Attachment to practice itself Is it wholesome to set expectations for one's own practice (e.g. to have a mind free of all Five Hindrances, or to have all Seven Factors of Awakening present)?

To firmly commit to the path of enlightenment, against all worldly distractions,  how can this be done without setting goals or expectations?

If there are conditions for the presence/absence of the Five Hindrances, Seven Factors of Awakening to arise and to pass, are these not impermanent? If one clings to the impermanent, does this not lead to dukkha?

That is a very good desire to have, @avatar Korra. Such desires are often helpful in the path. That kind of conceit can be a good thing. Setting expectations for one's own practice and desiring to do well, in thinking that “Other people can do this, why can’t I?” helps.  Those are actually useful tools in the path. But it is important to remember well to keep it to self, and let your actions speak. This is the most important advice that a noble friend can give you in this regard (Please do not ask me as to why it is so. It is up to you to take this advice or leave it. How this truism plays out in your life is a mystery. So you will have to be mindful of your actions, and its results, and learn from it.) Then you will one day get to see that only such people who heed this advice are likely to pursue this demanding path of practice all the way through to the end.


Tiredness and Meditation I decided to meditate continuously, no matter what occurs within meditation. I will attempt to do as best I can.

However, the only circumstance when I feel like meditation would be difficult would be when experiencing lethargy or fatigue.

I noticed that some things usually occur while particularly tired:

Meditation becomes difficult as the mind tends to drift or wander.
Rather than generate insight or focus the mind will create aimless and incoherent thoughts.
The body will slacken and it becomes easier to drift off.

Hence, does anyone have tips to generate more energy for meditation, be it in terms of lifestyle or immediate antidotes? And should I try to meditate despite these feelings of tiredness and fatigue or should I merely abstain or distract myself until I am more alert?
Thank you.

Story about Ven Moggallana might be interesting to you.  He was struggling with sleepiness (or tiredness) on his path to liberation.  Buddha gave him specific set of instructions.  Per Buddha, Last step to fight sleepiness is to actually sleep.  Maha-Moggallana


Ways of Controlling Anger What are some techniques that the Lord Buddha have stated to control anger? I can recall a few (listed below) but I not really sure if they are exactly correct.

changing the object of your attention
thinking about the consequences of your anger
understanding what is the cause of your anger
metta loving kindness meditation towards yourself
channelling your anger towards your own mind and trying to control your own mind

Could someone please verify if the Lord Buddha actually stated the above techniques and also could you please state any other techniques He stated. It would also be great if you could reference the suttra.

Thank you in advance.

Bhikshus, no other single thing do I see, on account of which unarisen ill will does not arise, and
  arisen ill will is abandoned, as on account of this, bhikshus, namely, the liberation of mind through
  lovingkindness.

Nīvarana,pahana Vagga

  (2) And what, bhikshus, is food for the arising of unarisen ill will (vyapada) and for the growth
  and abundance of arisen ill will?
  There is, bhikshus, the sign of the repulsive (paigha,nimitta). Frequently giving unwise attention to it
  is food for the arising of unarisen ill will and for the growth and abundance of arisen ill will.

Āvaraṇa Nīvaraṇa Sutta

  Furthermore, brahmin, when one dwells with a mind seized by ill will (vyapada), overcome by ill
  will, then one understands not, as it really is, the escape (from it), one neither understands nor sees, as it
  really is, , one’s own benefit, …nor others’ benefit,…nor the benefit of both—so, too, the mantras that
  have been recited over a long time do not come to mind, let alone those that have not been recited.

  Brahmin, just as when a person with good sight, looking for the reflection of his own face in a
  bowl of water, heated up by a fire, keeps boiling over with hot water, would neither know nor see it, as it
  really is—even so, brahmin, when one dwells with a mind seized by ill will, overcome by ill will, then
  one understands not, as it really is, , the escape (from it), one neither understands nor sees, as it really is,
  one’s own benefit,…nor others’ benefit,…nor the benefit of both—so, too, the mantras that have been
  recited over a long time do not come to mind, let alone those that have not been recited.

(Nīvarana) Sangarava Sutta

  Bhikshus, the four focusses of mindfulness are to be cultivated for the abandoning of these five
  mental hindrances.

(Satipaṭṭhāna) Nīvaraṇa Sutta

Also see: The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Selected Texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries compiled and translated by Nyanaponika Thera

In relation to general thoughts linked in thinking and pondering on unwholesome thoughts Vitakka Saṇṭhāna Sutta mentions the following:

turn his attention to a different sign connected with the wholesome
should examine the disadvantage [the danger] of those thoughts
one should not mind them, he should disregard them
should attend to the stilling of the thought-formation
with clenched teeth and the tongue pressing on the palate

In addition, Vyāpāda an essay by Piya Tan might be also of interest.


What Nichiren Buddhism says about rebirth and reincarnation? What is the view of Nichirenism/ Nichiren Buddhism on rebirth and reincarnation? What was the opinion of Nichiren on rebirth and reincarnation? What was the opinion of Gautama Buddha on rebirth and reincarnation according to Nichiren?

Nichiren explains the Buddhist concepts of Twelve Linked Causation and Transmigration

On the Principle of Three Thousand Realms in a Single Moment of Life
"Question: What is the twelve-linked chain of causation as it applies to the process of transmigration?
Answer: The first link is ignorance. The Dharma Analysis Treasurysays: “The state resulting from past delusion is ignorance.” That is to say, ignorance represents the earthly desires of love and craving that one gave rise to in the past. Thus a son may conceive hatred for his father and love for his mother, or a daughter may conceive hatred for her mother and love for her father, as described in the ninth volume of Dharma Analysis Treasury.
The second link is action. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “The various deeds carried out in the past are called action.” That is, the deeds or karma one has created in the past are called action. There are two kinds of karma. The first is “karma leading to rebirth,” that is, karma that determines what realm of existence we will be reborn into. The second is “completing karma,” which represents all the karma not included in the above category. It is past karma that determines such things as whether one will break a leg or cut a finger. This is completing karma.
The third link is consciousness. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “Consciousness is the one of the five aggregates that is crucial in the forming of life.” The five aggregates are already present when the child is in the mother’s body. The five aggregates are form, perception, conception, volition, and consciousness. They are also known as the five components.
The fourth link is name and form. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “What precedes the six sense fields is name and form.”
The fifth link is the six sense fields. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “After the eyes and other organs are produced, but before the three elements of perception,1 the six sense fields come into being.” The six sense fields are the activities, or output, of the six sense organs, the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind.
The sixth link is contact. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “In the process of perception, the stage before there is any awareness of whether the perception is pleasing, unpleasing, or neutral, is known as contact.” This is the stage in which one does not yet understand that fire is hot, that water is cold, or that a knife is something that can cut a person.
The seventh link is sensation, or perception. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “The stage before any inordinate desire exists is called sensation.” At this time one understands that a thing is hot or cold, but has not yet experienced any sexual desire.
The eighth link is desire. Dharma Analysis Treasury states: “The craving for material goods or sexual satisfaction is called desire.” This refers to the time when one desires a woman and has feelings of sexual desire.
The ninth link is attachment. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “Because one hopes to acquire various objects, one races here and there in search of them, and this is called attachment.” This means that while one is in this present life, one pursues worldly affairs and is greedy tograsp and acquire things that belong to others.
The tenth link is existence. Dharma Analysis Treasury states: “Existence means that one performs karmic actions that will determine the kind of fruit, or state of existence, that one will have at one’s next birth.” That is, existence here refers to the carrying out of karmic actions that will lead to one’s receiving life once more in a future existence.
The eleventh link is birth. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “Birth refers to the receiving of life in one’s next existence.” This refers to the time when one receives life in a future existence and enters the womb of one’s mother.
The twelfth link is aging and death. Dharma Analysis Treasury says: “Until one reaches the stage of sensation in one’s future existence, one is subject to aging and death.” To be subject to birth, aging, and death means that one suffers the anxieties and distress of aging and death.
Question: How do the twelve links in the chain of causation apply tothe three realms of past, present, and future and the two categories of cause and effect?
Answer: Ignorance and action represent two causes in a being’s past existence. Consciousness, name and form, the six sense organs, contact, and sensation represent five effects that appear in a being’s present existence. Desire, attachment, and existence represent three causes appearing in a being’s present existence. Birth and aging and death represent two effects that will appear in a being’s future existence.
I will summarize these as follows: two causes in the past (ignorance, action), five effects in the present (consciousness, name and form, the six sense organs, contact, sensation), three causes in the present (desire, attachment, existence), and two effects in the future (birth, aging and death).
Question: How does the twelve-linked chain of causation operate when it applies to the process of transmigration?
Answer: Ignorance is the condition that causes or brings about action, action brings about consciousness, consciousness brings about name and form, name and form bring about the six sense organs, the six sense organs bring about contact, contact brings about sensation, sensation brings about desire, desire brings about attachment, attachment brings about existence, existence brings about birth, and birth brings about the anxieties and distress of aging and death.
Thus it is that one transmigrates through the sea of the sufferings of birth and death. This is how one comes to be an ordinary mortal.
Question: How does one go about wiping out the twelve-linked chain of causation, thereby attaining emancipation?
Answer: Wipe out ignorance and action will be wiped out. Wipe out action and consciousness will be wiped out. Wipe out consciousness and name and form will be wiped out. Wipe out name and form and the six sense organs will be wiped out. Wipe out the six sense organs and contact will be wiped out. Wipe out contact and sensation will be wiped out. Wipe out sensation and desire will be wiped out. Wipe out desire and attachment will be wiped out. Wipe out attachment and existence will be wiped out. Wipe out existence and birth will be wiped out. Wipe out birth and this will wipe out the anxieties and distress of aging and death. This is how one wipes out the chain of causation, thereby attaining emancipation. This is how the Buddha frees himself from earthly desires.
In my view, persons who are in the intermediate state between death and a new life are not affected by all of the links in the twelve-linked chain of causation. Likewise, beings in the heavenly realm are not affected by all of them. And likewise, beings in the world of formlessness are not affected by all of them."


