How to think about the four immeasurable minds? I am curious about how to think about the four immeasurable minds in a practical way, please help me make sense of them (see detailed question below)

Background

In the book Teachings on Love by Thich Nhat Hanh he translates Mudita as Joy rather than Sympathetic Joy and explains that while other commentators have translated as Sympathetic Joy he prefers Joy because "Joy is for everyone"

This got me thinking that it may be practical to see two sides of the immeasurables (another example would be self-compassion)

My thinking so far

Below is how i like to think of the four immeasurables

Metta:

Self-love
Loving kindness towards others

Karuna:

Self-compassion
Compassion for others

Mudita:

Joy
Sympathetic joy

Upeksha:

Peace/Equanimity
Non-discrimination - between self and others, between good and bad

This way of thinking about them splits each of the first (metta, karuna, mudita) three into two parts, one for one-self and one for everyone else

In Buddhism we don't want to make a harsh distinction between self and others but from a practical point of view this can (for example) help us to remember to have self-compassion. One downside is that there is a larger risk of not seeing our suffering as the suffering of others and the suffering of others as our own

The last (upeksha) i have divided into two parts where the first is inner peace for oneself and the other is non-discrimination

Question

Is this (above) a practical way to think about the four immeasurables? (Practical in the sense of getting closer to living in line with them). Are there other ways to think about them that you can recommend and that can help us achieve living with them on a daily basis? (Please provide references to books or other materials if you can)

Grateful for help and with kind regards,
Tord

Maybe you find it helpful, but I'm not sure it's appropriate:

Because you don't want to be, especially, thinking about yourself
Because you might tend to have more than enough self-love anyway, without trying to develop more

Consider compassion, for example. Would you burn your hand? No, because it would hurt. Would you burn someone else's hand? No, because it would hurt. It's the same hurt and so the same compassion, the same reason.

Also I read that part of the point of the Brahmaviharas is in a social situation:

  They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence.

If they're for "situations arising from social contact" maybe they're not applicable when you're alone; and if they are applicable to you, then apply them in the same way that you'd apply them to anyone else.

The metta-bhavana practice (i.e. thinking of someone dear to you, then of someone who is less dear) is I think trying to develop metta (the same metta) towards all: so I see no benefit, see it as counter-productive, to create/view/distinguish two categories of metta, one for yourself and another for others.

I don't want to say that yours is a bad suggestion, I only don't see how to apply it. Maybe your suggestion is especially appropriate when you are alone and not with other people, to "help us to remember to have self-compassion" as you said. But maybe it's more beneficial to not hold a view-of-self.


Buddhism accepts horoscope? This can be a stupid question to ask as Buddhism is much superior than astrology. But my problem is in today's society the Buddhists are too much concerned with these horoscopes than any other religion just like it is a part of Buddhist teachings. Why is that? Is there a truth behind it or any connectivity with Buddhism ?

Horescopes did exist at the time when the Buddha was born but they aren't mentioned often in the Buddha's teachings. One mention of horosopes is in the
Samaññaphala Sutta, this sutta lists many types of fortune telling as wrong-livelihood for monks.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets]; interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology]; reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations, oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips; geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills, bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

Horoscopes existed in many cultures, the reason why it remained more prevalent in Buddhist countries is more down to speculation. It depends both on Buddhism and on other religions' attitude towards horoscopes. Some reasons might be:

The idea of seeing peoples' future is very present in Buddhism which gives credibility to the idea of seeing others' fortunes based on astrology.
In other religions it may be offensive to predict peoples' fates because it is believed that only God has the ability to do so.
The Buddha didn't say that predicting the future is wrong livelihood for lay people (probably because only holy men did such things in the Buddha's time)


What is the state of a Zen disciples mind prior to a Satori? I have almost finished reading D.T. Suzuki's 'Essay's in Zen Buddhism'. There are many stories of disciples attaining state of Satori (which according to book is akin to Nirvana) when the Zen master does something illogical like twisting the nose or giving an absurd answer to what is asked.

As I am thinking about this it must be that the disciples mind must be in certain state that when the push is given by master it attains Satori.

Do we have any analytical understanding of this state? Its psychology? Is it a silent persent moment awareness for a long time? Is it something special to the culture and/or mind. Do we have any such examples of monks attaining Satori in present times?

It's a state known as Great Doubt, "dai-gidan" (Japanese) or "dayituan" (Chinese):

  In Ch'an and Zen practice, this represents a highly intense doubt about everything one thinks to be true, including the efficacy of Zen practice itself. (Oxfordreference.com)

For more information, please see the following question: How does the 'Great Doubt' compare to doubt.


Do Paramittas need to be part of Theravada Buddhist training? Do Paramittas need to be part of Theravada Buddhist training, much like keeping the 5 precepts or the noble eightfold path? Or are they just results/rewards we get for practicing the noble eightfold path/keeping the precepts? And is there are specific order (eg.Dhana-->Seela-->Nekkhamma etc. ) or should all be concentrated on at the same time?

The Pāramitās, are "perfections" or ideals of different wholesome aspects of character that can be worked on (perfected) over the course of many lifetimes. A Buddha has already perfected all of these virtues in previous lives according to Theravada teachings.
Just for background information there are 10 Pāramitās in the Theravada tradition:

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

There are 6 Pāramitās in the Mahayana tradition:

Dāna pāramitā: generosity, giving of oneself (in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, 布施波羅蜜; in Wylie Tibetan, sbyin-pa)
Śīla pāramitā : virtue, morality, discipline, proper conduct (持戒波羅蜜; tshul-khrims)
Kṣānti (kshanti) pāramitā : patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance (忍辱波羅蜜, bzod-pa)
Vīrya pāramitā : energy, diligence, vigor, effort (精進波羅蜜, brtson-’grus)
Dhyāna pāramitā : one-pointed concentration, contemplation (禪定波羅蜜, bsam-gtan)
Prajñā pāramitā : wisdom, insight (般若波羅蜜, shes-rab)

As you can see, there is a lot of overlap with such things as the 5 Precepts (sila parami, sacca parami), the 4 Brahma Viharas (metta parami, upekkha parami), the 5 Spiritual Faculties (viriya parami, panna parami) and other Buddhist teachings.
So the perfections aren't something you work on separate from other things. They are intertwined with daily life and seeing opportunities everywhere to perfect your qualities. Stuck in a long line at the market? An opportunity to improve khanti parami. Feeling discouraged about your meditation practice? An opportunity to improve adhitthana parami and viriya parami. Realizing the tough things that arise in daily life are opportunities to perfect your qualities makes them easier to bear; even a challenge of sorts.
I remember an awesome story from a dhamma talk about the Buddha (while he was still a Bhodisatta), finding himself buried up to his neck in the ground with a band of hungry jackals coming at him. He used this opportunity to perfect some of his, as yet to be perfected, qualities. Similar story here.
So you can see there is nothing that can't be turned into an opportunity to work on Pāramitās! :)


I'm confused about the seemingly irrational prioritization or vagueness (?) relating to the "3rd precept" compared to 5th precept of the 5 precepts I am confused why in many versions of the 5 precepts I have encountered that the 5th precept is seemingly beneficial about "refraining from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness." but compared to this the 3rd precept is seemingly only about "refraining from sexual misconduct" or "refraining from sensual misconduct".

It seems to me one is to refrain from the use of intoxicating substances but sexual activity of some sort is permitted? Why is some sexual activity permitted?

I've been confused about the 5 precepts because to me it seems possible that in some instances one can cause oneself more suffering through engaging in sexual activity than through using intoxicating substances e.g. a) if I engaged in an all day oral-sex marathon compared to b) if I for pleasure went into the garden and picked 2 leaves of Melissa officinalis and made cold-brewed tea with those 2 leaves using rainwater that I had collected (brewing time 2 minutes) and had a sip of that tea.

To my knowledge option b) would be less suffering for me but wouldn't I be breaking the 5th precept ("refraining from intoxicants") if I did option b)?
but if I chose option a) then according to some interpretations I would be keeping the 3rd precept ("refraining from sexual misconduct") but to me it seems I would be suffering more?

So why would it according to some interpretations of the 5 precepts seemingly be possible to keep the 5 precepts but seemingly cause myself more suffering than breaking that interpretation of the 5 precepts and choosing option b) and seemingly suffering less?

If the 3rd precept is interpreted as meaning "refraining from sensual misconduct" then what does that mean one is to refrain from besides the "prohibited sexual acts" mentioned in the suttas?

It seems that there would still be the "irrational prioritization" I described with option a) and option b) if "sensual misconduct" is defined only as the sexual acts that are explicitly prohibited as written in the suttas.

If "sensual misconduct" means something more than the sexual acts that are explicitly prohibited in the suttas then what does it mean? It seems vague (?).

If the 3rd of the 5 precepts is interpreted as meaning only "sexual misconduct" then is anything else prohibited besides what is listed as "sexual misconduct" in the suttas I know of.

Why isn't the "3rd precept" of the 5 precepts  "I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual activity."?

