perfection of wisdom (the wisdom of emptiness conjoined with bodhicitta). In his continuum, wisdom and bodhicitta are the same mind: the omniscient mind of a buddha that realizes all objects of knowledge directly, past present and future, in an unmistaken way, etc. He achieved non-abiding nirvana, abiding neither in samsara nor in individual liberation. His enlightened activities are uninterrupted.

This is apparently a quote from a zen master that illustrates the same thing.

A zen monk was once asked, “How’s your enlightenment going?” And he replied, “Fine. My body is having a hard time keeping up with it though.”

I am hoping to find content of this nature that describes how this process of going from an arahant to a Buddha unfolds.

There needs to be some caution/qualifications when discussing arahants just as there should be when discussing the Buddha. SN 44.1 discusses this caution and it applies to arahants as well.

  "so too, great king, that form by which one describing the Tathagata might describe him has been abandoned by the Tathagata, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that it is no more subject to future arising. The tathagata is liberated from reckoning in terms of form; he is deep, immeasurable, hard to fathom like the great ocean."

In SN 35.135:

  I do not say of those bhikkhus who are arahants . . . that they still have work to do with diligence in regard to the six bases for contact. Why is that? They have done their work with diligence; they are incapable of being negligent.

There is one other teaching that I know of regarding what arahants do but I can't find it right now. In it the Buddha says that arahants continue to dwell with the 4 mindfulness established. Maybe someone else can find that reference?