Meaning of the Rooted Sutta From the Rooted Sutta (AN 10.58) we have the following paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Sujato.

What does it mean? What are "things" or "phenomena" in this context? Please explain the whole paragraph.

  ‘Reverends, all things are rooted in desire. Attention produces them.
  Contact is their origin. Feeling is their meeting place. Immersion is
  their chief. Mindfulness is their ruler. Wisdom is their overseer.
  Freedom is their core. They culminate in the deathless. And
  extinguishment is their final end.’

  ‘chandamūlakā, āvuso, sabbe dhammā, manasikārasambhavā sabbe dhammā,
  phassasamudayā sabbe dhammā, vedanāsamosaraṇā sabbe dhammā,
  samādhippamukhā sabbe dhammā, satādhipateyyā sabbe dhammā, paññuttarā
  sabbe dhammā, vimuttisārā sabbe dhammā, amatogadhā sabbe dhammā,
  nibbānapariyosānā sabbe dhammā’ti.

The same paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi here:

  “‘Friends, (1) all things are rooted in desire. (2) They come into
  being through attention. (3) They originate from contact. (4) They
  converge upon feeling. (5) They are headed by concentration. (6)
  Mindfulness exercises authority over them. (7) Wisdom is their
  supervisor. (8) Liberation is their core. (9) They culminate in the
  deathless. (10) Their consummation is nibbāna.’

The same paragraph translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu here:

  All phenomena are rooted in desire.
  All phenomena come into play through attention.
  All phenomena have contact as their origination.
  All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place.
  All phenomena have concentration as their presiding state.
  All phenomena have mindfulness as their governing principle.
  All phenomena have discernment as their surpassing state.
  All phenomena have release as their heartwood.
  All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless.
  All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end.

This is what Sujato has to say;

  No, “gain a footing” is incorrect. Amatogadha is a common term,
  frequently used alongside amatapariyosāna and amataparāyana in the
  sense of ‘culminate, climax, finish’.

  The basic meaning of ogadha is to be grounded or gain a footing, but
  here it clearly has an idiomatic sense. I think the root of the
  metaphor may lie with a boat crossing a river: when it reaches the far
  shore (parāyana) it is beached or grounded. Perhaps we could translate
  something like “gains a safe harbor in the deathless”.

Which is imho not much of substantiation.

As for your inquiry it is somewhat noteworthy that 8 out of 10 points from 10.58 appear in AN 8.83 (which covers the first eight of the ten questions), commentary to the Sutta has it that "all phenomena" (sabbe dhamma) there means the five aggregates. This is important because it comes into play when people express their interpretations where some might say that sabbe dhamma refers to only "wholesome qualities" for example, this has happened.

This is not the only place where this disagreement between translators plays out, there is also AN7.48 wherein the amatogadhā amatapariyosānā occurs as well as sn48.44. It is the same disagreement however if one looks at Bodhi's translations one will see that he has previously translated amatogadha as footing for sn48.44.


What is Generation Stage Meditation also known as Utpattikrama? There are many forms of meditation found in Buddhism.  Zazen is possibly the most well know form of meditation in the West.  However, in there are many different types of mediation.   In Vajrayana there appears to be many different types and stages of mediation as well.  One form is called "generation stage meditation" or also known as utpattikrama.  What exactly is "generation stage meditation" and how is it practiced?

Generation stage meditation is meditation targeted at transmuting ones neurotic traits into aspects of enlightened mind. It is done through visualizing (and on more advanced stages through identifying oneself with) a specifically selected yidam deity.

Generation stage meditation is similar to the first jhana, in the sense that it involves deliberate generation of certain mindset.


What is "Anapanasati" day which is coming on this November 14? What is "Anapanasati" day? I used to fasting on Uposatha, I became unable to do after my health got down. Last time I had asked to what to do on Uposatha Day but as I mentioned above and still unable to do; but now I've to practice seriously and go to Vihara on Anapansati day so is it same as Uposatha ? And if it is have to practice, then can I go for it in the middle stage or from the beginning? But anyhow I want to practicing and feel spirit of it when I loosed of my life.

It's the anniversary of Buddha delivering the Anapanasati Sutta (Sutra on the Mindfulness of Breathing), an important Sutra about meditation

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uposatha#Special_uposatha_days

(Sorry but I don't know enough to answer the other questions you asked, but I hope this answer and reference helps to some extent)


Importance of good moral conduct What is the importance of this concept compared to other practices, such as meditation in the Buddhist way of life?

It leads to non-regret,
one who has non-regret gets serene
one who gets serene gets concentrated

So it acts as foundation for concentration, meditative methods use and further develope that same concentration faculty which in turn supports developement of discernment and wisdom.

Sutta references:
 AN 10.2 & AN 11.2


Mental Release from Breath Versus Metta I asked a friend who is a meditator about my practice of compassion, and he suggested I do breathing meditation because it helps liberate the mind from overthinking, as well as relaxes the person. However, I'm slightly skeptical because metta typically is also considered a concentrative meditation. Wouldn't compassion meditation also relax the mind because of this?

Thank you

Someone practising metta meditation can make one's mind concentrated easily but metta meditation does not in itself result in deep absorption as the object of concentration is changing and vittaka vicara is needed think "so and so be happy", etc.

Breath meditation, on the other hand, helps develop concentration and studies ones mind from overthinking.

Breath meditation with a bit of metta meditation will help deepen the concentration.


Pali Scriptures & Folklore What is she difference between the Pali Suttas and folklore or the Indian folklore at the time? Is it possible some suttas include folklore as well as authentic words of the Buddha?

Pali scriptures were brought down by the Sangha who actively practice the teachings of the Buddha. The oral tradition and later the scriptures were verified by many Buddhist councils which were headed by enlightened monks. These councils were held specifically to eliminate alien elements.

Folklore is just stories told by ordinary householders who might not even be Buddhist. ex: Hindus believe that Buddha is an avatar of one of their Gods


Reflections on Repulsiveness I am wondering if this website, and in particular, the guided audio meditations, are in line with the actual teaching of the 32 parts of the body meditation. I don't know much about it, so I thought I'd get a second opinion here, and also I thought that provided this is a good resource, I would at the same time share it with you all :)

Thank you for sharing the resource.

The complete guide of meditation is given in "Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta" DN 22 (D ii 290) in pali thipitaka .
In this sutta the whole meditation topics are group in four main categories.

I. Kāyānupassanā     - Observation of Kāya
II. Vedanānupassanā -  Observation of Vedanā
III. Cittānupassanā  - Observation of Citta
IV. Dhammānupassanā -  Observation of Dhammas.

The "Kāyānupassanā " section has 6 sub sections.

A. Ānāpāna Pabba              - Section on ānāpāna
   B. Iriyāpatha Pabba           - Section on postures
   C. Sampajāna Pabba            - Section on sampajañña
   D. Paṭikūlamanasikāra Pabba   - Section on repulsiveness
   E. Dhātumanasikāra Pabba      - Section on the Elements
   F. Navasivathika Pabba        - Section on the nine charnel grounds

The 32 part body meditation is relate to section D.E.& F.-

To get a idea some extracts are shown bellow. but it is recommend to read from beginning.

... Furthermore, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu considers this very body, from the soles of the feet up and from the hair on the head down, which is delimited by its skin and full of various kinds of impurities: "In this kāya, there are the hairs of the head, hairs of the body, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, stomach with its contents, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, nasal mucus, synovial fluid and urine."

...Just as if, bhikkhus, there was a bag having two openings and filled with various kinds of grain,.....

Furthermore, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu reflects on this very kāya, however it is placed, however it is disposed: "In this kāya, there is the earth element, the water element, the fire element and the air element."  ...

Furthermore, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, just as if he was seeing a dead body, cast away in a charnel ground, one day dead, or two days dead or three days dead, swollen, bluish and festering, he considers this very kāya: "This kāya also is of such a nature, it is going to become like this, and is not free from such a condition ...

  The method of practicing is given as ..     Thus he dwells observing kāya in kāya internally, or he dwells observing kāya in kāya
  externally, or he dwells observing kāya in kāya internally and
  externally; he dwells observing the samudaya of phenomena in kāya, or
  he dwells observing the passing away of phenomena in kāya, or he
  dwells observing the samudaya and passing away of phenomena in kāya;
  or else, [realizing:] "this is kāya!" sati is present in him, just to
  the extent of mere ñāṇa and mere paṭissati, he dwells detached, and
  does not cling to anything in the world. Thus, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu
  dwells observing kāya in kāya.


How often do monks get nocturnal emissions? I am practicing celibacy from last 6 months. I cannot control my nocturnal emissions. I have some control but not complete control. In the beginning I used to get wet dreams every 10-12 days and now I get them every 45-50 days. I have extremely pure thoughts all day long. I don't think that I'll ever get sexual thought again. I believe that I have trained my mind very well. One the nights when the emission happens I don't have any erotic dreams, it happens without any sexual thought or an erotic dream.

I practise Halassana & Balasana every day without fail. I also do physical activity running mainly. Why am I still not able to control wet dreams? I want to get rid of them completely.

I researched a lot on the web but couldn't find any satisfactory answer for the following questions:

Do all monks get nocturnal emissions? How often does it happen to them especially young monks age around 24-25? If it happens to them, what do they do about it? If it doesn't then, how does they train themselves to reach that level?

Note: I am new to this site so don't know what would be the appropriate tags for the question so kindly edit if they are not suitable.
If the question is not appropriate for the site, instead of downvoting it, let me know via comment, I will take it down myself.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having nocturnal emissions. It's a completely natural physiological function.

I even dare to say that nocturnal emissions should happen in young and healthy males. If you'd have no emissions, it would mean that you have too low testosterone, testicular disease or other problems.

You say you have no "impure" thoughts, therefore there is no reason for you to feel regret or remorse. Quite the opposite, be grateful that your body is healthy and working well.