In the Buddha's time, for the most part, children were married off to a suitable partner by their parents when the children came of age (DN 31; AN 4.55). Until the girl was married, she did not engage in sex and was "protected" by her family, per the wording in the 3rd precept (AN 10.176). The young wife went to live in the family or clan of the husband (SN 37.3). They had children and spent their lives attending to family and clan duties. The 3rd precept was spoken in this cultural social context. It was not spoken to reflect the sexual hedonism of birth controlled sterilized 21st century society. In summary, once upon a time, women got pregnant easily when they had sex, therefore they were looked upon as wives & mothers rather than as sex objects and probably sex was engaged in relatively infrequently & cautiously (to control and avoid pregnancy). Obviously, in the Buddha's time, only relatively few people (such as the upper classes) engaged in an all day sex marathons. Therefore, there is no problem with the precepts. The problem is not discerning and understanding how freaky and abnormal 21st century dystopian sexual norms are.


Pride and Compassion I have read in psychological studies that oxytocin and serotonin interact to produce social rewards. Serotonin has been postulated to relate to authentic pride (a positive kind of pride based on accomplishment). Oxytocin is a hormone linked with compassion. Therefore, it would seem natural that pride and compassion relate in some way.

Even, I will say that when I meditated on compassion, imagery of altruistic pride naturally emerged. Recently, I'm in a more depressed state -- which may entail less serotonin -- and the pride imagery fails to occur as well as the reward.

My question is: is there any evidence of such an interaction between compassion and pride in Buddhism? I feel naturally emptiness entails an interaction with compassion in the Mahayana, but I feel pride would be linked with desire and materiality.

Authentic pride is based on accomplishment, not feeling superior to others (hubristic pride). Does Buddhism have a place for such attachment?

Authentic pride is based on accomplishment, not feeling superior to others (hubristic pride). Does Buddhism have a place for such attachment?

Not sure if such concept has a place in the Teaching. If authentic pride is based on accomplishment, then it's important to notice that "accomplishment" in the Dhamma is just a label, or a word expression to denote how much one has given up instead of picked up. For example, one's accomplishment in Sotapanna-hood/Stream-entry is simply a label to denote someone who has completely given up the 3 lower fetters: identity view, doubt, and wrong grasp of rules/rituals. Similarly for other higher "accomplishments", the higher one "attains" something, it really means the more one has "given up/let go" of something. And the highest "accomplishment", again, is really just a label for someone who has completely eliminated all hindrances/fetters/defilements of the mind.


Does anatta cause dynamic emotions? I read the following on the internet:

In an uncultivated individual the emotions rule the self. This is the
result of lack of understanding of Anatta and somehow the individual
is putting conscious effort into the stagnation of their naturally
dynamic emotions.
Emotions are naturally dynamic and a result of environmental
influence, which is also dynamic - so in that sense Anatta is
applicable.

What are "dynamic emotions" in Buddhism?
Does anatta or its realisation stop the stagnation of naturally dynamic emotions?

What are "dynamic emotions" in Buddhism?

"Dynamic emotions" is somewhat sloppy language. It just means that samsaric phenomena, in this case emotions, are in a constant flux. They are ever-changing and arise and cease incessantly and without any control.

Does anatta or its realisation stop the stagnation of naturally dynamic emotions?

Sorry, I didn't understand this question. You write "stop the stagnation" - do you mean if the natural process of exhaustion of causes and conditions can be stopped by realizing Anatta?
There are 3 gateways/doors to liberation - truly realizing and understanding Anatta is one of them. So in that sense, the process of becoming can be stopped by winning Nibbana, thereby issuing liberation from the rounds of suffering.


Need to know more about this art This was a birthday gift I received a couple of weeks ago.  I'm trying to figure out where it came from, what the images mean, and about how old it is.  It's at least a hundred years old.

This is most likely a Tibetan Thanka which depicts 3 "levels". Based on the depictions, it's probably Vajrayana, specifically Gelug-pa, lit. "yellow hats" - this is the Tibetan Buddhist branch to which the Dalai Lama belongs.

The top level depicts the Buddha surrounded by females, most likely Dakini.

The central level depicts 3 people with a very recognizable yellow hat, so probably they are  Tulku, possibly the Dalai Lama in the center, the Panchen Lama and the Samding Dorje Pagmo or Karmapa. They are depicted as slightly above the world since they are considered reincarnations of Bodhisattva

The building in the bottom section could be a depiction of the Potala.

The two figures depicted in the bottom section are most likely high monks, but I can't think of any specific persons or roles for these.

The many occurences of Green, Red, Blue, Yellow and White refer to Pancha-Varna

As for the age of the painting, it's very difficult to tell, as iconography in Tibetan Buddhist art has changed very little in the last few hundred years.

You might enjoy this video on decoding symbolism in Thanka


In the Tibetan book of the dead, Chapter 2, what is the significance of NOT renouncing the 3 poisons I am reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead Chapter 2 page 26, "A prayer for union with the spiritual teacher [entitled], Natural Liberation, without renunciation of the three poisons".
Now in reading this chapter it seems that is a call for union with the fundamental buddha bodies of Reality, Resource, and Emanation.
I find it curious that the chapter EXPLICITLY states what the three poisons are, makes a mention "how needing of compassion ..." are buddha bodies that engage in these poisons and proceeds to give an explicit solution, yet renunciation of the poisons is not asked of the reader in fact the title of the prayer explicitly states they will not be renounced.
Why is it important NOT to renounce these poisons at this stage of prayer? The beginning of the book makes it clear that much will be renounced (including the desire of sympathy) as it merely perpetuates our cyclic existence yet here an explicit effort is being made to acknowledge the poisons but NOT renounce them.
What reason is there for this? At best I can theorize that this has to do with avoiding the type of extreme asceticism that the buddha believed did not allow one to break the cycle, but surely anyone engaging in the poisons described without some renunciation will be trapped all the same.

Not renouncing the three poisons is considered a foundational prelude to the journey, that the practitioner develops a recognition and respect of the function of the three poisons - which comes about as one reads and gives further practice - and that, in this graduated development, grows the clear seeing of liberation. By this very seeing, the three poisons dwindle and waver of their own tender, and not through the recourse of any self-governing motivations which are, by and large, etched with the three poisons, marred by them. Thus, the relinquishment of the three poisons occurs naturally.
Therefore, recognition and respect of the three poisons is something that grows through persistence. If I understand him correctly, Andrei Volkov mentioned - indirectly - that they simply present as growing pains that are transmuted into compassion where he refers to the three poisons in their greater domain, as samsara.

The transformed purified attitude to samsara is called "compassion" or
"unity of wisdom and compassion". You still see all those childish
behaviours, neuroses etc. but you see them as growing pains, as part
of an evolution. You see that in the grand scheme of things everything
is perfect and is going as it's supposed to. At that point you can try
and help as much as you can, but you also have patience to let things
develop naturally.
See more here

In some respect, renouncing the three poisons is to renounce liberation in and of itself.


During jhana do you eliminate all hindrance at once? Are you suppose to try and eliminate all the hindrances at once or slowly elimate them one by one? If this is the case are you suppose to eliminate them slowly in one meditation session or slowly rid them until they are all gone During multiple sessions?

Jhanas are attained by suppressing the five hindrances via concentrating on  objects like the breath, or a kasina object, etc. But if one contemplates on anicca, dukkha, anatta, one automatically starts reducing, not just suppressing the hindrances. In this latter type of jhana, it is attained via using Nibbana as the arammana (thought object). This is not “an object” per say but a contemplation on anicca, dukkha, anatta. In both these cases – the ‘Anariya’ or ‘Ariya’ Jhanas (or the mundane or the supra mundane), the hindrances are suppressed or reduced over time, and not all at once. For this one needs to focus the mind forcefully onto one thought object (nimitta), not letting those five hindrances come to surface.

This second kind of contemplation leads one to attain the Sotapanna (Stream Entrant) stage of the Noble Eightfold Path. Then these five hindrances are reduced to a level that is sufficient to attain the first jhana with the jhana factors of savitakka, savicara, piti, sukha, ekaggata fairly easily. When the five hindrances are kept at bay, and one feels the serenity of a mind unpolluted by the hindrances, this is called samatha meditation – that attains the ‘calming of the mind.’

The two hindrances of kamachanda and vyapada were reduced to kamaraga and patigha levels at the Sotapanna stage. Kamaraga and patigha are reduced further at the Sakadagami stage, are removed at the Anagami stage. Thus an Anagami is left with rupa raga and arupa raga, and thus one has only attachment for rupa loka and arupa loka.

On the other hand, the hindrance of thina middha is easily overcome by savitakka, i.e., when the mind is focused on Nibbana (anicca, dukkha, anatta). Thus any sleepiness or lethargic feeling cannot survive and one feels energetic.  A Sotapanna is at the entry level of comprehending anicca, dukkha, anatta, and the understanding gets progressively better as one moves to higher stages.

The hindrance of Uddacca also decreases by stages. Here one should note that without cultivating jhanas, an Arahant automatically removes all five hindrances, but this also happen in stages and once it happens it is permanent. Ariya jhanas are permanent in nature compared to Anariya jhanas. Thus a Sotapanna will be able to easily get to the first Ariya jhana in any of the future lives, because some of the five hindrances have been permanently reduced, and vicikicca permanently removed.

It is Vitakka that inhibits the hindrance of sloth and torpor (thina middha). Then at the time when mental happiness (Piti) arises in the mind, this jhanic factor of piti suppresses the hindrance of ill will (vyapada). Then the body becomes light due to physical happiness (sukha), and it is this jhanic factor that counters the hindrance of restlessness and worry (uddhacca kukkucca). The moment that one gets to one-pointed-ness (ekgaggata) in meditation, this one-pointed-ness temporarily inhibits sensual desire (kamachanda).


What is the Antidote for a Hateful Temperament? What kind of practices can one do to neutralise a hateful temperament?

