Jhanas and past lives I always thought that the remembrance of the past lives and the vision of the mechanism of the kamma were the fruits of the jhanas.
BUT, it is said that the Tathagata learnt the (8) jhanas from two teachers. it is also said that he remembered his past lives during  the famous seven days, after he decided to gain what he would call nibbana.

Do we know whether the Tathagata had access to his previous lives or to the karmic mechanism before the week of accessing nibbana ?

if no, does this mean that only the dhamma --- instead of the practice from hinduism,  jainism and perhaps others doctrines --- permits to see the past lives, or the karmic mechanism ?

I don't think the Buddha knew his past lives long before he attained nirvana -- the descriptions I know of him accessing his past lives were during his final struggle.

To the best of my knowledge, past lives recollection is about concentration -- not necessarily samma samadhi as known in the sutras. The sutras imply that yogis could and have obtained such abilities and that it is not something the Buddha introduced.

The Buddha is said to have learned specific concentration practices (aka the arupa jhanas) from previous teachers before reaching nirvana, but it's not clear if he (or his teachers) knew any of the actual 4 jhana (as described in the sutras, with their factors and all). The interesting passage is the one he describes remembering reaching the 1st jhana state when he was a kid and that is when he "gets back on track" towards nirvana -- and that happened after training with his teachers. This suggests that his teachers did not teach or knew how to reach the 1st (and arguably any of the four) jhanas, and thus, opens up the possibility that samma samadhi could have been an original practice introduced or at least systematized by the Buddha.

Knowlege of previous lives is not unlocked with nirvana according to the sutras as such a person can still be bound to wrong view / ignorance (which nirvana is supposed to end). But it is presented as part of a path towards nirvana.


What to do if (somehow involuntarily) one kills an animal? It happened to me during dinner, yesterday: I wanted to move a mosquito that was in my plate and accidentally killed it :(
What's the appropriate thing to do in such cases?
Is there any mantra to recite in order to have some benefit for the insect?
I'm asking this because I read about a mantra to be recited "in front of your shoes" so that, in case of walking on top of an animal, then it would be "less bad".
But probably I'm totally wrong :)
In any case, I don't think my question is a duplicate of the guy who killed a mosquito on purpose because it was suffering.
I killed it because my intention was to move it from my plate, but I didn't pay much attention and did it wrongly.

Your concern for the mosquito recalls the limitless heart's release:

MN43:31.2: Firstly, a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion … They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing … They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. This is called the limitless heart’s release.

Establishing such a mindfulness in every moment of the day benefits one and all.
The mosquito is gone, yet for those who remain, perhaps a gentle puff of air might be more skillful if needed for the next mosquito. And perhaps, even then, a simple letting be might suffice. Abide in the limitless heart's release and your heart will know what to do.


Can we consider any core Buddhist teaching as dogma? Can we consider the four noble truth or any other core teachings in Buddhism as dogmas that we should accept, or could be learn/understand reality only by experience and mindfulness? Is it possible to come to any other conclusions by meditating and practicing mindfulness? I see dogma as a principle incontrovertibly true. Thanks a lot.

"A principle incontrovertibly true" is not a dogma. E.g. in math the principle of associativity -- a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c -- is incontrovertibly true, so what? A principle must be "incontrovertibly true" within some domain -- otherwise it would be useless.

Instead, dogma is a thesis to be taken on blind faith, with no logical proof nor practical evidence. Another definition of dogma is a thesis mistakenly absolutized outside of domain where it is legitimately valid.

As any science, Buddhism -- the science of Liberation -- has its principles, its truths. And within the context of Buddhism they better be true -- otherwise we'd have to throw them away!

But yeah, we have to be careful not to take Buddhist truths as dogmas. Which means two things: 1) by all means try and map what it really means that e.g. "the origin of dukkha is craving" onto one's direct experience; and 2) not unwittingly absolutize e.g. the celibacy precept for monks to mean that procreation in general is bad.


Euthanasia for animals Killing and harming are against the first precept. I understand that an important part of the practice is being mindful at the time of death, but do animals have this capacity?  Would it be better to end their suffering if they are dying anyway? I saw an animal suffering on the way home and this came to mind.

Being mindful all the time is an important part of the practice. Not just at the time of death. But if you have a wholesome thought at the time of death, your next birth will be better.