Please, don't worry about it. Many ascetics are too harsh on themselves and are trying to stop their desires or bodily functions by practising extreme fasting or some even emasculate themselves. These things are extreme and quite opposite to the Middle Path which Buddha taught. Don't damage yourself, be compassionate to yourself.

On the other hand, there is another extremity, which is the commitment to sensual pleasures, but I think it's not your case.

Peace


Of the two extremes (eternalism vs nihilism) the latter is more harmful. Reference? A common teaching in Mahayana is that of the two extremes it is better to fall into eternalism rather than nihilism. This advice is given by many Mahayana or Middle Way teachers. I'm looking for Sutra references for this teaching or earliest known exposition of this teaching.

I'm tagging this Mahayana as I know this is a Mahayana teaching, but if anyone could find references in the Pali Canon I would be very happy for you to share it :)

Please don't use the question as a means to argue with the teaching... just looking for references.

I'm not sure what's meant by "eternalism"; but quoting from the Pali canon again, in The Truth of Rebirth: And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice is a passage which says that "mundane right view" (i.e. belief in rebirth) is better or safer than an annihilationst view:

  So it is with all of our actions. Given that we have to wager one way or another all the time on how to find happiness, the Buddha stated that it's a safer wager to assume that actions bear results that can affect not only this lifetime but also lifetimes after this than it is to assume the opposite.

  In MN 60, for instance, he pointed out that anyone who adheres to the annihilationist view espoused by Ajita Kesakambalin would not be expected to avoid unskillful behavior, whereas those who hold to the opposite — mundane right view — would be expected to avoid unskillful behavior. Then he said of the first group:

    "With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is no next world, then — with the breakup of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is the next world, then this venerable person — with the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans [who assert the existence of the next world], this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a doctrine of non-existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad throw twice: in that he is criticized by the observant here-&-now, and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the skillful."

    — MN 60

  As for the second group — those who hold to mundane right view and act on it — he said this:

    "With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is the next world, then this venerable person — with the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the observant here-&-now, and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & well adopted by him, covers both sides and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful."

    — MN 60

  These arguments don't prove the efficacy of action or the truth of rebirth, but they do show that it is a safer, more reasonable, and more honorable policy to assume the truth of these teachings than it would be to assume otherwise. The Buddha didn't press these arguments beyond that point. In other words, he left it to his listeners to decide whether they wanted to recognize that action is an investment that, like all investments, incurs risks. And he left it to them to decide how they wanted to calculate the risks and potentials that action might involve now and into the future. He didn't ask that his listeners all commit themselves to an unquestioning belief in the possibility that their actions might lead to rebirth, but he wasn't interested in teaching anyone who rejected that possibility outright. As we've already noted, he saw that heedfulness lay at the root of all skillful qualities. If a listener couldn't be persuaded to develop an appropriate level of heedfulness around the risks of action, any further teaching would be a waste of time.


What is a Vajrasattva? I recently heard the term Vajrasattva and wondered if that is another term for a Bodhisattva?  How does the Vajrasattva path differ from the path of a Bodhisattva?

Vajrasattva is a specific bodhisattva, not another word for "bodhisattva." In esoteric traditions Vajrasattva is invoked as a counter measure to unwholesome actions. Esoteric traditions, and Tibetan traditions in particular, have elaborate explanations for the mechanics of karma+vipaka, and Vajrasattva is used as one of the opponent powers of confessing misdeeds. The general idea is that strong enough opposition to harmful deeds performed can circumvent the ripening of "bad karma" and prevent the formation of harmful habits and lower rebirths.


If there is no self, why do anything? My limited understanding of Buddhism has already helped me in many ways and I am very glad to have found it.

With that said, I have always wondered about this title question. If there is no 'I', then why do 'I' do anything? If we can consider ourselves to be just part of everything else, where does the motivation to do anything come from? Surely we admit that there is a self whenever we perform an action (and thus reveal a motivation that must have originated from a self). If there truly is no self, surely we would all just freeze motionless, die and return to nothingness.

Apologies if this is an ignorant question. I am still feeling my way around this whole concept.

It essentially doesn't change anything. If you look hard, that "I" was always an illusion. No matter where you try to draw a boundary - it is artificial:

Does the body belong to the self or not? How about that constant flow of matter and energy in and out - at what point does it even belong to the body?
Do thoughts belong to the self or not? You are hopefully aware how much of your thoughts are triggered by others, or even just repeat outside influences. Often they are even rationalizations of what you just did for other reasons.
Do feelings belong to the self or not? Much of these are determined by past experiences, your situation, even medications, weather, food.

So, to keep up this delusion of an "I" separate from the rest of the world requires carefully ignoring all things saying otherwise, which is stressful, even harmful to keep up. If you let that drop away, you'll function as you always did, but with loads of more peace. Don't worry - if this body is hungry it will eat, no matter whether you create such mental complications around that process - or not.


From Buddhas point of view, is what is common called preaching unskillful not benefical? Food for thought:

It's in modern or western world common regarded and even broadly taught that such as preaching, in more dhammic words, giving a sermon, is unskillful, not the way Dhamma is taught.

Now my person like to ask if that actually is really true?

Is preaching to be regarded as the wrong way?
If not generally, where would be the point that preaching, teaching, giving a sermon might turn out to be not of use (either for giver nor for receiver)?
What might be a possible "psychological" reason, or cultural reason for aversion in regard of sermons?
Under which circumstances a possible gift turns out to be a kind of red flag?

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

"Preaching" in the sense of "proselytizing" is kind of unpopular among Buddhists (see also How are Buddhists supposed to spread Buddhism?).
In the suttas I think that the Buddha tended to teach people who asked him a question or people who challenged him (and didn't try to impose his views on strangers), and he often taught by asking questions.

But "preaching" in the sense of "giving dhamma talks" is normal; and (Dhamma) is I think defined as one of the proper topics of speech for a monk.


Is the concept of Gandhabba Brahmanical teaching? Is the concept of Gandhabba Brahmanical teaching?

I just wonder the teaching of Gandhabba is not a Buddhist teaching.

‘But do you know
‘Jānanti pana bhonto—

how an embryo is conceived?’
yathā gabbhassa avakkanti hotī’ti?

‘We do know that, sir.
‘Jānāma mayaṃ, bho—
yathā gabbhassa avakkanti hoti.

An embryo is conceived when these three things come together—the mother and father come together, the mother is in the fertile part of her menstrual cycle, and the spirit being reborn is present.’

Idha mātāpitaro ca sannipatitā honti, mātā ca utunī hoti, gandhabbo ca paccupaṭṭhito hoti; evaṃ tiṇṇaṃ sannipātā gabbhassa avakkanti hotī’ti.

https://suttacentral.net/mn93/en/sujato

From MN 93 (though translated by Sujato, I replaced "spirit being reborn" with "gandhabba"), the sentence in question is:

  An embryo is conceived when these three things come together—the
  mother and father come together, the mother is in the fertile part of
  her menstrual cycle, and the gandhabba is present.’
  Idha mātāpitaro ca sannipatitā honti, mātā ca utunī hoti, gandhabbo ca paccupaṭṭhito hoti; evaṃ tiṇṇaṃ sannipātā gabbhassa avakkanti
  hotī’ti.

Pretty much in Buddhism and Hinduism, Gandharvas are a kind of musician devas . According to the wisdomlib page on Gandharvas:

  A Gandharva (Sanskrit) or Gandhabba (Pali) is one of the lowest
  ranking devas in Buddhist theology. They are classed among the
  Caturmaharajikakayika devas, and are subject to the Great King
  Dhrtarastra, Guardian of the East. Beings are reborn among the
  Gandharvas as a consequence of having practiced the most basic form of
  ethics (Janavasabha sutta, DN.18). It was considered embarrassing for
  a monk to be born in no better birth than that of a gandharva.

  Gandharvas can fly through the air, and are known for their skill as
  musicians. They are connected with trees and flowers, and are
  described as dwelling in the scents of bark, sap, and blossom. They
  are among the beings of the wilderness that might disturb a monk
  meditating alone.

As stated in the Hinduism.SE answer linked by Dhammadhatu in his comment, Kandarpa is another name for Kamadeva, the cupid god of Hinduism, from the wisdomlib page on Kandarpa:

  Kandarpa (कन्दर्प).—Another name for Kāmadeva. Kāmadeva was born of
  the mind of Brahmā and as soon as he was born he turned to Brahmā and
  asked "Kaṃ darpayāmi?" (Whom should I make proud?) So Brahmā gave him
  the name Kaṃdarpa alias Kandarpa.

It doesn't make sense that a Gandharva is present for conception.

It could make sense that cupid (Kandarpa) is present for conception, so this is the first hypothesis from me. Of course, cupid here could be a personification of romantic or sexual passion. So, this could just mean that sexual passion is present.

From the wisdomlib page on Gandharvavivaha or Gandharva marriage, we find:

  Gāndharvavivāha (गान्धर्वविवाह):—The Gāndharva marriage (vivāha).—This
  is a marriage arising out of the voluntary union of a maiden or her
  lover which springs from desire and has sexual intercourse for its
  purpose. It can be compared with the modern love marriage.

Based on the definition above, once again, "Gandharva" being present, could just mean sexual passion being present.

From the wisdomlib page on apagabbha, we read:

  apagabbha : (adj.) (apa + gabbha) not destined to another rebirth; (a
  + pagabbha) not haughty.
  (Source): BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

  Apagabbha, (adj.) (a + pa + gabbha) not entering another womb, i. e.
  not destined to another rebirth Vin.III, 3. (Page 50)
  (Source):
  Sutta: The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary

From this page (quoted from Max Mueller's book "Vinaya Texts"), we see that this comes from the Vinaya, where the Buddha said:

  He who has freed himself, Siha, from the necessity of returning in
  future into a mother's womb, and of being reborn into new existences
  who has rooted out (his being subject to) rebirth, and has done away
  with it, as a palm tree is rooted out, so that it is destroyed and
  cannot grow up again - such a person do I call apagabbha.