Can i please have specific techniques.Thank you.

Edit:

By temperament i mean a character or habit.

The solution is to use Metta (loving kindness). For canonical description of Metta, please see the Karaniya Metta Sutta, Metta Sutta and the Mettanisamsa Sutta.

Information on how to practise Metta can be found here and here. These are quite specific and written by Ven. Dhammarakkhita and Ven. Buddharakkhita. These are too long to quote here.

Hateful temperament is part of "ill will", one of the five hindrances (also here) to meditation and practice. Ajahn Brahmavamso explains in this essay:

  Ill will refers to the desire to punish, hurt or destroy. It includes
  sheer hatred of a person, or even a situation, and it can generate so
  much energy that it is both seductive and addictive. At the time, it
  always appears justified for such is its power that it easily corrupts
  our ability to judge fairly. It also includes ill will towards
  oneself, otherwise known as guilt, which denies oneself any
  possibility of happiness. In meditation, ill will can appear as
  dislike towards the meditation object itself, rejecting it so that
  one's attention is forced to wander elsewhere.

  The Lord Buddha likened ill will to being sick. Just as sickness
  denies one the freedom and happiness of health, so ill will denies one
  the freedom and happiness of peace.

  Ill will is overcome by applying Metta, loving kindness. When it is
  ill will towards a person, Metta teaches one to see more in that
  person than all that which hurts you, to understand why that person
  hurt you (often because they were hurting intensely themselves), and
  encourages one to put aside one's own pain to look with compassion on
  the other. But if this is more than one can do, Metta to oneself leads
  one to refuse to dwell in ill will to that person, so as to stop them
  from hurting you further with the memory of those deeds. Similarly, if
  it is ill will towards oneself, Metta sees more than one's own faults,
  can understand one's own faults, and finds the courage to forgive
  them, learn from their lesson and let them go.


Why monks have to take alms for their food? Why did Buddha take to alms for his food? Is there any reason for it? As fruits and vegetables grow in forest, couldn't he sustained himself with what is available in forest?

Are there any rules for taking alms? and what kind of food can be taken or refused? Whether karma is passed from the giver to the receiver?

Can monks have a garden , where they can grow their fruits and vegetables ?

I don't hink there is a canonical answer in the Pali-canon about the "why".

But in the books of Thich Nhat Hanh which I accept as quite authoritative there is an explanation in the following spirit (don't have the exact text at hand):
at one hand the monks shall not be concerned with the common daily life and samsara and what else and thus should -in priciple- should stay with the common samanas'/ascetics' practice. However, to avoid the danger that the monks become too remote from the society, from the human world(so to say) they should somehow remain in contact.

Derived from this that has two intertwined advantages: the monks give the people the chance to try and experience wideheartedness so they help them to train wholesome emotions, thoughts and practice, and even help them to simple stay aware of the existence of the Buddha's sangha, teachings and doctrine - and the monks themselves don't loose the contact with that from where they come from, with their own history and samsaric relations and don't become, for instance, hypocrites (the latter is a word from me, I don't really think that Thich Nhat Hanh had used this expression).

All in all, I find this a nice and very helpful interpretation - but as I said in the first sentence: I've no idea at the moment whether and where the Buddha might have been given such an explicite explanation of the "why" .


Can we be sensously aware without consciousness? I wondered (after this thread) what Buddhists have said about this question.

Can anyone, monks, Buddhas, ordinary people, be aware of a sensation without consciousness of it?

And moreover to link it to that question more explicitly, can such a sensation still be pleasant unpleasant or neutral.

Thanks :) !

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer:

First, you'll need to define what you mean by consciousness.  If we take consciousness as "conscious awareness" then by definition, if you don't have consciousness of something, then you are not sensuously aware of it.

However, it's possible that you may unconsciously register things that impact your consciousness later. For instance, if you get a "bad feeling" about someone, this may be due to you unconsciously registering several factors like quick facial sensations, tones being off-kilter, etc...


Where do I find a Buddhist retreat in Asia? I have had experience in meditation, I want to have experience of living and learning with Buddhist monks.  Where in Asia can I experience this for 8 to 10 weeks to start?

Speaking from personal experience with stays at Zen monasteries in Japan:

It depends on what you mean by retreat. Many Zen monasteries in Japan offer "retreats" in their web pages, but this is not necessarily what is meant in Japanese Zen by a sesshin (接心). If you want to experience the daily life of Buddhist monks in Asia, I'd advise not joining a sesshin for your first time in Japan, as this is an extremely intense period for the monks, and if you do not fully master the local language and the temple customs you will struggle. First time around, I would advise you stay at one or more temples during a regular period.

If you want to sleep, meditate, eat, and work with the monks you can contact the head temple or administrative office of a Buddhist lineage in Japan and ask for possible periods and places to stay (also, indicate if you need some help with the language and customs, as this will be taken into account proposing possible stays to you).

Here are some links you may find useful:

Shoganji Monastery - Rinzai lineage

Soto Zen monasteries for foreigners in Japan - Soto Lineage

ShinShoJi Temple - Rinzai Lineage

Shunkoin Temple - Mindfullness

Japan Vipassana Association

There's also shukubo in Japan, a kind of pilgrim lodging associated with nearby temples.


Odd Effect of Breath Meditation I tried breathing meditation a few times recently. I have noticed that every time I use the breath as object, I get a headache and I tend to fall asleep. This fails to happen during compassion meditation or walking meditation. I might even say I feel dizzy, as if I were drunk, after breath meditation.

What may be the cause of this?

These expected/typical/common results of headache & sleepiness are due to wrong concentration or suppression. If practising Anapanasati, the primary object of awareness should be the relaxed clear quiet mind. The secondary object of awareness or 'sign' should be the mere knowing or noting of each in-breath & each out-breath. While a difficult practice for minds with hindrance, to truly practise Anapanasati, all possible craving must be abandoned. In other words, there is no need to direct the mind towards the breathing. All that is required is mental stillness & quiet. Sit upright, relax & surrender with faith to the Dhamma.


I am confused with my life. In most of the time I fill that, My husband don't love me don't care of myself I am suffering from mind disturb. I am living alone one city for job purpose and my husband living with his family also for his job. All time he prefer his family more than me. If I told very small thing , he angry on me. Most of week he had some work in office that why I go to home and spending time with family. When I want to get him alone. That's time I fill that he has not much happy with like with he spent with his family. Now he don't want talk me so much. If I call him more than 2 in morning ,he fill irritating for this. If I told more than 2 to 3 for same thing , he angry on me. Please do suggest me advice from Buddhist traditions.

The Buddha taught to maintain a good marriage, the husband & wife must speak to each other with loving gentle words and also have the same goals for life. Please read this in the Samajivina Sutta.

The Buddha also taught in the Sigalovada Sutta the duties of a husband & wife, namely:

  A husband:

  (i) being courteous to her, (ii) not despising her, (iii) being faithful to her, (iv) handing over authority to her, (v) providing her
  with adornments.

  The wife:

  (i) she performs her duties well, (ii) she is hospitable to relations and attendants  (iii) she is faithful, (iv) she protects what he
  brings, (v) she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties.

Using the above teachings of the Buddha as a guide, you should: (i) discuss these with your husband &/or his family; (ii) visit a monk or priest for counselling; or (iii) visiting a professional marriage counselor.

Also, try to find a 'support group'; either Buddhist, religious or secular.


Whats happens after death? When a human being dies, their body dissolves into other bodies, i.e., other humans, plants, air, water, rocks, sand, etc. But what really happens to our

Consciousness
memory
thoughts
intelligence &
Karma

If good householder wouldn't not have desire for another becoming and certain inclination,, he wouldn't have come here, or? So after dying off elsewhere, lack of satisfaction, breaking apart there, desire for not-becoming, he became another time, in this realm, not sure of what he will meet, but dying of another time here is for sure. But if he gains awakening here, understanding the way it is, arises, decays, he will no more take birth, no more ignorance, not-knowing, no more craving for becoming anywhere another time.
Birth is taken, where ever possible and fit for once inclination, if not having gained full awakening, good householder. Bhava (becoming)-mind arises for beings after the break up of the Body. Why? Because of Tanha (thirst, craving) based on not-knowing, ignorance, Avija. The sequence in detail, of the wheel of wandering, on is given generously by the Sublime Buddha in the secound Noble Truth. What ever takes Birth is subject to decay, suffering.
May good householder had a good blessed, even last birth, here.
Some words might be of additional support for understanding: Why beings take birth, even in most worse existences and circumstances?
[Note that this isn't given for wandering on, stacks, exchange, trades for it, but for release from this wheel]


What are the merits (results) of giving fearlessness (abhaya danna) And also need to know, where it includes in tipitaka..

here is the sutta about giving a lack of fear

https://suttacentral.net/an8.39/en/sujato

  There are, bhikkhus, these five gifts, great gifts, primal, of long
  standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before
  adulterated, which are not being adulterated and will not be
  adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. What five?

  6(4) “Here, a noble disciple, having abandoned the destruction of
  life, abstains from the destruction of life. By abstaining from the
  destruction of life, the noble disciple gives to an immeasurable
  number of beings freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. He himself
  in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction.
  This is the first gift, a great gift, primal, of long standing,
  traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before adulterated,
  which is not being adulterated and will not be adulterated, not
  repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This is the fourth stream of
  merit … that leads to what is wished for, desired, and agreeable, to
  one’s welfare and happiness.