Whether it's human or animal, what makes you think killing will relieve a being from suffering? It could be born in a worse place. Your action is based on a big assumption or at worst, annihilationism.

In any case, if killing ended suffering, Lord Buddha would have preached it as the fourth noble truth, instead of the noble eight fold path. :)


my meditation practice question Would like to ask if my method of meditation(Mahasi method rising-falling) is correct. When some feeling arise in me, most of the time, i can noting the feeling was somewhere in the body( example: scare feeling near my abdomen/ back of my body).

When i concentrate on that feeling, i will either yawn/ tears coming out or even deep sign. Then i will feel better after every 'reaction'.

I would like to know when i noting the feeling part inside/outside the body, is this the right way? i did not do it purposely but i can just feel it when i concentrate'

Looking for a meditation teacher for years(answer my question from time to time- prefer online). Been practicing meditation for years on and off as i could not really get a teacher. I practice and learning teacher S.N.Goenka method before but i feel Mahasi method suit me. Unfortunately cannot get one to help.

Appreciate if anyone out there know any online tutor/ bante who can online help in meditation. Thanks

Would like to ask if my method of meditation(Mahasi method rising-falling) is correct.
If you try to validate this against the teaching of the Buddha as per the Pali Canon, this is not a valid or correct technique. More on this see this answer and other referenced material.
Suttas which cover insight meditation are:

Maha-satipatthana Sutta
Anapanasati Sutta

They do not have any reference to either noting nor the rising and falling of the abdomen. It is later innovation like this which lead to the decline of the Dhamma, where by you give more importance to later developments than the words and teachings of the Buddha. These later developments will not give the same results as when you practice the original, it may also give arise to more difficulties, hence people will lose faith in the practice. For more information see this answer.
Any correct method should be based on the Tripitaka. More particularly:

Maha-satipatthana Sutta
Anapanasati Sutta

which covers most part of what is the right way to practice. You can complement this with other Sutta readings. In the Satipatthana Suttas it is mentioned that Satipatthana is the one and only way (ekāyana maggo) for purification of the beings. Also at the end he Buddha gives a guarantee that if it is practiced the right way (as per the instructions given) you can get the fruit or Non Returner or Fully Liberated within 7 days.
When i concentrate on that feeling, i will either yawn/ tears coming out or even deep sign. Then i will feel better after every 'reaction'.
This can be due to past Sankhara. Past conditioning causes unpleasant experiences when they surface and manifest themselves. E.g. you have past Karma to break a leg. But you are in meditation. This may surface as a severe pain in the leg but since there is not other conditions for an accident this will pass away.
When some feeling arise in me, most of the time, i can noting the feeling was somewhere in the body( example: scare feeling near my abdomen/ back of my body).
Getting sensitive to sensations is a good thing. You have to see how this lead to unwholesome states.

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings.

Pahāna Sutta
Also how it relates to causality

As such, bhikshus, the instructed noble disciple closely and wisely attends to dependent arising itself, thus:
Imasmiṁ sati, idaṁ hoti; „When this is, that is;
imass’uppādā, idam uppajjati. with the arising of this, that arises.
Imasmiṁ asati idaṁ na hoti; When this is not, that is not;
imassa nirodhā idaṁ nirujjhati. with the ending of this, that ends.‟
Bhikshus, dependent on pleasant contact, a pleasant feeling arises. With the ending of the pleasant contact, the pleasant feeling that arose in dependent on that pleasant contact, ceases, is stilled.
Bhikshus, dependent on painful contact, a painful feeling arises. With the ending of the painful contact, the painful feeling that arose in dependent on that painful contact, ceases, is stilled.
Bhikshus, dependent on neutral contact, a neutral feeling arises. With the ending of the neutral contact, the neutral feeling that arose in dependent on that neutral contact, ceases, is stilled.

The whole scene shere is unsatisfactory. The impermanence and non self nature contributes to this also.

regarding pleasant feeling, what is pleasant, what is painful,?
regarding painful feeling, what is painful, what is pleasant?
regarding neutral feeling, what is pleasant, what is painful,?

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
I would like to know when i noting the feeling part inside/outside the body, is this the right way? i did not do it purposely but i can just feel it when i concentrate'
This is also a good sign. Totality of insight include:

internal (ajjhatta)
external (bahiddhā)

So you are experiencing this. For more on this see this answer.