So, if "apagabbha" means one who is not destined for descending into a womb, then presumably "pagabbha" means one who is destined for descending into a womb i.e. being to be born. It's possible that "pagabbha" became changed into "gandhabba".

So, these are my two theories:

"Gandhabba being present" just means sexual passion is present.
"Gandhabba being present" was originally "pagabbha being present", meaning the one who is to be born is present.

The second theory originated from Andrei's comment on gabbha.

  ‘But do you know
  ‘Jānanti pana bhonto—

  for sure whether that spirit is an aristocrat, a brahmin, a merchant, or a worker?’
  taggha, so gandhabbo khattiyo vā brāhmaṇo vā vesso vā suddo vā’ti?

This part nullifies the first theory, so we are left with the second i.e. "gandhabba being present" was originally (probably) "pagabbha being present", meaning the one who is to be born is present.

This is probably the same meaning as "sambhavesi" in the Karaniya Metta Sutta which according to the wisdomlib page on sambhavesi means:

  sambhavesī : (m.) one who is seeking birth. || sambhāvesi (aor. of
  sambhāveti), esteemed; honoured; mixed with.
  (Source):
  BuddhaSasana: Concise Pali-English Dictionary

It simply means one who is to be born.

The OP asked whether there is a spirit or soul or being that is born or reborn?

If one answers "yes", that would eternalism. If one answers "no", that would be annihilationism.

According to SN 23.2, there is the definition of "being" as follows:

  As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord.
  'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

  "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
  caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

  "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
  fabrications...

  "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
  when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
  being.'

There is another definition of "being" in SN 5.10:

  Why now do you assume 'a being'?
  Mara, have you grasped a view?
  This is a heap of sheer constructions:
  Here no being is found.

  Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
  The word 'chariot' is used,
  So, when the aggregates are present,
  There's the convention 'a being.'

  It's only suffering that comes to be,
  Suffering that stands and falls away.
  Nothing but suffering comes to be,
  Nothing but suffering ceases.

So, there is a being in Buddhism, but it's not eternal and it is constructed dependent on conditions.

The concept of "rebirth" in Buddhism is simply the continuation of suffering beyond death. There is no eternal person or being or soul or spirit or consciousness or self that dies and is reborn. In fact, it's not even the same being or person or consciousness throughout a single lifetime. It's always changing.

However, looking at the context of the sutta, the Buddha simply wanted to prove that there is no such thing as caste from birth.


Does it make any sense to read the four noble truths parallel to the Buddhaghosa's 4 interpretations of the nidanas The Twelve Nidānas are explained in detail in the Visuddhimagga of
  Buddhaghosa, the central text of the Mahāvihāra commentarial
  tradition. Buddhaghosa recounts four methods to interpret the Twelve
  Nidanas:

Working from "bottom to top",
Working from the "middle to the top",
Working from "top to bottom",
Working from the "middle to the source".

Seems a bit like you might claim these four are in turn the four noble truths in turn

idam dukkham, "this is pain"
ayam dukkha-samudayo, "this is the origin of pain"
ayam dukkha-nirodha, "this is the cessation of pain"
ayam dukkha-nirodha-gamini patipada, "this is the path leading to the cessation of pain"

Has anyone ever claimed this?

Ven. Buddhaghosa himself has said in his book THE PATH OF PURIFICATION (VISUDDHIMAGGA) that 'one's own opinion is the weakest authority of all and should only be accepted if it accords with the Suttas' (DA. 567-68). So far I have not come across such an explanation in the Suttas. So until I come across such an explanation in the Scriptures (Sutta-Vinaya), I’ll have to take it that Ven. Buddhaghosa’s own opinion is the weakest authority of all and should only be accepted if it accords with the Suttas'.

To understand the Four Noble Truths the 4 'foundations of mindfulness’ is there.  The Satipatthāna is there for this purpose. The realization one gets out of it is the understanding of Paticca Samuppāda (dependent origination or the universal law of cause and effect). That is, the ability of seeing things in life according to cause and effect.

The first step toward the Noble Eightfold Path is for one to become faith-devoted – that all the answers are there in the Suttas. One who accepts this path of Dhamma admits that there is suffering of this Samsara. He accepts there exists a cause and effect. He accepts the fact that one needs to be free from suffering. He also accepts that the Supreme Buddha has freed Himself from suffering and the Dhamma can free us from that suffering. He accepts that the disciples (of the Buddha) will have to follow the Dhamma and that there are disciples who have attained the Arahantship by practicing the Dhamma.

In one who comes to these notions, an internal spiritual faculty will be formed. It is a faculty that operates within the mind. This person will come to the Noble Eightfold Path, as this person has accepted the Supreme Buddha, His Dhamma, and His disciple monks wholeheartedly. It is this person who will begin to study the scriptures in earnest. Only then he/she will begin to realize the Paticca Samuppāda gradually.


How to differentiate between natural vs artificial breathing pattern during meditation? When we do a simple observation of breath (in & out) during meditation, how to know if its natural flow I am observing or forced one?

Regards

If your aim is vipassana then what forced the breath? If the breath is forced or not forced that is what is and can just be witnessed mindfuly as it happens. If the breath was seemingly controlled by you, were you in control if you couldn't even tell when you were forcing it or not?

If you just keep watching mindfully then you will see everything is rising and falling constantly while being forced  by nobody.

This tripped me up in the beginning. I was told to let it go because if I was controlling it or not, ultimately I wasn't in control anyway.

  In whatever way objects come, do not try to change them. Whatever comes is the buddha-dharma, not objects at all.  Even if you try to control what comes, it cannot be controlled. -Dogen


Harmlessness as the highest form of generosity? Somewhere I thought it was said that the practice of harmlessness was praised by the Buddha as the greatest form of generosity. (I don't remember where I read this.)

Has anything like this been said in the Buddha's teachings or in any Buddhist texts?

Dhamma-dana, the gift of the noble teachings, is said by the Buddha to excel all other gifts:

The gift of Dhamma excels all gifts; the taste of the Dhamma excels all tastes; the delight in Dhamma excels all delights. The Craving-Freed vanquishes all suffering. ~~ Dhp. 354 ~~


How can fiction writing be best used for achieving enlightenment? It seems that many fiction writers were very wise, including those, who had little or no access to spiritual teachings (e. g. the Strugatsky brothers).

Allegedly, in Japanese culture non-spiritual activities (tea ceremony, archery, calligraphy, martial arts) are being used as tools for spiritual development. I heard some people say that any activity can be used for approaching enlightenment.

If it's true, then fiction writing can be used in the same way as well.

If someone spends a lot of time and energy writing fiction books (they regard it as the most important part of life), what can they do in order to get maximum spiritual benefit from this activity?

I. e. if the enlightenment is the goal, and fiction writing is the engine, what kind of maintenance acts is necessary to reach the goal using that engine?

Notes:

Preferably, it should be concrete advice, ideally with some data supporting it.
Those recommendations should be compatible with (or adaptable to) the Diamond Way Buddhism.

I may not know much about Buddhism, but as I understand it mindfulness is probably the best way to achieve enlightenment.

Essentially, enlightenment is understanding everything, having all the walls torn down in your mind and being open to the oneness of the universe. Thus, in order to understand everything, you have to begin to understand something. You may be in luck, because it looks like you've already found the thing you want to understand.

So, in terms of fiction writing, it's a very artistic pursuit, and something I and many other artists understand is that our work is never complete, never perfect. There's always a way to improve, no matter how good we get. This process of improving one's skills, honing one's talents, reaching ever closer to perfection, is very close to the process of achieving enlightenment. The only difference is that it is very limited in its scope, but I believe even this is only a temporary hurdle.

In my own pursuit of fiction-writing perfection, I've discovered many great and interesting things. In order to make my worlds feel real, I've had to better understand our own world (I'd really recommend looking at Worldbuilding SE). To write better characters, I have to understand the human condition. In general, I've realized that in order to be a perfect writer, I would have to achieve enlightenment; otherwise, anything I write would be lacking in some aspect due to my own inadequacy.

For the most part, I believe this process is natural; people who like doing a thing naturally want to get better at it, and getting better at pretty much anything will naturally lead to getting better at other things. But I would also say that being aware of this process from the start is much easier than figuring it out on your own.

So my suggestion to you is to just be aware of your art, and what it is, and how it is linked to everything else. Never stop trying to improve, and never limit yourself; always be open to new concepts, new ideas, and new ways to get better.


When do I realize that I am free from rebirth? By following the Buddha's Path, when will I realize that I am free from rebirth and suffering? Is there any indication or sign ? Does one knows it at one's death bed?

From Milindapanha:

  The king said, “Is there anyone who is not reborn
  after death?”
   “Yes there is. The one who has no defilements is not
  reborn after death; the one who has defilements is reborn.”
   “Will you be reborn?”
   “If I die with attachment in my mind, yes; but if not,
  no.”

...

  He who is reborn, Nàgasena, is he the
  same person or another?”
  “Neither the same nor another.

...

  “Is the man who will not be reborn aware of the fact?”
  “Yes, O king.”
  “How does he know it?”
  “By the cessation of all that is cause or condition of
  rebirth. As a farmer who does not plough or sow or reap
  would know that his granary is not getting filled up.”

...

  What is it, Nàgasena, that is reborn?”
  “Mind and matter (namarupa).”
  “Is it this very mind and matter that is reborn?”
  “No, it is not, but by this mind and matter deeds are
  done and because of those deeds another mind and matter
  is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released
  from the results of its previous deeds.

...

  “Does he who will not be reborn feel any painful
  feeling?”
  “He may feel physical pain, O king, but not mental
  pain.”
  “If he feels painful feelings then why doesn’t he just
  die and attain the extinction of grasping, and put an end to
  suffering?”
  “The arahant has no fondness for or aversion to life...