  7(5)–(8) “Again, a noble disciple, having abandoned the taking of what
  is not given, abstains from taking what is not given … abstains from
  sexual misconduct … abstains from false speech … abstains from liquor,
  wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness. By abstaining from
  liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness, the noble
  disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear,
  enmity, and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom
  from fear, enmity, and affliction. This is the fifth gift, a great
  gift, primal, of long standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated
  and never before adulterated, which is not being adulterated and will
  not be adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This
  is the eighth stream of merit an.iv.247 … that leads to what is wished
  for, desired, and agreeable, to one’s welfare and happiness.


Was the Buddha a bodhisattva (for the benefit of all) before his awakening? Was the Buddha a bodhisattva before his awakening? Are there references from the suttas which point to when (possibly in past lives)?

  Bodhisattva is the Sanskrit term for anyone who has generated
  Bodhicitta, a spontaneous wish and compassionate mind to attain
  Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.

The following appears to suggest that the four immeasurables may have been present in the Buddha's past lives:

  The early Buddhist texts assert that pre-Buddha ancient Indian sages
  who taught these [four immeasurables] were earlier
  incarnations of the Buddha.

I apologize if the answer is obvious, but I haven't found a direct answer from the suttas.

Absolutely he was! In fact, there is no way to become a Buddha without becoming a Bodhisattva first. Numerous Mahayana Sutras attest to this. Without developing the immeasurable compassion of a Bodhisattva there is no way for a sentient being to become a Buddha.

As for the Theravada who do not regard the Mahayana Sutras as authentic Buddhavacana: the Pali canon still has many references to the past lives of the Buddha where he was a Bodhisattva. And they are not all part of the so-called Jataka tales either. See here for many examples.

You can find an example here - AN 5.196 - which is not one of the Jataka tales:

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

  “When the Tathagata—worthy & rightly self-awakened—was still just an
  unawakened bodhisatta, this great earth was his great bed. The
  Himalayas, king of mountains, was his pillow. His left hand rested in
  the eastern sea, his right hand in the western sea, and both feet in
  the southern sea. When the Tathagata—worthy & rightly
  self-awakened—was still just an unawakened bodhisatta, this was the
  first great dream that appeared to him.

Emphasis mine.

And here is the original Pali:

  “Tathāgatassa, bhikkhave, arahato sammāsambuddhassa pubbeva sambodhā
  anabhisambuddhassa bodhisattasseva sato pañca mahāsupinā pāturahesuṃ.
  Katame pañca? Tathāgatassa, bhikkhave, arahato sammāsambuddhassa
  pubbeva sambodhā anabhisambuddhassa bodhisattasseva sato ayaṃ
  mahāpathavī mahāsayanaṃ ahosi, himavā pabbatarājā bibbohanaṃ ahosi,
  puratthime samudde vāmo hattho ohito ahosi, pacchime samudde dakkhiṇo
  hattho ohito ahosi, dakkhiṇe samudde ubho pādā ohitā ahesuṃ.
  Tathāgatassa, bhikkhave, arahato sammāsambuddhassa pubbeva sambodhā
  anabhisambuddhassa bodhisattasseva sato ayaṃ paṭhamo mahāsupino
  pāturahosi.

Emphasis mine again.

Here is another example from the Pali-canon which is not one of the Jataka tales:

  “So it is, Ananda. So it is. Even I myself, before my Awakening, when
  I was still an unawakened Bodhisatta, thought: ‘Renunciation is good.
  Seclusion is good.’ But my heart didn’t leap up at renunciation,
  didn’t grow confident, steadfast, or firm, seeing it as peace. The
  thought occurred to me: ‘What is the cause, what is the reason, why my
  heart doesn’t leap up at renunciation, doesn’t grow confident,
  steadfast, or firm, seeing it as peace?’

Emphasis mine.

And here is the original Pali:

  “Evametaṃ, ānanda, evametaṃ, ānanda. Mayhampi kho, ānanda, pubbeva
  sambodhā anabhisambuddhassa bodhisattasseva sato etadahosi: ‘sādhu
  nekkhammaṃ, sādhu paviveko’ti. Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, nekkhamme cittaṃ
  na pakkhandati nappasīdati na santiṭṭhati na vimuccati etaṃ santanti
  passato. Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, etadahosi: ‘ko nu kho hetu ko paccayo,
  yena me nekkhamme cittaṃ na pakkhandati nappasīdati na santiṭṭhati na
  vimuccati etaṃ santanti passato’?

And here is yet another one:

  “Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still a bodhisatta,
  not yet fully enlightened, it occurred to me: “What now is feeling?
  What is the origin of feeling? What is the way leading to the
  origination of feeling? What is the cessation of feeling? What is the
  way leading to the cessation of feeling? What is the gratification in
  feeling? What is the danger? What is the escape?”

Here is another one:

  ‘Both the quotations you have made, O king, are accurate. But when he
  spoke of Āḷāra Kālāma as his teacher, that was a statement made with
  reference to the fact of his having been his teacher while he (Gotama)
  was still a Bodisat and before he had attained to insight and to
  Buddhahood; and there were five such teachers, O king, under whose
  tuition the Bodisat spent his time in various places—his teachers when
  he was still a Bodisat, before he had attained to insight and to
  Buddhahood. And who were these five?

And another:

  At Sāvatthī. “Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still
  unawakened but intent on awakening—I thought: ‘What’s the path and
  practice for developing the bases of psychic power?’

Now, why did I emphasize "intent on awakening?" Because, this translation chose to use "intent on awakening" as a substitute for the original Pali which has this:

  Sāvatthinidānaṃ. “Pubbeva me, bhikkhave, sambodhā anabhisambuddhassa
  bodhisattasseva sato etadahosi: ‘ko nu kho maggo, kā paṭipadā
  iddhipādabhāvanāyā’ti?

So I hope you can clearly see that according to both the Mahayana and the Theravada that the Buddha was an unenlightened Bodhisattva before he became the Buddha.

Now, was the Buddha as a Bodhisattva for the benefit of all? Here is a passage from a canonical Pali sutta describing the Bodhisattva Gotama being born into the world for the benefit of all:

  “The Bodhisatta, the foremost jewel, unequaled, has been born for
  welfare & happiness in the human world, in a town in the Sakyan
  countryside, Lumbini. That’s why we’re contented, so wildly elated.
  He, the highest of all beings, the ultimate person, a bull among men,
  highest of all people, will set turning the Wheel [of Dhamma] in the
  forest named after the seers, like a strong, roaring lion, the
  conqueror of beasts.”

And from that same sutta here is the testament to his motivation:

  He, seeing the utmost purity, will set rolling the Wheel of Dhamma
  through sympathy for the welfare of many.

So, to sum up: have no doubt The Buddha was a Bodhisattva who manifested the Mind of Enlightenment - pure Bodhicitta - for the benefit of all before his awakening.


Which sutta? The Buddha says monks missing out on pleasures of lay life and pleasures of holy life Which pali sutta is this?
I think it's in MN somewhere.
The Buddha says monks missing out on pleasures of lay life and the pleasures of holy life.
The idea being that their practice is such that they're not getting jhana (pleasures of holy life), and they're deprived of the pleasures of the lay life (food, sex, etc), so they're just suffering.

You're probably thinking about Dhammapada 155-156 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro):

Neither living the chaste life
nor gaining wealth in their youth,
they waste away like old herons
in a dried-up lake
depleted of fish.
Neither living the chaste life
nor gaining wealth in their youth,
they lie around,
misfired from the bow,
sighing over old times.

Alternative translation here by Ven. Buddharakkhita:

Those who in youth have not led the holy life, or have failed to acquire wealth, languish like old cranes in the pond without fish.

Those who in youth have not lead the holy life, or have failed to acquire wealth, lie sighing over the past, like worn out arrows (shot
from) a bow.

Additional references include:

Iti 91: so by such a simile do I speak about this person: he has missed out on the enjoyments of a householder, yet he does not fulfil the purpose of recluseship.
SN22.80:7.4: I say that person is just like this. They’ve missed out on the pleasures of the lay life, and haven’t fulfilled the goal of the ascetic life.


What's the advice for dealing with an abusive partner? How would one deal with a verbally or otherwise abusive partner who gets upset over nothing and let's anger loose?
Assuming the abuser realizes they have a problem but are unable to solve the behavioral issue.
How could one best advise everyone involved in such a relationship based on the Buddhist texts & practices?
Would be great if answers are referenced but it's not a requirement.
Thanks

I think the texts are ambiguous -- they generally have advice which ranges from, "there's no fellowship with a fool", to, "it can be great if the partners are equal and/or well-behaved and living in tune", to, "your morality (including e.g. good-will) should be unconditional".
If the "abuser" can't solve the issue then in my experience that requires external intervention (e.g. a doctor or psychiatrist), and/or a change in the situation or relationship or the way in which the couple communicates (e.g. relationship counsellor or therapist of some sort), and/or possibly divorce lawyers.
If it isn't psychiatric then consider it may be a psychological problem, like post-traumatic stress.
If the problem persists perhaps the partners suffer from learned helplessness ...

Over the past few decades, neuroscience has provided insight into learned helplessness and shown that the original theory actually had it backwards: the brain's default state is to assume that control is not present, and the presence of "helpfulness" is what is actually learned.