Did Nagarjuna want to become a Buddha? Did Nagarjuna aspire to Buddhahood in a way that he wouldn't be a 'ariyasavaka' type of disciple who attains awakening to the truth during a Buddha's sasana?

In brief, the Mahayana has a specific Bodhisattva vow not to wait:

To abandon: Believing and saying that followers of the Mahayana should
remain in cyclic existence and not try to attain liberation from
afflictions.

Those authoritative texts in the Mahayana which seem to contradict this are only for purposes of training the mind. This is not a subject of controversy in the Mahayana as every tradition acknowledges the above.
Again, with emphasis so this is absolutely clear: All Bodhisattva's in the Mahayana path make a vow to reach full and complete enlightenment as fast as they possibly can. That means if a Buddha was alive right now on this earth and they could possibly reach full and complete enlightenment in the next millisecond, they would do so without question forthwith.
See here for the long answer.


What is initial thought and discursive thought I am learning the 8 jhanas. And in the book im reading it states the five factors of possession are opposed of the 5 hindrance. What are initial thought and discursive thought? I can't find a definiton.

Ordinarily, when unrelated to jhana, the words 'vitakka' & 'vicara' simply mean 'thought', 'thinking' & 'thinking about'. For example, MN 19 is about 'two kinds of thinking'; MN 20 is about distracting thoughts &, in MN 44, 'vitakka' & 'vicara' are called the 'verbal conditioner' because they cause speech to occur, as follows:

  Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are
  verbal fabricators. MN 44

In the context of jhana, the words 'vitakka' & 'vicara' have a different & special meaning. Here, they do not refer to ordinary verbal thinking but to non-verbal movements of mind that finalise the attainment of & maintain the 1st jhana.

In respect to the attainment of the 1st jhana, 'vitakka & vicara' refer to 'applied & sustained thought', where the mind itself (rather than volitional intention) applies itself to bring to fruition the 1st first jhana. As said, these movements of mind are beyond the scope of ordinary volition.

Once the 1st jhana comes to be, 'vitakka & vicara' refer to 'directed thought & pondering / exploring / moving about ', where part of the mind itself remains active in examining & responding to its own response to the jhana factors (such as rapture), to ensure the jhana is maintained.

As stated in SN 48.10, jhana is born from 'letting go' ('vossagga'). Thus, 'vitakka & vicara' ('directed thought & pondering') operate in the 1st jhana to ensure the letting go & thus the jhana factors are maintained. Refer to Ajahn Brahm's explanation, here, about the "wobble".

There are many subtle different explanations of vitakka & vicara in respect to the 1st jhana. For example, the monk Thanissaro has translated with the words 'directed thought & evaluation'; and Buddhadasa had translated (from Thai) with the words 'noting' & 'experiencing' (here) and 'looking at' & 'knowing thoroughly' (here).

I personally prefer Ajahn Brahm's explanation because the existence of vitakka & vicara in the 1st jhana simply indicate the mind is not completely still, despite its attainment of 'one-pointedness'.

I also like Jeffrey Brooks summation as "sustained application of a meditation technique" (namely, the now automatic technique of 'letting go' ) but I do not agree with Jeffrey's translation of 'sustained attention' because the mind has 'attention' in every jhana:

  The correct translation of the Pali terms 'vitakka' and 'vicára,' with respect to the absorptions (jhanas), must be "applied and
  sustained attention" or "sustained application" of a meditation
  technique."

  Jeffrey Brooks

'One-pointedness' refers to the mind becoming unmovingly glued to a mental image ('nimitta'), which has arisen to replace the totally tranquilised breath as the object of meditation. This 'one-pointedness' can be compared to an axle upon which a wheel becomes fixed to. Although the wheel is fixed to the axle and cannot move off the axle, the wheel can still spin around the axle.

Similarly, although the mind is fixed or unmoving due to one-pointedness (which also results in ordinary volition ending), the mind itself can still actively move towards & away from the other factors of jhana. These movements of mind that sustain the meditation are 'vitakka & vicara'.

In conclusion, understanding what 'vitakka & vicara' are as factors of jhana will not assist in the attainment of jhana because these factors of jhana occur beyond the sphere of ordinary volition, as Ajahn Brahm has explained.

For example, in the preliminary development leading to jhana, a more primitive 'vitakka & vicara' refers to the volitional activity that keeps 'letting go'; that keeps wilfully non-attaching. But once jhana is reached, ordinary volition falls away and a new 'automatic volition' arises.