...

  “Will you, Nàgasena, be reborn?”
  “What is the use of asking that question again? Have
  I not already told you that if I die with attachment in my
  mind I shall be reborn, if not I shall not.”

...

  “Would he who is about to be reborn know it?”
  “Yes he would, just as a farmer who puts seed into the
  ground, seeing it rain well, would know that a crop will be
  produced.”

So, do you feel that you still have attachments, mental or emotional? That's how you know.


Is it possible to experience powerful sensations, such as orgasm, without getting attached to it? I used orgasm as an example because it is usually the strongest sensation one can feel due to everything involved and all the chemistry released in the body.

Also, I would say that sexual activity and drinking are probably the two biggest challenges one has to overcome when following the 8 precepts for weeks or months.

So, can one feel it without attachments?!

Ostensibly, yes, I can't imagine why it wouldn't be technically possible for the body to trigger an orgasm without any kind of mental attachment. Of course, it may be that there is some necessary mental trigger involved, but I doubt that is true.

In the vinaya there are several cases that seem to suggest involuntary (physical) sexual arousal involving heat and motion; it seems reasonable to suggest that certain conditions could result in an involuntary ejaculation.

Simpler would be the case where one was intending to bring about an orgasm but then suddenly became mindful, only to find that it was too late (the point being that any attachment created would be in relation to the prior stimulation, not the orgasm itself).

Either way, it is important to clarify that intentionally bringing about an orgasm for the purpose of pleasure invariably leads to the cultivation of attachment.

Incidentally, IIRC, this is one of the issues that led to a split in the sangha, though I can't remember which one. One group thought that the fact that arahants can still experience orgasms meant that they were still not free from defilements; the other claimed that the orgasms were just physical processes with no mental counterpart.


what happens to the mind during meditation? l experienced stopping of thoughts comes to the mind at a point  and starts again.During that time my breathing has completely stopped.it is like mind has stopped for a moment.could that be possible?

This experience is called Asanna in Buddhist meditation. (see no 22 in the link)
Please make sure you practice this meditation in conjunction with Vipassana meditation.It also advisable to practice meditation in conjunction with Noble Eightfold Path.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html


What is Vibhava Tanha? What is Vibhava Tanha?
What is the destination (rebirth) of a person with Vibhaba Tanha?
Is the view non-existence considered Vibhava Tanha?
What is the Sutta reference relating to this teaching?
Why the desire for Nibbana is not considered Vibhava Tanha?

Vibhava Tanha is simply the craving for an experience to go away or end. Ex: When you are meditating, if pain arises in the legs or back and if you are unmindful(ignorant), disliking will arise. This results in wanting the pain to go away. This wanting is Vibhava Tanha.

On a broader scale,  craving for annihilation after death is also Vibhava Tanha. But the view that everything ends after death is not the craving itself. That comes under Micca Dhitti. This view can give rise to Vibhava Tanha.

Craving for Nibbana can be either Bhava Tanha or Vibhava Tanha depending on your false view of Nibbana. If you think of it as a status to achieve or a land/heaven to enter or a state of bliss, those false views can cause Bhava Tanha. If you think of it as nothingness or emptiness or end of a being, those false views can cause Vibhava Tanha.

But just like how the suffering of pain does not end by craving for it to end, Nibbana(end of all suffering) cannot be reached by craving for it. When pain arises in the body, if you practice mindfulness instead of wishing for it to go away, the suffering will stop regardless of if the pain is still there or not. This is a mild realization of the Four Noble Truths. When this realization becomes matured and all-encompassing, all suffering will cease.

Destination of Vibhava Tanha is obviously a lower realm of existence or a state of misery.


Why Do Moments of Mindlessness Occur? I noticed that at key moments, such as when I am using social media in a passive way, or when I am between tasks in daily life, I tend to enter a kind of 'habitual' mode of being. On social media I click aimlessly around, almost compulsively. In my house, I just walk around without much planning or purpose.

What could cause such mindless behaviour?

I am also wondering whether merely paying close attention to lapses in attentiveness and to distracted moments can ultimately lead to the elimination of such habitual behaviours.

In short, the five hindrances disrupt mindfulness.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_hindrances

Also related to the five hindrances are the general defilements (kilesas), which also hinders mindfulness.

  I am also wondering whether merely paying close attention to lapses in attentiveness and to distracted moments can ultimately lead to the elimination of such habitual behaviours.

It’s a good start. However, one needs to purposely commit to the entire eightfold noble path in order to completely eliminate those behaviors.


Mindfullness or Self Consciousness (Introvert's Struggle) I am trying to achieve consciousness and that is my target to achieve it,...

I am struck in Strange State .. as Bruce lee said, in Enter The Dragon:

Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Dont concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory

This dialogue describes my mind state exactly, and i want to overcome this state..

So, i am stuck in a state, which is high self-consciousness state, and i feel stuck when i am going to do something in group of people or alone, i feel everyone is watching me, and i am literally freezing, and i dont know what to do next..

example: when i am opening a door, a thought strucks me, like my mind shift towards some body is watching me, or something gets reminded to me, and i cant move in the intended direction of what i want to do...

Any help regarding how to overcome this is greatly appreciated...

It is not clear if you are doing some formal practice; if you do it regularly, you are likely to see the conditions more clear and learn to deal with them. The best is to do a retreat.

In the usual forms of vipassana  (Mahasi & similar I am familar with), you have an anchor (breathing, walking) and when something else comes to your mind (through the 6 sense doors -- western 5 senses plus mind, which includes thoughts, feelings, states of mind etc), you acknowledge/label/note/name what happened and come back to the anchor. This way you learn to (a) see what is there (b) let it go and come back to the anchor. Both points (a) and (b) are important; that's how you learn to deal with whatever happens.

In fact, various states of mind such as frozen, switched-off or dissociated are common. If you find yourself in a stuck state, you can use the "stuck" label to acknowledge that state, and come back. If you find yourself you want to get rid of that state (as you say), acknowledge that wanting and come back. The feeling of being watched is also a feeling you should acknowledge.

When you follow a condition (which the mind does automatically when you don't acknowledge it), you see that a whole drama unfolds: first you notice the stuckness, then you dislike it, then you want to get rid of it, then you perhaps remember that it happened many times and you get frustrated or desperate, then you think what you've done wrong so that it does not disappear, maybe you think there is something wrong with you in general etc etc. That is endless. Acknowledge it as soon as you can, as quickly as you can, and let it go. See what comes next. That's the practice, always coming back to the present.


Does the effect make its cause? Does a cause depend on its effect? If so then it seems especially difficult to think about nothingness being made or created.

This is almost the exact opposite of a question I have asked recently (I'm locked out and looking into that), but not quite.

It's usually said that the cause does depend on the cause, in some way

  Nāgārjuna argues that cause and effect cannot be substantially
  distinct. This is because the effect depends existentially on the
  cause (if the cause did not exist the effect would not exist) and
  cause depends at least notionally on the effect (if there was no
  effect the cause would not be called “cause”). The kind of
  independence demanded by substantial existence, by existence by
  svabhāva, is simply not available for things which are cause and
  effect.

But what this notional dependence means I'm not totally sure.

I'm not asking about nothingness, and am not saying that sunyata is nothingness! That could only be the case if the absolute truth is that nothing exists.

Cause and effect are mutually dependent like father and son. If there is no son there is no father, and if no father then no son.

In this way Nagarjuna proves the non-existence of these things except as appearance/emptiness.

He explains that the cause cannot exist prior to the effect, the effect cannot exist prior to the cause and they cannot come into existence simultaneously. Ergo, it's all smoke and mirrors.


Is it true that there are 5 principal types of meditations? According to some there are 5 principal types of meditations:

Metta-Bhavana
Karuna-Bhavana
Mudita Bhavana
Asubha Bhavana
Upekka Bhavana

I couldn't find any link which could support the above mentioned meditation theory.

So my questions are:

Is it true that there are 5 principal types of Meditations?

Can anyone provide me the original links where Buddha lays down the above mentioned 5 types of meditation?

Yes and no: i.e., "Yes, there are 5"; and, "No, there are more than 5".

4 of the ones you listed are to bring into being what are known as the 4 "Brahma-viharas" (of which, metta-bhavana may be the most famous).

I'm not sure that types of meditation are detailed in the suttas (some are). Various types may be detailed in more detail in the 5th century Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga). If I were looking for references to them in the suttas I think I'd start search by searching in accesstoinsight.org (searching for "Brahma-viharas" and/or "metta" and so on).

The fifth one, Asubha, is meant as an antidote to lust: and so, for example, it's contemplation of the foulness of the body (e.g. the Asubha Sutta, and one of the meditation types mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta).

Other principal types include meditation intended for insight, concentration, mindfulness, tranquility, detachment. They're named things like "Vipassana", and "Anapanasati" (Anapanasati Sutta)

Samana Johann linked to a reference which lists "40 types" (in reply to another question of yours).

The ones I've listed are from Theravada (Mahayana may have others).


Who said "cease to do evil learn to do good purify the heart"? Who said this as a complete description of the Buddhist path

Cease to do evil
Learn to do good
Purify the heart

I thought it was Bodhidharma but I can't find the exact reference for the quote. Many Thanks.


How much merit is lost if we miss chanting for a few days? If we stop chanting a Mahayana mantra/dharani for a few days how does this effect the gathering of merits?

Is it a cumulative effect or multiplicative effect of chanting?

Or worse, does missing a chanting session reset the good merit?

Isn't this like any other meditation object, with vitaka and vicara the strength and sincerity of effort increases. To gauge sincerity, I rely on the generation of piti during recitation. No piti, no cookie.

I'd assume a single sincerely uttered mantra is worth more than a thousand mantras uttered as habit. I'd also expect to become the feeling or the emotion the mantra intends to generate.

If a sutta were located that offered the precise formula for the question you pose, would you trust it? How can it be verified? Unless there is a giant merit counter in the sky, how can we know for sure? It can become spiritual materialism like prayer wheel spinning.