... or perhaps "ignorance" about how to solve it -- so do, try to find help if you can't solve it.
I also suggest you might think it's the other person's problem ("they're the abuser who misbehaves, I am the victim") but when you're in a relationship it's not that simple -- if you went to Al-Anon/Alateen meetings for example you might hear how the behaviour of the family permits or cooperates with the continued misbehaviour.
A counsellor might provide some neutral ground and ensure that both parties are listened to.
A separation (a least a temporary or trial one) might be an option, to explore or consider -- or even just a holiday -- or some other agreement, perhaps a renegotiation of fundamental premises (like "who is expected to do what, and when?"), which a counsellor might suggest.
Beware that people have limits -- if one person is so stressed that they behave irrationally, the other partner too might be vulnerable (to stress and irrationality and abusive behaviour) even if to a different extent/manifestation.
Being too generous or permissive of bad behaviour might be harmful, a teacher (or a paid counsellor) might help to assess if you're going too far.
Unconditional love might in the end be the greatest thing -- or perhaps it's foolish -- who knows, perhaps it's up to you.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

This might be relevant to your question too -- Reconciliation, Right & Wrong -- and might match some of the things I suggested, e.g. ...

A monk seeking reconciliation with a lay person follows a similar pattern, with another monk, on friendly terms with the lay person, acting as mediator.

... suggests that having a third-person neutral/friendly counsellor might help to repair a relationship.


Buddhism and Stereotyping Perceptions An answer has prodded me to completely reconsider my understanding of Buddhism and emptiness [this answer]. I never realized that Buddhism involves the dismantling of preconceptions and false certainty. Due to some spiritual experiences, I feel it's clear that the path to a happier life for me is changing this.

However, I know for a fact that I continuously generate such preconceptions and approximations almost pathologically. I feel that doubt greatly arises from this, in my mind; I keep making inexact and hasty conclusions, and assuming things. I cannot merely not know.

My question is: What are the ways to dismantle such biases of mind? I specifically mean those of speculation, stereotyping, jumping to conclusions, and so on.

Simply put, I'm wondering how one trains or comes to accept uncertainty.

The habit of mind to Speculate and Stereotype is developed over thousand of years of psychological evolution. It was at some point in history, very important for humans to classify the objects, they saw and and hence speculation and stereotyping gave advantage, when the world around humans was not very complex.

The point I am making is, these are habit patterns of mind created over thousands of past lives.

As against 'jumping to conclusions', as we mean it in a judgemental sense, is some kind of recent phenomena of fast paced life.

May be, even the stone age humans must have been jumping to conclusions at sight of some thing akin to snake.

So, I am trying to say, these are habit patterns of everybodies mind.

Now answering your question, how one trains to accept the uncertainity

The point of Buddhism is not to train the mind (there are therepies in modern psychology to do just that), instead we try our best to see things as they are. So the way to dismantle the bias is, to be aware to the present moment and be watchful of your mind as much as possible.

This gives rise to intelligence, and through that intelligence you dismantle the habit pattern.

When you fail, don't be judgemental towards yourself and feel bad. Instead make a note and understand that as all your intelligence was available what you did was the best you can do.

Through such repeated feedback your biases will be dismantled without specifically trying to train the mind which is a superficial and phony solution.

To put it simply, Stay Aware to the Present Moment.


What did the Buddha mean by the four types of reasoning in his advice to the Kalamas? In AN 3:65, while advising the Kalamas on how to choose among a variety of contradictory belief systems, the Buddha mentions ten inadequate criteria for truth:

  Come, Kalamas. Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by
  hearsay, by a collection of texts, by logic, by inferential
  reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after
  pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you
  think, 'The ascetic is our teacher.'

I am interested in the four criteria that seem to relate to verbal reasoning (an alternative translation in parentheses):

Logic (surmise)
Inferential reasoning (axiom)
Reasoned cogitation (specious reasoning)
Acceptance of a view after pondering it (bias towards a notion that has been pondered)

Bikkhu Bodhi has a footnote that, much to my consternation, says of these criteria,

  [They are] four types of reasoning recognized by thinkers in the Buddha's age; their differences need not detain us here.

I understand the main point being made (that we should go by direct experience), but I am curious about the precise meaning of these four criteria. I am looking for an answer that explains the differences between these four types of reasoning by providing an example of each one from everyday life. Bonus for any relevant historical context.

From Help! The Kalama Sutta, Help! by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu:

  Ma takkahetu: Don’t believe something solely on the grounds of logical reasoning (takka). Logic is merely one branch of knowledge
  that people use to try to figure out the truth. Takka or Logic is not
  infallible. If its data or inferences are incorrect, it can go wrong.
  Ma nayahetu: Don’t believe or accept something merely because it appears correct on the grounds of Naya or what is now called
  "philosophy." In Thailand, we translate the Western term philosophy as
  prajna. Our Indian friends cannot accept this because "naya" is just a
  point of view or opinion; it isn’t the supreme understanding properly
  referred to as panya or prajna. Naya or nayaya is merely a method of
  deductive reasoning based on hypotheses or assumptions. Such reasoning
  can err when the method or hypothesis is inappropriate.
  Ma akaraparivitakkena: Don’t believe or accept something simply because of superficial thinking, that is, because it appeals to what
  we nowadays call "common sense," which is merely snap judgments based
  on one’s tendencies of thought. We like to use this approach so much
  that it becomes habitual. Some careless and boastful philosophers rely
  on such common sense a great deal and consider themselves clever.
  Ma ditthinijjhanakkhantiya: Don’t believe accept something to be true merely because it agrees or fits with one’s preconceived opinions
  and theories. Personal views can be wrong and our methods of
  experiment and verification may be inadequate, neither of which lead
  us to the truth. This approach may seem similar to the scientific
  method, but can never actually be scientific, as its proofs and
  experiments are inadequate.


What are the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma according to Tibetan Buddhism? Tibetan Buddhists often talk about the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma...

What are the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma according to Tibetan Buddhism?

Where did they take place according to Tibetan Buddhists?

How do Tibetan Buddhists interpret these Three Turnings?

Is there disagreement within Tibetan Buddhists schools about which teachings are definitive and which are provisional?

Do Tibetan Buddhists think these Three Turnings are contradictory?

What are the Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma according to Tibetan Buddhism?

Where did they take place according to Tibetan Buddhists?

The Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma according to Tibetan Buddhists are broadly speaking three different categories of teachings the historical Buddha gave as recorded in various Sutras.

The First Turning of the Wheel of Dharma is said to have been given at Deer Park in northern India. Here is an article cited by the FPMT which describes what Tibetan Buddhists believe constitute this first turning:

  The first turning includes those teachings given by the Buddha in the
  earliest historical period of Buddhism in general, and Buddha
  Shakyamuni’s teaching career in particular.  Many of these teachings
  are fundamental to all schools of Buddhism such as the four noble
  truths, the eightfold path, selflessness (anatman), dependent-arising,
  impermanence, the five aggregates, etc. Perhaps the most famous of the
  many discourses (Pali: sutta, Sanskrit: sutra) of the Buddha from the
  first turning is the one that records the Buddha’s very first teaching
  at Deer Park to the first five disciples entitled The Turning of the
  Wheel of the Dhamma Sutta. In actuality, virtually all of the contents
  of the Pali version of the Buddhist canon, that version utilized by
  Theravada Buddhists of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia today, are
  considered by Tibetans to be teachings from the first turning of the
  wheel.

The Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma is said to have been given at Vulture Peak Mountain in Rajagriha, India. The Sutras which record this turning are broadly given the title of Perfection of Wisdom Sutras or prajnaparamita the most famous of which are likely the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Cutter Sutra.

The Third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma is said to have been given in numerous locations and generally comprise those Sutras making up what is called the Tathāgatagarbha doctrine.

How do Tibetan Buddhists interpret these Three Turnings?

Is there disagreement within Tibetan Buddhists schools about which teachings are definitive and which are provisional?

Among the various subschools of Tibetan Buddhism there is broad agreement about these Three Turnings. In other words, the subschools generally agree that these are valid and authentic teachings of the Buddha. However, there are some disagreements.

I'm not aware of any disagreements about the First Turning which are widely considered provisional in meaning, but there is some contention about the status of the Second and Third and which Sutras are said to be definitive in meaning and which are provisional.

The Gelug school as founded by Je Tsongkhapa and which forms the root lineage of His Holiness the Dalai Lama believe the Second Turning to be definitive in meaning while the Third is said to be provisional or at least that it needs to be interpreted with the wisdom realizing emptiness. According to the Gelug viewpoint the Third Turning was motivated to dispel the fear that some generated upon hearing the teachings of the Second Turning. That is, some listeners had an incorrect understanding of the Second Turning and developed a nihilistic view and so out of compassion the Buddha gave the Third Turning with a sheen of essentialism to dispel this nihilism which leads to the avici hell.

Tsongkhapa gave his viewpoint in his Essence of True Eloquence.

Here is what His Holiness the Dalai Lama has to say about this:

  "At a time when Tsongkhapa's work ‘Essence of Good Explanation’ on the
  provisional and definitive meaning of the Sutras was translated into
  Hindi at Varanasi, the pandits Tripathi and Upadhyaya were involved. I
  asked Tripathi to consider Je Rinpoche's work in the context of the
  great Indian classics and wondered whether he might be classed among
  the scholars of Nalanda. Tripathi responded that he would not only
  hold his own among them, but would be classed among the most
  excellent."

It is important to understand that the Second and Third Turning teachings predate Tibetan Buddhism. These teachings were recorded and came from India before Buddhism was ever introduced to the land of snow. However, the Second and Third Turnings were not recorded in the Pali Canon and thus properly belong to the Mahayana.