What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into English? What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into English? When was it translated and by whom? Was it reasonably available to those interested and did it have much of an impact within academic circles and perhaps to the wider culture?

UPDATE:
These seem to be the first Buddhist texts ever translated into English, published in 1693:

THE LIFE OF THEVETAT, Translated from the Balie (i.e. Pāli)
An Explication of the Patimouc, or Text of the Vinac

More information can be found in A philological approach to Buddhism by K. R. Norman, p. 4:

Simon de La Loubère [...] in 1687-88 went to Siam as an envoy of
the king of France (King Louis), and on his return wrote a book about the
Kingdom of Siam, which was published in France in 1691. Two years later an
English translation was published in England. La Loubère gave a fascinating
account of many aspects of Siam and Siamese culture, and he also included an
account of the Siamese religion — Buddhism — and the sacred language of the
Siamese. He noted the differences between that language, which he called Balie,
and the Siamese language, and noted, correctly, the relationship between the
former and Sanskrit. He also gave French translations of a few Buddhist texts.

Here is the English edition of Loubère's whole book, which contains the above-mentioned texts:

A new historical relation of the kingdom of Siam by Monsieur De La Loubere ...; done out of French, by A.P. Gen. R.S.S. London: Printed by F.L for Tho. Horne ... Francis Saunders ... and Tho. Bennet ..., 1693.

Some other translations that can be regarded as quite early, include:

The History and Doctrine of Budhism: Popularly Illustrated: with Notices of the Kappooism, Or Demon Worship, and of the Bali, Or Planetary Incantations, of Ceylon by Edward Upham (London, 1829): contains translations of some Jātakas

The Catechism of the Shamans (London, 1831) by Charles Fried. Neumann: contains translation of portions of a Mahāyāna Vinaya from Chinese

Fragment of the Lotus Sutra translated from French by Elizabeth Peabody in 1844 (Wikipedia incorrectly calls that the first English translation of a Buddhist text)

None of these publications seem to have made a big impact.

In 1844 the magazine published Peabody's translation of a portion of the Lotus Sutra from French [...]. The publication ceased shortly thereafter in April 1844.


What is doctrine on ordinary daily posture? In this question I'm asking about posture -- holding the body straight, for example -- not especially asking about posture during formal meditation, which was the topic of previous questions.

I was surprised to read this answer, which includes,

  ... walking straight, aware of body posture, like a king/queen, straight, not like a cowboy or a pig, awareness of the body and correct it.

Sometimes (though, not often) I see something similar in other answers, for example:

  You need to develop a good posture, good grace, and good gait. You should sit, stand, and walk conveniently, with good energy flow.

I was surprised to see that because:

I don't remember that's being a doctrine in the suttas -- at most maybe I remember comments on (or descriptions of) the Buddha's or Rahula's physical appearance, e.g. "like a lion" etc.
Buddhist doctrine emphasises view, and knowledge, and wisdom and so on -- if there is a mind-versus-body dichotomy, I'd expect Buddhism is more on the "mind" side of things.
Some doctrines seem intended to deemphasise the value of the body -- meditations on the foulness of the body, contemplation of corpses, etc.

So -- what is doctrine about posture (from suttas, from what you've been taught, and/or from your personal experience)? And, do you know, why? And what is difficult about that practice? And does that affect your social relationships, somehow? How does it interact with practicing prostration?

In the Theravadan tradition, most of the rules governing posture don't come from the suttas, but rather the vinaya.  Specifically, they are found in the 75 sekhiyas.  The first 26 are almost all about posture.

The reason for these practices is really no different than those related to appropriate posture during seated meditation.  And it has a similar set of challenges.  In the West, we often set up a dichotomy between the mind and body.  No such division exists within Buddhism.  Form is just another skandha.  Just because Buddhism meditates on the foulness of the body does not mean that it should be ignored or viewed as somehow less important.  The body is also a tool that can be used on the way to liberation.  A posture maintained ardently, with mindfulness, and clear comprehension will have a comparable impact on cognition.  It establishes alertness and vigor while a bodily posture that is not meticulously maintained falls into sloth, heedlessness, and dissipation.  An upright body is an upright mind.  They are not different things.


Can Pranayama Be Derived from Anapana? Pranayama seam to have some similarities with Anapana. What is the relationship between the two. Was this derived from Anapana? What is it's historic development?