The Buddha spoke of jhanas, and mindfulness, but he didn't say much about mantras. I can verify the prolonged or even permanent transformative efficacy of the former, but the efficacy of the latter beyond the immediate is less clear to my mind.


On Vipassana: Focus on feeling sensations VS Focus on describing sensations through words I have noticed that there are perhaps two main different approaches to experiences/sensations in vipassana.

One of them (e.g. Mahasi Sayadaw) describes experiences/sensations through words:

Mahasi Sayadaw, Kenneth Folk, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu: pick a word that describes the experience accurately

The other (e.g. Goenka) asks to focus entirely on the experience/sensations:

Goenka: Feel the sensation. Not visualize, not name it, but feel it.

At the retreats of Goenka, in one evening talk, he explicitly says that there is a misunderstanding. That is, the Buddha meant not to name experiences/sensations but to feel them.

So the questions are:

how relevant is this difference?
Is there any relevant consequence/effect/repercusion on our progress if we decide, say, to describe with words rather than focusing on the experience, or the otherway around?

Answers with references are strongly appreciated.

Texts are all over the place about this.

For instance, one school of thought criticizes our tendency to conceptualize our experience, at the expense of actually experiencing the thing -- and says this is us sleep-walking through life (the dream is the conceptual template we overlay on experience).  For instance, I encounter a tree, think "this is a tree" and never actually see the thing before me.  This would seem to imply that labeling during mindfulness is a repetition of this mistake.

Another school of thought sees the labeling as a way to step outside of the experience, to not get sucked into it.

So who is right?

It depends.

The issue here is not getting pulled in by attachment and habitual reactions.  While these are a function of conceptualization, they are a function of a specific type of conceptualization.

For instance, if someone does something I dislike, and I conceptualize this person as a "jerk", I likely have a strong reaction to this, and am falling into the same attachment (aversions) that have caused me so much pain.

On the other hand, if I experience a reaction of aversion towards the way this person treated me, but start labeling the components my experience as Skhandas, then I'm effectively deconstructing the experience and undermining attachment in the process.

On the other other hand, if I watch the experience as it is, then I can be with the sensations without the problematic concepts.

So really, there is no right or wrong answer; the key is whether your technique takes you out of the conceptual trap that keeps you attached to the phenomena or reinforces it.  In this case, it's about fighting fire with fire (concepts with concepts) or fire with water (concepts with bare sensations).

The upshot is that you don't have the luxury of treating anyone as an authority, but have to see how you respond, and decide on the most effective method.


What is Nirvana (mahayana)? ...as per the title.

In the Theravada literature, the Buddha is seen as someone who found an end to suffering and taught that for all his life, urging his disciples to apply themselves to it, to not waste the opportunity and regret later.

While there are many interpretations of what exactly is Nirvana in this tradition (and what is/is-not a tathagata after death etc), it's perhaps universally accepted by it's adherents that embarking on this doctrine culminates in the permanent cessation of suffering. Some may speculate or say more about Nirvana, but others might be silent and not add anything that the texts don't say.

But what about Mahayana's Nirvana?

Is it the same same? Or is it more elaborated, like a realm where beings (Buddhas?) actually live?
Does it have the same requirements as the Theravada nirvana (e.g. elimination of the ten fetters, realization of four noble truths & dependent origination)?

Warning: To not make it too long, I avoided quotes. In addition, this is merely a summary. Just like with Theravada, there are interpretations. Since I present things in a traditional way, please do not take it personal when I seem to despise so-called Hinayana tenets or practices.

We say that a Hinayana arhat still has limitations, obstacles that prevent him from achieving the welfare of others as well as his own. On the other hand, a [fully enlightened] buddha abandoned all obstacles and thus is able to achieve the welfare of others, and achieved his own. This is because there are two obscurations that a buddha has abandoned:

Afflictive obscurations
Knowledge obscurations

Since a Hinayana arhat has uprooted ignorance - the root of samsara - he has abandoned afflictive obscurations. This is because ignorance, anger, desire, etc. are afflictive obscurations, and once the root has been abandoned, all the other afflictions  as well. However, a Hinayana arhat has not abandoned knowledge obscurations. Only a buddha has abandoned both obscurations.

There are four divisions of nirvana but I will speak of two. A Hinayana arhat achieved abiding nirvana. We also call it 'individual liberation' or 'solitary peace.' We say that this abiding nirvana is the extreme of peace. According to Asanga's Bodhisattvabhumi and other texts, after some time, the buddhas wake them up from their blissful individual liberation and tell them that more is to be done.

A buddha abides neither in the extreme of peace (abiding nirvana), nor the extreme of samsara. He achieved a non-abiding nirvana. He has abandoned the two obscurations and is, in this sense, beyond limitations. Therefore, he is able to benefit all sentient beings.

The way to abandon afflictive obscurations is by generating the wisdom of emptiness. Different Mahayna tenets posit emptiness differently, but they all posit the two selflessness: emptiness of person and emptiness of phenomena. As the Heart Sutra puts it:

  Phenomena also are empty.

The way to abandon knowledge obscuration is by having the wisdom of emptiness conjoined with Bodhicitta. By generating spontaneous bodhicitta, one enters the Mahayana path of accumulation. On the Mahayana path of seeing, the wisdom of emptiness is conjoined with bodhicitta. When wisdom is imbued with bodhicitta, the mind becomes powerful and vast enough to abandon knowledge obscuration. We often refer to the following analogy:
The wisdom of emptiness is like an axe cutting through the two obscurations, while bodhicitta is a strong arm. Without bodhicitta, one's arm is not strong enough and can not abandon the two obscurations, thus achieving buddhahood. A Hinayana arhat has abandoned afflictive obscurations, but since he did not generate bodhicitta, he has not abandoned knowledge obscuration.

There are two divisions of knowledge obscurations:

The imprints of ignorance, and
The appearance of true existence that is caused by the imprints of ignorance.

Only a buddha is free from the appearance of true existence. Therefore, when a conventionality appears to a buddha, it does not appear together with the appearance of true existence and he realizes both truths simultaneously and with the very same mind: the omniscient mind of a buddha. On the other hand, whenever a conventionality appears to a sentient being (i.e. a non-buddha), it appears together with the appearance of true existence. Consequently, a sentient being cannot realize the two truths directly and simultaneously.

The omniscient mind of a buddha (the wisdom truth body dharmakaya):

Directly realizes the two truths, simultaneously
Is free from conceptualization, and unmistaken
Knows all existent, past, present and future

In addition, according to Mahayana, a buddha obtained the four bodies (kayas). There are ways of dividing the kayas into two, three, four, or five but we generally speak of four. A buddha has a mental body that is seen only by Mahayana aryas and that teaches them only the Mahayana Dharma. It is called Enjoyment body (Sambhogakāya). A buddha has body that is seen even by ordinary beings and this is the Emanation body (Nirmanakaya). We say that Shakyamuni Buddha was a supreme emanation body because he taught he possessed the 32 marks and the 80 signs. A buddha has an omniscient mind that we call "wisdom truth body". It gives birth to the teachings that emanate from it, like the rays of the sun emanate from the sun. It is by emanating in this way that he benefits all sentient beings (even though not all sentient beings interact with his teachings, but that is another subject of debate.)


What does "intention" mean? I see two Pali words which are translated into English as "intention":

Cetanā used in the definition of karma
Sankappa used in the definition of the Noble Eightfold Way.

Do these two words mean exactly the same thing? If not, what is the difference?

Cetana is executed by action, speech and thinking.

Samma Sankappa - Right Thinking
Samma Vaca - Right Speech
Samma Kammantha - Right Action

So the difference is Cetana includes speech and action where as Sankappa by itself only includes thinking.

Please note that "Right" here is explained properly by Samma Ditti and doesn't mean right action in general sense (eg. Teaching, Nursing).


How should satipatthana be understood in regard to external/internal minds? "In this way he remains focused internally on the mind in & of itself, or externally on the mind in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the mind in & of itself. (Thanissaro)

How should the fragment above be understood and practiced in detail, in particular, considering the last two alternatives: externally and internally/externally?

Here is a short quote from an article on BuddhaNet called "The Vipassana Retreat - The Six Sense-spheres". In here it's talked about how internally and externally should be understood.

The Vipassana Retreat

The Six Sense-spheres

The teaching of the sense-spheres is to be found in the Contemplation of Mind (dhammanupassana) in the text we are following: the Satipatthana Sutta, which by now is familiar to you as the Four Establishments of Mindfulness.
After each section in the text in the Satipathana Sutta, you will find this passage: "In this way he abides contemplating the body as a body (or feelings, mind states and mental phenomena) internally, externally, and both internally and externally". What does this mean? It means that the focus of one's attention changes from the subjective (internal) to the objective (external) and by "both" is meant the understanding of the interrelationship or interdependence.
The focus of the practice so far has been mainly introspective; now the watchfulness or attentiveness can be expanded to include the external as well. That is, the attention is switched from the subjective to the objective. This is done by orientating to the sense-spheres, which are about the relationship between oneself and the outer world. Practising both internal and external satipatthanas can prevent self-absorption, and achieve a skilled balanced between introversion and extroversion.
The importance of contemplation of the sense-spheres is that it directs awareness to the six “internal” and “external” sense-spheres and the fetters (samyojana) arising in dependence on them. Although a fetter arises dependent on sense and object, the attaching nature of such a fetter should not be attributed to the senses or objects themselves, but to the influence of the hankering pull of desire (tanha)...