Do Tibetan Buddhists think these Three Turnings are contradictory?

No.

There is very wide agreement that these teachings - when interpreted correctly and with a proper view of which are provisional and which are definitive - do not contradict each other.


What are "lower yanas" How is it that 3 separate schools of Buddhism that developed they're own separate characteristics and sometimes even developed different fundamental teachings are taught as lower, middle and greater yanas by some teachers in Tibetan Buddhism?

Isn't it a fundamental teaching of the Buddha to not be partial or judgemental? How is this not an example of partiality?

I do not understand if it's Tibetan Buddhism saying lower, middle, or greater yanas, or only Tibetan Buddhism only.

Reference to the Chinese Sutras I studied, it would be Śrāvaka, Bodhisattva and Buddha yanas. Or sometimes five yanas: Śrāvaka, Arhat, Pratyekabuddha, Bodhisattva and Buddha. These yanas are depending on the nature/inclination of the students that they naturally choosing their vehicles. In general, Sravaka, Arhat and Pratyekabuddha responding to life as an abode to be escaped from, their main concern is a jailbreak, or liberation. But the Bodhisattva and Buddha are liberation and enjoyment, or total mastery. All yanas have happy ending, just that they have different taste buds, like some people like beer, some wine, some whisky... :)

So this is not the Buddha be partial or judgemental, just providing all different drinks for all different drinkers that pleased the most their taste buds. It wouldn't be a good bar if only offering one type of drink, huh?


Do lions create bad kamma for their next life when they kill? In Buddhism, bad Kamma begins with a bad intention. What can we say about animals, let's say a tiger or a lion that kills other living beings by instinct? They don't have the same understanding as we do as human beings and they simply cannot become vegetarians: so are they creating bad Kamma that might ripen in a next life? For instance, if I used to be a lion will I suffer bad Kamma consequences in this human life because I killed and ate living beings?

Bad Karma are caused by the three evil roots.

Lobha - Craving/Lust
Dosa - Aversion
Moha - Ignorance

Doing something bad without knowing it is bad falls under ignorance. Ignorance is there in all bad Karmas. But in the case of a lion killing a deer, it is stronger compared to a human killing a deer, given that he knows it is wrong. So the lion has strong ignorance on top of strong aversion and craving. That makes the Karma worse. One thing you have to understand about the law of Karma is that it is a law of the nature. It is not a god. So there's never a question of whether it is fair or not. Is it fair for children to get burnt if they touch fire without knowing it burns? Probably not! But the fire doesn't have a conscious to decide whom to burn or not to burn.


Advice on leading sitting group I've been practicing for about a half dozen years now, have been fortunate to go on several retreats and have a consistent practice. Where I'm currently living I really don't have access to a sitting group I don't have any delusions about being a teacher but several people who know I sit have expressed  interest in learning.

I was considering doing simple guided sits. Are there any cautions? Should I probably not pursue this without training?

It is good to start a sitting group. My suggestions are:

Make the group as informal & self-reliant as possible. 'Self-reliant' means making it clear that meditation is an activity of self-practise & self-endeavour; that the group provides individual members the support & opportunity to develop their own practise.
Make it clear/overt it is simply an informal sitting group rather than a    formal teaching facility.
Provide guided meditation only to newcomers or when introducing a new
practise.
Keep guided meditation short (e.g. 10 - 15 minutes) & main meditation long
(e.g. 30 minutes).
If there is no guided meditation, do a text reading at the start,
contributed & read by yourself or by a member of the group.
If possible, end with tea & formal group discussion on a topic,  chosen
by yourself or by another member of the group.
Be as 'democratic' as possible but without expanding into other
spiritual traditions that may cause confusion.


If Buddhism is about moderation, then why is it that you can attain nirvana only after renouncing worldly possessions? This is really confusing to me. Buddha himself was an ascetic, and his teachings seem to imply that the path to nirvana is attained through renouncing one's worldly possessions.

Isn't this in direct contradiction to the Middle Way?

These are common misunderstandings of the middle way. The middle way is best explained through the Buddha's life story.

The Buddha began as a nobleman who had the money for all the indulgence in sensual pleasures which he wanted. However, indulgence in pleasure did not lead to lasting happiness. This is the first extreme. The Buddha then became an ascetic who starved himself and took part in self mortification. This was an attempt at gaining happiness through pain, or indulgence in pain. This is the second extreme and it did not lead to lasting happiness.

The middle way is neither indulgence in pleasure nor indulgence in pain. The middle way is not about moderation, it is about the attitude to indulgence.

Taking a simple example like eating chocolate: There are extremes of never eating chocolate or eating 10 bars of chocolate each day, but eating in moderation such as 1 bar per day is not going to bring about happiness. If you eat 1 bar of chocolate and you treat it as the best thing you've ever tasted then you're already indulging in pleasure. The amount of chocolate is irrelevant. The point is to eat chocolate without doing it to seek pleasure and without doing it to seek pain.

One final common misconception which you didn't mention is "The middle way is for laypeople, monks don't follow the middle way". This misconception comes from the idea that the middle way is moderation. Although monks deny themselves things like sex or perfume this is not a type of indulgence in pain, the purpose of the rules is entirely different. The monks don't try to use perfume in moderation but as I've explained moderation is not the middle way.


How should one practice Dhamma in order to overcome loneliness? Loneliness is an obsession of a person when facing old age and death. How should one practice the teachings of the Supreme Buddha in order to overcome this obsession?

Samatha (tranquility) meditation using anapanasati (meditation with in & out breathing) can be used as a method to overcome loneliness & distress.

  I tell you, monks, that this — the in-&-out breath — is classed as a body among bodies, which is why the monk on that occasion remains
  focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert & mindful —
  putting aside wanting & distress with reference to the world.