Yes it certainly got some similarities. Yeah buddhism originated in India and there were 27 buddhas before the Gauthama Buddha so there are some techniques remianed from others. But it certainly is the same.
In Pranayama there is a rhythm of exhale and inhale. But in Anapansathi. Which is "Ana-(inhale)-pana-(exhale)-sathi(concentration)" This just keep concentrating on the Exhale and inhale in a little while you feel calmness you never felt before and slowing things down.
This is the last meditation technique Buddha has done before the Enlightnement.
There are 4 other meditation techniques to support like Mithree Meditation where we bless ourselves and all animals and everything we can see and cannots including our enimies.
This all comes under Samatha Meditation. So if you want to goto Anapanasathi which is under Vipassana Mediation. You have to follow the Samatha meditation to get a relief for body and mind. I guess you get the answer.


What does Buddhism say about having dreams about the Buddha? Is there any meaning given to dreams of the Buddha? For example is it considered an omen a sign or meaningless ...?

EDIT: Sorry i have to change the edit back to the Buddha instead of Bodhisattva.My question is about someone dreaming of The Buddha.As in Buddha,the fully enlightened being.Not a Bodhisattva.Not a dream about Sidhattha.But a dream of the Buddha.

My question is,Is there any meaning given to dreams of the Buddha in Buddhism.For example if you dreamt of The Buddha would it be considered an omen,a sign or meaningless.

Thank you

The dreams Bodhisatta had about his future Buddhahoood are given in the Supina Sutta.

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

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

You might also be interested in knowing the meanings of the dreams, queen Maya(mother of the Bodhisatta) saw.


Meditating When Demotivated I had meditated for some time for 30 min once or twice daily. Now, I am suffering from what seems to be anhedonia, a difficulty in feeling pleasure and being motivated. It makes it incredibly difficult to motivate myself to meditate, and even if I have plenty of time and the yearning to meditate, I cannot seem to sit and do it.

What might one do when motivation is extremely low? Is there no other option than to just 'force oneself' and do it?

If you find some motivation then there are worldly practices to cultivate motivation.
 When the beginners enthusiasm wore off I just googled how to get motivated. Like how to keep to a schedual. You can trick yourself. You just schedule a sit for only 2 minutes. That's easy to actually do and then when you sit you often will have more momentum past 2 minutes. Then you keep doing it and grow a habit and gradually increase your time. This is just an example. There are different ways to be unmotivated.

You can chant up some motivation.
   Read inspirational quotes over and over.
   There are all kinds of little practices.


Sudden awaking/realization I have seen some videos in Youtube (here and here) where it seems that just by standing in front of Papaji, people start laughing without control.

Somehow it is implicitly said that this reaction is related to an awakening/realization experience.

My questions are:

Is this true ?
How is it that just the presence of a teacher is enough for such an experience ?
Can we say that this experiences are real Enlightenment ?

Answers with references are strongly appreciated.

The references below give a goods indication of stages of insight leading to enlightenment.

  ... people start laughing without control ... Is this true ?

I am not sure if any one would burst out laughing at any stages of insight. This looks like hysteria to me.

  How is it that just the presence of a teacher is enough for such an experience ?

In a Theravada perspective, this is un true. The Dhamma is something you should realize through your efforts and not something someone can give you. Hence a mere presence of a teacher is not enough.

  Can we say that this experiences are real Enlightenment ?

Looking at the references below this does not look like enlightenment but some other experience induced by a different kind of practice which is neither Samatha or Vipassana in the Theravada Buddhist sense.

The Map of The Journey
The 7 Stages of Insight and Purification
The Progress of Insight


How to handle aversion that derives from perceiving arrogance? Ven. and good Buddha-Parisata, touched, and who ever interested and willing to give into the matter to get it minded,

Who doesn't know the case where another is perceived as arrogant, either because of having the view "all are equal" or by the feeling to be put on a place which one does not deserve.

What ever the situation actually requires, might be different form ones perception and possible very wrong to give into disapprove or even dislike. Remember the effects of being a person not honor of what is worthy to.

So how to handle such "I can not..." situations for oneself? What's the save bet here, the save way, till possible uproot the cause on an refined level? (Of course in measures of the good Dhamma asked. Related topic: Vanna-maccharia, stinginess in regard of ones reputations: What to practice to get ride of it?)