The article says further on how to make an orientation to a sense-door:

Orientation to a Sense-door
To make an orientation to a sense-door, you start by literally coming to your senses - seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and smelling. These are the five sense-doors or sense bases; the 'sixth sense' is 'consciousness of something', which is the mind-base with its eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc. You also need to be aware of the senses internally as well as externally. That is, the organs and their sense objects: nose/smell, tongue/taste, body/tactile objects, ear/sound, mind/mind-objects or consciousness.
Attentiveness or 'presence of mind' at one of the sense-doors during a sense impression is the way to practice. For example, most people are predominantly visual, so being attentive at the eye-door allows you to notice the effects of the contact between the eye and the visible objects and how you are relating to them.
The process is this: there is the eye (the internal base), and a visible object (the external base). With contact or a sense impression between the sense-door and external object, consciousness arises followed by feeling. The moment of consciousness ordinarily is too rapid to catch while the feeling tone can be more easily known and apprehended.
This orientation to a sense-door brings awareness of what is happening during the moment of contact or the sense impression, and with it the ability to monitor the associated feelings and consciousness that arises. When this feeling tone is apprehended, the link to liking and disliking is broken and therefore one is free at that moment from conditioned suffering.

Here is a quote from the Wiki on the 6 sense bases:

Ṣaḍāyatana (Sanskrit) or saḷāyatana (Pāli) means the six sense bases (Pāli, Skt.: āyatana), that is, the sense organs and their objects. These are:
Eye and Vision
Ear and Hearing
Nose and Olfaction
Tongue and Taste
Skin and Touch
Mind and Thought
That is, in Buddhism, the sixth "internal" and "external" sense bases are: mind (Skt., manas; Pali, mano); and, thought (along with memory and emotion) (Skt., dharma; Pali, dhamma).
Ṣaḍāyatana is the fifth link in the Twelve Nidānas of Pratitya-Samutpada (Dependent Origination) and thus likewise in the fifth position on the Bhavacakra (Wheel of Becoming). Ṣaḍāyatana (Sense Gates) is dependent on Nāmarūpa (Name and Form) as condition before it can exist.


Is the true self reborn? In Mahayana Buddhism, is it the true self that is reborn, or is it the empirical self?
I tend to see it described as if it's just the latter, but then if I am my true self, then doesn't that equate to annihilationism and nihilism?

There is no rebirth or reincarnation in the sense that the soul takes on a new body (rebirth / reincarnation) after death. (In Sinhala Punarupathi)

In Buddhism conception which is the continuation of the Bhava from end of the previous life (death) in the cycle of Samsara. (Punarbhava)

In other words this is a process in which there are events like birth and death. In the light that there is no everlasting unchanging core this is not a rebirth as it is not the person from the previous existence nor it is a entirely different being, but just the continuous flow of the process of becoming.

Continuation of a core entity (rebirth / reincarnation) is a Hindu concept. Buddhist concept is the continuation of the process.

Since there is a continuation (of the process), all doesn't end with death.

The confusion about rebirth is due to rebirth being used in Buddhist translation due to the limitations of the vocabulary and there is no better world to use.

(I am not sure if this fits into the Maha Yana take on the matter. )


Is there an end to the suffering in general? Buddha said that Nirvana is an end to the suffering of an individual.
However if we think from a larger perspective, there is no end to the suffering as a whole. The world will get created again and new Buddha will or will not arise to help us escape the suffering. There were Buddhas in the past and there will be many Buddhas in the future but so has the suffering manifested in the past and will manifest in the future.

My question is: Is it possible to envisage an end to the suffering, absolutely for all, for ever?

Yes and no. To be is to suffer. Our desire to be is what keeps us on the round of rebirth. Nibbana will come to every being just not all at the same time(Vast time). That's what I've heard from various teachers.

We mix our individual truth up with the truth of society and until we can see the difference we have no business trying to fix society as we seek while ourselves we are broken.  Our business is to fix ourselves then fix society one individual at a time. The society of the entire universe.

So, imho,  I think you should tend to the universe of mind and body, moment by moment instead of the "business as usual", blurry truth of the world.


Understanding beginningless I often see the word beginning-less in Buddhist readings and on this site but how do I try to understand this concept being the ignorant human being I am?

Is it just a metaphorical way to describe a very long time?
Is it like the saying which came first: the egg or the chicken in which the answer ‘doesn’t matter’ since they’re both here in the now?
Or is it what we experience is an illusion created from our ignorance therefore there is no real beginning.

Scientists say our universe is roughly about 13.8 billion years old so there is probably a beginning? I am not accepting they are correct but not denying the fact either.

I feel like when people use the word beginning-less, they are using it as an excuse to explain something that is “unexplainable” because how can something be beginning-less?Is it futile to try to grasp this concept? Or if this concept is understandable what can I do to see this?

I have not read the term "beginningless" in the Pali suttas, which refers to a "beginningless beginning", similar to chicken vs egg.

The Pali suttas use the phrase: "without discoverable beginning", which means a first occasion cannot be discerned.

  Bhikkhus, this is said: ‘A first point of ignorance, bhikkhus, is not seen such that before this there was no ignorance and afterward it
  came into being.’ AN 10.61

  Bhikkhus, this saṃsara is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by
  ignorance and fettered by craving. SN 22.99

In other words, "ignorance", for example, is the present 1st cause for the manifestation of suffering. Here, Buddhism does not attempt to answer the question: "What came before or what causes ignorance?". This is why the term: "without knowable beginning" is not analogous to the chicken vs egg scenario. The Pali suttas are saying: "It is not knowable when ignorance 1st began or what caused it however ignorance exists in the present moment that causes suffering".

Therefore, Buddhism does not affirm or deny the 'physical universe' (which is not the meaning of 'samsara') may have had a beginning, such as the Big Bang (despite the illogicalness of the Big Bang theory).


Difference between Buddhist and materialist views of no self? This question follows from a discussion on the materialist, scientific reductionist understanding of no self, and was posted in a comment:

  In what way does the materialist view differ from Buddhism on the
  discussion of self?

Similarities

Both Buddhist and materialist/scientific-reductionist schools refute the notion of a self, an atman, an eternal, unchanging soul. Both schools understand the most obvious meaning of anatta:

  the lack of a permanent, unitary, and independent person.

Furhermore, Buddhism asserts that the body is constituted by way of material elements, and that a person is made up of the five aggregates. And similarly, a materialist, scientific reductionist understanding posits (quote):

  That people can be viewed as a composite of sub-atomic particles
  governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. We learn in elementary
  and middle school about caloric intake, cellular division (mitosis and
  meiosis), evolution, genetics and epigenetics which all make it
  trivial to ascertain that the person is thoroughly non-permanent,
  non-unitary, and dependent.

Differences?

It appears Wikipedia tells us that the difference between Buddhist and materialist views on no self lies in karma and rebirth:

  Buddha criticized the materialistic annihilationism view that denied
  rebirth and karma, states Damien Keown.[46] Such beliefs are
  inappropriate and dangerous, stated Buddha, because they encourage
  moral irresponsibility and material hedonism.[46] Anatta does not mean
  there is no afterlife, no rebirth or no fruition of karma, and
  Buddhism contrasts itself to annihilationist schools.

But I'm not sure whether this quote is accurate, or a misunderstanding

If Buddhist and materialist schools share the same view on the most obvious meaning of anatta (quoted above),
then what distinguishes the Buddhist view from the materialist view on no self?
Is there a not-so-obvious meaning of anatta which materialist/scientific reductionist schools fail to understand?

Apart from what you have mentioned,  materialists usually think that the mind is a byproduct of the brain. In other words, electrical traces stored in neurons. This is not the case in Buddhism. Brain is a concept according to Buddhism. The reality is fundamentally grouped into 2 categories: the mental(Nama) and the physical(Rupa).

The four noble truths hold true at all times regardless of what one believes. But one is not able to attain enlightenment, if one holds to the view that all mental activities end at death. This belief is called Saggawarana & Maggawarana:  conceals the path to heavens and conceals the path to enlightenment.

Here's a related answer by ven.Yuttadhammo.


In AN 4.171, what is "reincarnation where the intention of others is effective"? Bhikkhu Sujato's translation of AN 4.171 says:

  Mendicants, there are four kinds of reincarnation. Cattārome,
  bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābhā.

  What four? Katame cattāro?

  There is a reincarnation where one’s own intention is effective, not
  that of others. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ
  attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanā kamati, no parasañcetanā.

  There is a reincarnation where the intention of others is effective,
  not one’s own. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ
  attabhāvapaṭilābhe parasañcetanā kamati, no attasañcetanā.

  There is a reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ intentions
  are effective. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ
  attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanā ca kamati parasañcetanā ca.

  There is a reincarnation where neither one’s own nor others’
  intentions are effective. Atthi, bhikkhave, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ
  attabhāvapaṭilābhe nevattasañcetanā kamati, no parasañcetanā.

  These are the four kinds of reincarnation.” Ime kho, bhikkhave,
  cattāro attabhāvapaṭilābhā”ti.

What is "reincarnation where the intention of others is effective"?

Per commentary, this passage refers to "devas corrupted by the mind" (Manopadosika-deva), living in the world of the Four Great Kings. When they get angry with one another their mutual anger leads to their mutual deaths.

Here are descriptions of Manopadosika-deva from different sources:

Buddhist Dictionary. Manual of Buddhist Terms & Doctrines (4th Edition) by Ven. Nyanatiloka:

  Manopadosika-deva: ‘the celestial beings corruptible
  by temper’, are a class of devas (q.v.) of the sensuous
  sphere. “They spend their time in becoming annoyed
  with one another, and getting into a temper, and thus
  by being bodily and mentally exhausted, they pass
  from that world” (D. 1; 24).

The "Dictionary of Pali Proper Names" by G. P. Malalasekera:

  A class of devas living in the Cātummahārājika world (DA.i.114; AA.ii.544; MNid.108). They burn continually with envy one against another (Buddhaghosa relates a story illustrating this in DA.i.114) and their hearts become ill disposed and debauched. Their bodies thus become feeble and their minds imbecile, and, as a consequence, they fall from their state (D.i.20; iii.32). The Manopadosikā were among those present at the preaching of the Mahāsamaya Sutta (D.ii.260). They are so called because their minds are debauched by envy (dosassa anudahanatāya) (VibhA.498).

Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1) translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

  There are, bhikkhus, certain gods called 'corrupted by mind.' These gods contemplate one another with excessive envy. As a consequence their minds becomes corrupted by anger towards one another. When their minds are corrupted by anger, their bodies and minds become exhausted and consequently, they pass away from that plane.

Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1) translated by Bhikkhu Sujato:

  There are gods named ‘malevolent’. They spend too much time gazing at each other, so they grow angry with each other, and their bodies and minds get tired. They pass away from that group of gods.

So, one deva's hatred towards another deva provokes hatred in that deva towards the first, causing a vicious circle, and this very hatred exhausts their spirits until they fall from their godly state.

One deva's hatred is not his own deliberate intention but is merely a reaction to another deva's hatred. Therefore the deva falls from his state and comes to a different state through an "intention of other".

It's interesting how the vicious circle of judgement starts not through one of the devas performing some unwelcomed act to another, but rather through both spending too much time wondering about the other's attitude to oneself.

I suppose this basically means that not all karma is strictly personal. While in the simplest cases sentient beings inherit their own karma, there are cases when they create (bad) karma for one another, and there are cases when a karmic pattern emerges spontaneously from a background of ignorance - not through anyone's fault.

On a side note, per my (Russian) dictionary, attabhāvapaṭilābhe is not "reincarnation" but "a state of personal existence".


About two qualities of the Dhamma I've seen in plenty of discussions and threads that there are some criteria to keep in mind while trying to separate the "real Dhamma" from the "fake" one.

For example, in AN 11:13 there is a fragment which tell us that:

  The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.

A few questions:

1) When differentiating between teachings, should we consider all these quatities at the same time? Or should we pick one over the others?

2) If some teaching is not inmediately effective, but the results (as described in the suttas) are seen after a long, dedicated practice, should we discard that teaching?

3) If a practicant is not able to perceive something described in the suttas inmediately, should we discard such suttas a priori, or should he/she consider the possibility of not being "sensible" enough (i.e. not having reached the minimum level of spiritual maturity for perceiving such X aspect of the Teaching)?

4) How can we know if some alleged result is not perceived due to my own current lack of experience, or if it's because the teaching is false?

Thanks in advance for your time and patience.
Kind regards!

If some teaching is not inmediately effective, but the results (as described in the suttas) are seen after a long, dedicated practice, should we discard that teaching?

I'm not sure that "immediately effective" is a good translation -- may be misleading.

The Pali word is akaliko i.e. "without time" which I'd guess might have a range of meanings ...

"Timeless" -- i.e. not limited to a specific time ... maybe "eternally" true
"Immediate" (not "immediately effective") -- i.e. "relevant to" or "applicable" or "practicable" now
Continual or continuous

... as well as "without delay". When you translate you have to pick to pick one translation (e.g. "immediately effective"), which may not convey the whole range.

See also What is Sat-Dharma?

Also he translated -- and I don't mean to criticise, but I don't know why he did it -- as "immediately effective" something that's maybe two (separate) adjectives in the original: i.e. "immediate" and "effective".

For example, see here ...

  Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo:
  The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā:

  sandiṭṭhiko akāliko
  visible here and now, immediate,

  ehipassiko opaneyyiko
  inviting to come and see, effective,

  paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī ti.
  to be individually ascertained by the wise.

... where "immediate" and "effective" are two separate words (akāliko and opaneyyiko), though the dictionary also gives "immediate result" as one of the meanings of akāliko.

Also maybe "immediately effective" is correct -- if it's understand as, "successful practice has a present effect".

That might lead to a "No true Scotsman" argument (e.g. "If it's not immediately effective then you're not practising it correctly"), but anyway.

If a practicant is not able to perceive something described in the suttas inmediately, should we discard such suttas a priori?

Perhaps not.

For example I read The Radio Amateur's Handbook when I was child -- that book explains how to build various radios, and starts with the "basics" -- an explanation of electronic components and the behaviours of electromagnetic radiation. I think the lessons in the book were "true", but I didn't/couldn't understand most of it when I read it -- I understood a bit more when I read it the second time, and a bit more again the third time.

So I don't think it's sensible to "discard" lessons, which we're told are true and useful, just because we don't understand them immediately.

That said I do tend to classify lessons into "useful" and "not useful", and a lesson that I don't [yet] understand might be not [yet] useful for me -- not that it's false, just that I'm not yet sure how to use it.

So bits of Dhamma which I don't understand, I tend to put "on the shelf" -- perhaps I don't understand how to use it, but I don't want to discard it either.

Also I think that a lot of the doctrine is meant to be practised, practical. If it's like other "practices", it's something that people ("students") become better or more skilled at, as a result of practice. If you view it like that, then you might prefer not to say, "If I can't practice it immediately -- do it perfectly without effort, without practice, without mistakes -- then it isn't 'timeless' and I can discard it."

How can we know if some alleged result is not perceived due to my own current lack of experience, or if it's because the teaching is false?

I think we were supposed to use the four great references to determine whether something is the Buddha's doctrine.


measuring spiritual growth We are living in a world where everything and anything is/can be measured. My daily grind goes like this -
have a goal
take action
measure the result
fine tune / control the deviation.
and Do it every day. This got me thinking , how do i measure my spiritual growth?
What do i measure ? How do i know i have reached my goal or deviated from the Path? What are the units of measurement? Can spirituality be measured?

I think the word measurement really is the wrong term, because the spiritual path lies beyond the world and gain is literally a worldly concern.

There are 8 wordly dhammas

gain and loss
acclaim and slander
status and loss of status
happiness and suffering

The Buddha gave this simile about progress in the practice:

  Just as when a carpenter or carpenter's apprentice sees the marks of his fingers or thumb on the handle of his adze but does not know, 'Today my adze handle wore down this much, or yesterday it wore down that much, or the day before yesterday it wore down this much,' still he knows it is worn through when it is worn through. In the same way, when a monk dwells devoting himself to development, he does not know, 'Today my effluents wore down this much, or yesterday they wore down that much, or the day before yesterday they wore down this much,' still he knows they are worn through when they are worn through. - SN 22.101

Also keep in mind that it's not important how "much growth" you have in the practice, because you cannot change your past which conditions this. Your only concern should be to practice now and keep your practice on the path. There is a good explanation by Ajahn Brahmali about how you know that your practice is going in the right direction: in summary, it's going in the right direction if good states (peacefulness, mindfulness, gentleness inside, virtue, morality, kindness, understanding of the dhamma, all these things come together) are increasing and bad qualities (restlessness and desires) are declining, within the span of one meditation session or more powerfully over months and years.


Upaya in Theravada Buddhism and the Pali Canon According to the article An Explanation of Upaya in Buddhism by Barbara O'Brien:

  Mahayana Buddhists often use the word upaya, which is translated
  "skillful means" or "expedient means." Very simply, upaya is any
  activity that helps others realize enlightenment. Sometimes upaya is
  spelled upaya-kausalya, which is "skill in means."

  Upaya can be unconventional; something not normally associated with
  Buddhist doctrine or practice. The most important points are that the
  action is applied with wisdom and compassion and that it is
  appropriate in its time and place. .....

  In Theravada Buddhism, upaya refers to the Buddha's skill in shaping
  his teaching to be appropriate to his audience—simple doctrines and
  parables for beginners; more advanced teaching for senior students.
  Mahayana Buddhists see the historical Buddha's teachings as
  provisional, preparing the ground for the later Mahayana teachings
  (see "Three Turnings of the Dharma Wheel").

  According to some sources just about anything is allowable as upaya,
  including breaking the Precepts. Zen history is full of accounts of
  monks realizing enlightenment after being struck or shouted at by a
  teacher. In one famous story, a monk realized enlightenment when his
  teacher slammed a door on his leg and broke it.

  Obviously, this no-holds-barred approach potentially could be abused.

Upaya or "skillful means" is a popular concept in Mahayana Buddhism. When the Buddha tells one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience, based on their specific needs, this is considered upaya.

It might be the case that the teaching to one audience is completely the opposite to the teaching to the other audience in Mahayana Buddhism.

In certain Mahayana traditions, the teacher may even break the precepts (for example, drinking alcohol), or shout at or hit the disciples, as part of the skillful means (upaya) to teach them.

Does this exist in Theravada Buddhism?
Please provide examples of upaya from the Pali Canon.
From the Pali Canon or Theravada Buddhism, would the Buddha even tell completely opposite things to different audiences?
From the Pali Canon or Theravada Buddhism, could the Buddha break his own rules, or even do things like shouting or hitting in order to teach his disciples?

AFAIK, breaking precepts that result in unwholesome Karma is never excused in Theravada Buddhism. Especially the five precepts.

Here are few examples of the Buddha using Upaya:

Showing nymphs to prince Nanada to break his attachment towards Janapada Kalyani.
Breaking Khema's infatuation with beauty by showing a beautiful maiden deteriorate in front of her eyes.
Teaching the stanzas to old brahmin who was mistreated by his four sons.

There might be teachings that appear complete opposite if you take the literal meaning of the words or disregard the context. But the teachings never conflict when you understand the full picture.

The Buddha would scold a monk to get him disciplined, but he would never use physical force. Such a need wouldn't even arise to the Buddha. Although monks are allowed by Vinaya to strike another in self defence.

The Buddha may decide not to keep to a lesser(non-offensive) Vinaya rule on certain occasions, but the monks do not have this freedom.


Is there a serious TV channel which is for Buddhist community? I watch TV. As a Buddhist which TV channels should I watch?

While I'm not aware of any TV channels which are not geographically bound, I think you can use YouTube channels, that have regularly published content, as sort of TV channels.
Here are some Theravada Buddhist YouTube channels with content in English:

Buddhist Society of Western Australia
Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu
Abhayagiri Buddhist Monastery
Ajahn Sona
Vimutti Buddhist Monastery

Here are some Tibetan Buddhist YouTube channels with content in English:

Dalai Lama
Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche
Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche
Bodhicharya Dharma Channel