  Anapanasati Sutta

~~~

  So if a monk should wish: 'May neither my body be fatigued nor my eyes and may my mind, through lack of clinging, be released from
  fermentations,' then he should attend carefully to this same
  concentration through mindfulness with in-&-out breathing.

  If a monk should wish: 'May my memories & resolves related to the household life be abandoned,' then he should attend carefully to this
  same concentration through mindfulness with in-&-out breathing.

  Dipa Sutta


What is the Difference between Desire and Compulsion? What is the difference between desire and compulsion? When do I know that something is a desire and when do I know that something is a compulsion?

Can there be compulsion in sexual thoughts even if I have a strong disliking about it? Can a compulsion include sexual emotions or not? And can a compulsion be created through anxiety/fear?

In Buddhism, there are wholesome/skillful & unwholesome/unskillful desires.
Unwholesome desires are called 'craving' or 'tanha', which are the 'compulsion' referred to.

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to new becoming, accompanied by
delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for
sensual pleasures, craving to be, craving not-to-be.
SN 56.11

'Craving' or 'compulsion' (namely the 'lust', 'resistance' & 'ignorance' quoted below) is shown by a lack of self-control, enslavement ('fettered') & the final result of suffering when not getting or losing the object of compulsion.

It is similar with an untaught worldling: when touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. So he experiences two kinds of feeling: a bodily and a mental feeling.
Having been touched by that painful feeling, he resists (and resents) it. Then in him who so resists (and resents) that painful
feeling, an underlying tendency of resistance against that painful
feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful
feeling he then proceeds to enjoy sensual happiness. And why does he
do so? An untaught worldling, O monks, does not know of any other
escape from painful feelings except the enjoyment of sensual
happiness. Then in him who enjoys sensual happiness, an underlying
tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind).
He does not know, according to facts, the arising and ending of these
feelings, nor the gratification, the danger and the escape, connected
with these feelings. In him who lacks that knowledge, an underlying
tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his
mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a
neutral feeling, he feels it as one fettered by it. Such a one, O
monks, is called an untaught worldling who is fettered by birth, by
old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He
is fettered by suffering, this I declare.
SN 36.6


What does Buddha and Buddhism say about fighting against enemy of dharma? What does Buddha and Buddhism say about fighting against an enemy who is hell bent on wiping out all buddhists in the name of religion? Should a buddhist actively participate in war against evil? I would like to have an answer both from a buddhist layman and a soldiers perspective. An active resistance to injustice in general. Thank you.

I personally find it difficult to accept that Buddhism is compatible with violence:

The first precept is I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.
On the eightfold path, the definition of right and wrong livelihood (career) prohibits Business in weapons (also, slavery and prostitution, meat, intoxicants, and poison)
When you consider whether you should be "fighting against an enemy who is hell-bent", remember the verses at the very beginning of the Dhammapada,

  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
  follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness
  follows him like his never-departing shadow.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
  There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

However, there are nominally Buddhist countries, which have soldiers. For example,
In Defense of Dharma: Just-War Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka includes innumerable quotes, from people who are arguing for and against violence, including quotes like,

  "Though some Sri Lankan Buddhist interpreters of Buddhism, including the
  Venerable Walpola Rahula, have claimed that “violence in any form, under any
  pretext whatsoever, is absolutely against the teaching of the Buddha,” and thus
  of Buddhism, some Buddhists that I interviewed in Sri Lanka during the summers
  of 1997 and 1998 suggested that war can be justified if certain criteria are met. In
  this chapter, I shall highlight the “just-war thinking” that a section of Sinhala-Buddhist Sri Lanka argues shaped Dutugemunu’s conscience, and examine what
  foundation there is, if any, for such thinking in Theravada Buddhism, in general."

  "we have to peacefully fight our enemies"

  "killing to defend the
  country or the sasana, therefore, brings few negative karmic repercussions, because
  the intention is to save, rather than to harm"

  "As we determined in Chapter 2 of this study, due to monks’ perceptions of
  themselves as “sons of the soil,” or bhumiputras, the sangha perpetuates and
  reinforces the idea that Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalas who are Buddhist. As
  Professor Aryarasinghe’s political party’s platform makes clear, however,
  bhumiputra ideology is not the monks’ alone; lay Buddhists, too, deem themselves
  to be sons of the soil. As we have also seen, the commitment to the soil might
  allow for justifications of violence, even war, if certain conditions are met. At the
  same time, there are a number of lay people and, in particular, monks, who are
  committed to their other “historic” mission, that is, to being exemplars of the
  Buddha’s message of peace, to being sons of the Buddha, or Buddhaputras."

    "Each of us should contribute to the cooling down
    process. If one individual is peaceful it means one less in the violent
    crowd."

  In my interview with Premaratne in 1998, he steadfastly argued that the civil
  war will not be solved in the battlefield; instead, according to Premaratne, we can
  find a resolution to Sri Lanka’s problems in the paradigm of the Buddha’s life and
  in Buddhist ideas about the self. In Premaratne’s view, Buddhism never justifies
  war, and the fact that the Buddha chose to be a universal teacher (world renouncer)
  rather than a cakkavati (world conqueror) demonstrates that peace is superior to
  war."

Specific, notable Buddhists including the Dalai Lama seem to say that it's sometimes "necessary".

So in summary it seems to be difficult to be completely clear about what "Buddhism says": because it's possible to find "mixed messages" on this subject.

I personally think that:

"Abstain from killing" as a number one precept is pretty clear. It reminds me of this article, published in a satirical newspaper (soon after September 11, 2001): God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule.
Saying that "killing terrorists doesn't count as killing, they deserve it, they brought death upon themselves, they made me do it" seems to me very dubious logic. For example, quoting from the Mahavamsa as written in the "Just-War Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka",

  Dutugemunu asks them
  how he will ever find comfort, considering what he had done, that he had killed
  such a lot of people. The arahants respond with their own just-war thinking:

    Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord
    of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken
    unto himself the five precepts. Unbelievers and men of evil life were the
    rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring
    glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast
    away care from the heart, O ruler of men.

Unfortunately this reminds me of the Nazi arguments/propaganda used to commit genocide in Nazi Germany: that people such as the Jews were "sub-human" and, also, were "a threat" (a threat to God's order; threat to German society; threat to German morality; threatening to enslave hard-working Germans; a deadly threat not only to the survival of the German people but to the survival of the world!)
I also don't see how Christians justify war: "Turning the other cheek" seems to me unambiguous. I know that people who are nominally Christian have tried to justify it with the theory of just war but that doesn't seem to me to be Christian: maybe it's life (and death), maybe it's the world, but it's not Christian, IMO.
Supposedly Buddhist doctrine such as,

  "The Buddha replied, 'He who deserves punishment must be punished. And he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Do not do injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness.' These injunctions are not contradictory because the person who is punished for his crimes will suffer his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but through the evil act itself. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executors of the law inflict. When a magistrate punishes, he must not harbor hatred in his heart. When a murderer is put to death, he should realize that his punishment is the result of his own act. With his understanding, he will no longer lament his fate but can console his mind. And the Blessed One continued, 'The Buddha teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable. But he does not teach that those who are involved in war to maintain peace and order, after having exhausted all means to avoid conflict, are blameworthy."

... seems to me to come from a different tradition (a non-Buddhist Dharma), i.e. it's the central message of the Bhagavad Gita, that man-the-killer is an instrument of God ("Facing the duty to kill his relatives, Arjuna is counselled by Krishna to fulfill his Kshatriya (warrior) duty as a warrior and kill.") ... or in the quote above, a mere instrument of karma.

There's a saying, in the west, that "war is hell".

There is, similarly, quite a famous Zen story on that subject.

As for whether you should "actively participate in a war against evil", or how to participate if you must, my knowledge of non-Buddhist history suggests there have been a (relatively very few) people in the west who, calling themselves "pacifists" and "conscientious objectors", served in non-aggressive, altruistic, personally dangerous roles: for example disposing of unexploded bombs, or acting as medics, and as front-line stretcher-bearers (rescuing the wounded).


When I focus on my breath, it becomes shallow Sometimes when I'm meditating, I'll have really "good" breaths - the breath will be deep, very satisfying and relaxing. My diaphragm and chest really expand and it feels like my whole lung fills with air. The trouble is I can't consistently maintain those breaths.

When I do focus on my breath in meditation it becomes more and more shallow. Not a lot of expansion, not relaxing, and not much inhale. I'm not sure why that's happening.

I think I get my best breaths when refocus on my breathing after I have been preoccupied with other thoughts.

Why does focusing on my breath cause it to become shallow and how can I avoid it?

P.S. I'm not against the practice of meditation. It has helped me with attention and focusing. I've tried other techniques such as being aware of the present moment with better user experience.

Doesn’t matter if your breath is deep or shallow.  Just let it do what it wants to do.  If you force it, you are introducing volition.  All that’s going to do is lead to tension and doubt.  Just let go of your expectations of what meditation ought to be.  Meditation is what happens, not what we make happen.


Spirits in Buddhist Folklore Are there any references to spirit of ancestors in Buddhist folklore? As seen in some movies, communication with spirits is shown. Is this practical ? What is the Buddhist view on spirits?

"Spirits" are lower ranking devas that occupy the realm of the Four Great Kings, and include earthbound devas too, that live invisibly in human cities and influence human beings telepathically. These correspond to the nature spirits found in all traditions. I cant think of any examples of spirits of ancestors as such, but King Bimbisara appears to the Buddha as a king in the realm of the Four Great Kings after the former's decease.


Can I count my contribution to the open source as a dharma? It is mean, that if I am professional developer and I can help other people for free, can I think, that software development, that is my hobby and profession, in the same time is my Dharma?

Open source is awesome philosophically speaking, and that's really what counts in the dharma, not the actual benefit that accrues to others. A core tenet of Buddhism is to not cling:

"And he clings to nothing in the world."
-- The Buddha (MN 10)

So, regardless of the nature of your work, the fact that you are able to give up your attachment to its ownership is positive. If, for example, you produce pornography or a drink-mixing app, well, that's bad. If you make it open source, that is good, since the alternative is to cling to it.
Some years ago, a Buddhist monk threatened me with legal action over a text translated from the Pali 60 years ago that his organization owned the copyright to and which I had posted on our website in HTML format. It was remarkable to note at the time that people in the FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) community sounded more Buddhist than the Buddhists. Mark Shuttleworth, for example:

That’s the magical thing about creation and ownership. It creates the possibility for generosity. You can’t really give something you don’t own, but if you do, you’ve made a genuine contribution. A gift is different from a loan. It imposes no strings, it empowers the recipient and it frees the giver of the responsibilities of ownership. We tend to think that solving our own problems to produce a patch which is interesting to us and useful for us is the generosity. It isn’t. The opportunity for generosity comes thereafter. And in our ecosystem, generosity is important. It’s at the heart of the Ubuntu ethic, and it’s important even between competitors, because the competitors outside our ecosystem are impossible to beat if we are not supportive of one another.
(source)

Or Richard Stallman (admittedly, not the best Buddhist role model):

I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it comes to freedom. Life without freedom is oppression, and that applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives. We must refuse to give the developers of the programs or computing services control over the computing we do. This is the right thing to do, for selfish reasons; but not solely for selfish reasons.
Freedom includes the freedom to cooperate with others. Denying people that freedom means keeping them divided, which is the start of a scheme to oppress them. In the free software community, we are very much aware of the importance of the freedom to cooperate because our work consists of organized cooperation. If your friend comes to visit and sees you use a program, she might ask for a copy. A program which stops you from redistributing it, or says you're “not supposed to”, is antisocial.
(source)

So yeah, the FOSS movement is awesome; a lot of open source advocates are Buddhist, or at least Buddhaphiles. There's even a Bodhi Linux, for example. It runs on the Enlightenment desktop. Actually, I'm not sure if that's dharmic or just crass...
I think you have one too many commas in your question, but if you are asking whether software development is dhamma practice, then I guess the answer is that the part of it that is you letting go of your attachment to stuff is dharmic. Coding software itself is not the same as developing your mind towards enlightenment, though...


Mettā Stage 4: "Difficult Person" Thinking about the fourth stage of Mettā meditation practice, which is traditionally said to have you focus on a "difficult person", I wonder:

Does the person have to be someone that you know personally?
Could you, for instance, focus on someone in the media or a celebrity (whom you don't know personally, but believe to be a "difficult person")?
Is it important that you have a personal connection with this person at this stage of practice?

Thanks!

A "difficult person" can be anyone you know or don't know.

For example  a "difficult person" can be someone you do not know personally

example - Hitler,Mussolini

A "difficult person" can be someone you know personally

The girl who broke your heart for the first time
The childhood bully
Boss
The loud neighbor
That guy in your office

A "difficult person" can be someone entirely different

For example it is easy to do Meththa mediation to a deer or a rabbit because they are cute innocent animals.  But have you tried Doing mettha to a snake or a shark?

"One day a monk died  because of a sanke bite and rest of the monks asked Lord Buddha why he died.Lord Buddha said "Even though he did meththa he did not concentrated it to snakes and because of this reason his meththa was incomplete.That is why he was attacked."

You must consider why you have left some out of your meditation and join those animals or people.But this does not mean you should take every creature alone and meditate on them.

May triple gems bless you!

Learn Meththa Meditation completely - Click and learn


Where does the Buddha say that human life can have at most 50% happiness? Ajahn Martin claims so in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsu3GEsoMT4 at 14:25. What's his source for this claim?

The Buddha say that human life can have at most 50% happiness?

That wasn't really what He meant. Basically He said that the reason why human realm is the most conducive to the cultivation of the Dhamma is because it's a realm where there's a mixed bag of misery and happiness, unlike realms where there's only exclusively just misery or just happiness.

"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a hell named 'Six Spheres of Contact.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never pleasing; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never pleasing; disagreeable, never agreeable.
"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a heaven named 'Six Spheres of Contact.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable.
"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life." ~~ SN 35.135 ~~

And Ven. Thanissaro's note:

The message here is that in realms where sense objects are totally disagreeable or totally agreeable it is very difficult to practice the holy life, for in the former, one is too distracted by pain; in the latter, too distracted by pleasure.


Is Karma part of Dharma? In other terms, is Karma a subset of Dharma? As per title.

I read the English translation of the heart sutra recently.If Karma is part of the Dharma, or is the Dharma, does this mean that Karma is not created or destroyed, and it neither decreases or increase, according to the heart sutra?

Notice the Heart Sutra's subsequent sentences' explanation:

  This is because in emptiness there is no form, sensation, conception, synthesis, or discrimination. There are no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, or thoughts. There are no forms, sounds, scents, tastes, sensations, or dharmas. There is no field of vision and there is no realm of thoughts. There is no ignorance nor elimination of ignorance, even up to and including no old age and death, nor elimination of old age and death. There is no suffering, its accumulation, its elimination, or a path. There is no understanding and no attaining.

So does that mean there's no need to cultivate the Path because there is "no ignorance nor elimination of ignorance"; and actually no cultivation whatsoever because "there is no understanding and no Path"?? Of course not, the bolded part is the key point. Until one's penetrated that dimension/nature of emptiness, there is still ignorance to be eliminated, a Path to be cultivated, and wholesome and unwholesome Kammas to be decreased/increased, created/destroyed, etc.


Meals in the afternoon and different time zones How do Buddhist monks deal with meals while traveling across different time zones?

"Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non- staple food at the wrong time, it is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 37; BMC p.362).
 Here the 'wrong time' is defined to be from noon until dawn the following day.

So regardless of which timezone a monk is in, he can consume food between dawn and noon. All you need to check is where the sun is.


Details for Kasina Meditation I've searched through the web and also Wikipedia regarding Kasina meditation and could not find detailed information. Can the meditation object be anything? (Say anything green or blue for those Kasina meditations?)

How does one concentrate on the object? Any thought or mental note (like green green? Earth?) Is the breath watched like in Anapanasati?

Here in this answer I am going to give some resources I found in the web and not going to copy and past anything here as the process is quite lengthy and detailed. You could learn about Kasina meditation from "Visuddhimagga (Path of purificaiton)". If your refer page 117 and onwards describe the details about "Earth kasióa". If you need a shorter version please refer here.

Further you could refer this page which describe how the create "Earth Kasina"(object) and describe how to do the meditation in details. Hope this helps.


Is Mindfulness the Opposite of Multitasking? I realized that my use of social media always involves doing something else, and if I am on the internet I might also be on social media. Thus, I am always multitasking seemingly.

How does the mind process multitasking? Is it possible to be mindful of each task (e.g. social media and writing a text) one after the other, or is such a thing impossible?

EDIT: By one after the other I mean for a short amount of time, going back and forth between the tasks.

Mindfulness(Sati) and one-pointedness(Samadhi) are 2 different things. Technically speaking, the mind cannot take multiple objects at once. So there is no such thing as multitasking with the mind. You feel like you are multitasking because the mind keeps switching so fast. So it is possible to be mindful while you are on so called 'multitasking'.

On the other hand, in the realm of mindfulness, the internet does not exist! Social media does not exist! 'I' does not exist! There are only four types of mindfulness: mindfulness of the body, mindfulness of sensations, mindfulness of mental activities and mindfulness of phenomena. So be careful of what you consider as 'mindfulness'.


Why the Buddha abandoned asceticism It is commonly known that the Buddha decided that asceticism does not lead to enlightenment, but less common is the reason why given. From Ajahn Brahm's book Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond, it appears as though the Buddha abandoned asceticism because eating well was necessary to pursue the jhānas and the Middle Way:

  once the Bodhisatta realized that jhāna was the way to enlightenment
  (MN 36,31), he immediately recognized that it was impractical to
  attain jhāna with an emaciated body so began eating well.

Where in MN 36 do we find this reasoning? Is there general agreement in Buddhism that this is indeed why the Buddha decided to give up asceticism?

Maybe MN 26 is more relevant: towards the end of it, the Five ask questions like,

  When this was said, the group of five monks replied to me, 'By that practice, that conduct, that performance of austerities you did not attain any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge & vision worthy of a noble one. So how can you now — living luxuriously, straying from your exertion, backsliding into abundance — have attained any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge & vision worthy of a noble one?'

... and afterwards, the end of the sutta is of their being taught the various jhanas.

There may be somewhere where it's stated as a positive, i.e. "eating well was necessary to pursue the jhānas and the Middle Way" -- I think I've read something like that, but I don't remember whether that's a direct quote or an indirect paraphrase.

The only versions I've found at the moment are expressed as a double-negative, not as a positive, i.e. that "utmost austerity is not the way"; for example from this translation of the (non-canonical) Introduction to the Jâtaka,

  And the Future Buddha, thinking, "I will carry austerity to the uttermost," tried various plans, such as living on one sesamum seed or on one grain of rice a day, and even ceased taking nourishment altogether, and moreover rebuffed the gods when they came and attempted to infuse nourishment through the pores of his skin. By this lack of nourishment. his body became emaciated to the last degree, and lost its golden color, and became black, and his thirty-two physical characteristics as a great being became obscured. Now, one day, as he was deep in a trance of suppressed breathing, he was attacked by violent pains, and fell senseless to the ground, at one end of his walking-place.

  ...

  Now the six years which the Great Being thus spent in austerities were like time spent in endeavoring to tie the air
  into knots. And coming to the decision, "These austerities are not the way to enlightenment," he went begging through villages and market-towns for ordinary material food, and lived upon it. And his thirty-two physical characteristics as a great being again appeared, and the color of his body became like unto gold.

  Then the band of five priests thought, "It is now six years that this man has been performing austerities without being able to attain to omniscience. And how much less can he be expected to do so in future, now that he has again taken to ordinary material food begged from town to town! He has become luxurious, and given up the Struggle. For us to look for any benefit to come from that quarter would be as reasonable as if a man were to imagine he could bathe his head in a dew-drop. We will have nothing more to do with him." With that they took their bowls and robes, and left the Great Being, and going eighteen leagues off, entered Isipatana.

There are suttas which describe or recommend an attitude towards food (I expect there are in the vinaya too), for example from the Bhikkhuni Sutta,

  'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food. 'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.


Don't teach Dhamma to those who can't appreciate it or aren't interested I read in an answer that AN 9.5 states:

  The best sort of kindly speech is to teach the Dhamma again and again
  to someone who is engaged and who lends an ear.

However, is there an opposite quote to this in the Pali Canon?

Does the Buddha say anywhere in the Pali Canon that we should not bother to teach the Dhamma to one who cannot appreciate it, or is not interested in listening to it?

What I'm asking for, is perhaps equivalent to the following quote from the Christian Bible in Matthew 7:6:

  Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If
  you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you
  to pieces.

The Buddha not only stressed the importance of right speech but also the right time and occassion to say it:

  "So too, prince, such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is unwelcome and disagreeable to others: the Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech.613 Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be untrue, incorrect, and unbeneficial, but which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tath›gata does not utter. Such speech as the Tath›gata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: the Tath›gata knows the time to use such speech. Why is that? Because the Tath›gata has compassion for beings.” ~~ MN 58 ~~


How is meditation considered a good deed? I have heard it said that meditation is "the greatest good deed". Is this considered to be true in Buddhism? If so, how is meditation superior to all other good deeds? It seems self serving compared to other good deeds, such as generosity.

Because generosity alone can only get you so far. One's hindrances, defilements, ignorance, etc. are still there. Meditation and moral virtues are required to get one further on the Path. Matter of fact, through meditation, one becomes a more virtuous person and that itself is a superior kind of generosity. As taught by the Buddha in AN 8.39:

“Here, a noble disciple, having abandoned the destruction of life, abstains from the destruction of life. By abstaining from the destruction of life, the noble disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. This is the first gift, a great gift, primal, of long standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before adulterated, which is not being adulterated and will not be adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This is the fourth stream of merit … that leads to what is wished for, desired, and agreeable, to one’s welfare and happiness."
“Again, a noble disciple, having abandoned the taking of what is not given, abstains from taking what is not given … abstains from sexual misconduct … abstains from false speech … abstains from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness. By abstaining from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness, the noble disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. This is the fifth gift, a great gift, primal, of long standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before adulterated, which is not being adulterated and will not be adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This is the eighth stream of merit … that leads to what is wished for, desired, and agreeable, to one’s welfare and happiness."