(Note that this possibility of grow in Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

Ven Sirs, Readers,

Arrogance is that one considers oneself better than others. If one finds this is not the case an arrogant person becomes averse. The way to overcome is as follows:

(1) “Sona, when those ascetics and brahmins, by way of form—which is impermanent, suffering,
subject to change—consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(2) When they, by way of feeling—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, consider
thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(3) When they, by way of perception—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change,
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(4) When they, by way of formations—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change,
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

(5) When they, by way of consciousness—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to
change, consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they consider thus, but through not seeing things according to reality?

Sona, when those ascetics and brahmins, by way of form—which is impermanent, suffering,
subject to change—do not consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of feeling—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of perception—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of formations—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality?

When they, by way of consciousness—which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, do not
consider thus:
‘I am better’ (seyyo’ham asmi), or
‘I am equal [just as good]’ (sadiso’ham asmi), or
‘I am worse’ (hīno’ham asmi)—
why do they not consider thus, but through seeing things according to reality

(1) Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is form permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory [painful] or satisfactory [pleasurable]?”15
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”16
“No, bhante.”

(2) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is feeling permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(3) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is perception permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(4) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, are formations permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(5) “Now, what do you think, Soṇa, is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, bhante.”
“Is what is impermanent, unsatisfactory and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine,
this I am, this is my self.’?”
“No, bhante.”

(1) “Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of form whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal or
external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near18—all forms should be seen as they really are
with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(2) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of feeling whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal or
external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all feelings should be seen as they really are
with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(3) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of perception whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal
or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all perceptions should be seen as they really
are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(4) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of formations whatsoever, whether past, future or present, internal
or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all formations should be seen as they really
are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

(5) Therefore, Soṇa, any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future or present,
internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—all consciousness should be seen as
they really are with right wisdom thus:
‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

Seeing thus, Soṇa, the learned noble disciple is revulsed [disenchanted] with form, is revulsed
with feeling, is revulsed with perception, is revulsed with formations, is revulsed with consciousness.

Through revulsion, he becomes dispassionate.
Through dispassion, his mind is liberated.
When he is liberated, there arises the knowledge: ‘Free am I!’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth.
The holy life has been lived. What needs to be done has been done. There is no more of this state of
being.’

(Māna) Soṇa Sutta


Mundane Contemplation I tend to contemplate beneficial topics throughout the day, shirking meditation at times. I conjecture such a daily contemplation is not highly concentrated.

Is there any information in Buddhism on mundane mental contemplation (if any)?

For example, how does reflecting on compassion throughout the day compare with compassion meditation? How does analysis or compassion fare when done with merely day-to-day concentration?

Is there a benefit for un-concentrated contemplation on a virtuous topic? How would a Buddhist fare without formal meditative skills?

Is there any information in Buddhism on mundane mental contemplation (if any)? Is there a benefit for un-concentrated contemplation on a virtuous topic?

Mental contemplation can be useful for training in Morality, but not for training in Concentration or Wisdom. It is good to contemplate your current karmic state, and deduce what actions can be taken or stopped to generate more good karma. That being said, training in Morality is only the first step. Without training in the other two, your chances of becoming free of samsara is very low.

I don't really suggest doing compassion meditation unless you really feel like you generate a lot of bad karma from a lack of compassion. As to weather or not your compassion meditation brings more results than contemplating day to day, only your experience can speak to that.

Contemplation can not replace concentration meditation. Training in concentration is something that requires effort and time for it to be cultivated properly. You can not think your way to stronger concentration skills. You have to actually practice concentrating.

  How would a Buddhist fare without formal meditative skills?

Spontaneous enlightenment is possible, but I would not put your chips in that basket if you want to be free this lifetime. All 3 trainings work together in order to help you be free from ignorance, suffering, and samsara. If your goal is to be free, it is essential to pay all three trainings an equal amount of attention. To do that, formal concentration and insight meditation is a must.

It is not possible to think your way to Enlightenment. It is something that must be discovered and felt at the source of your being. At some point you will be required to abandon thought to move further. That can be done easier once you have learned to concentrate, and have found the wisdom present in what you observe.

I hope this was helpful my friend and I wish you nothing but love.


How do Buddhists use mudras? This is a practice question. I know both Mahayana buddhists and Vajrayana buddhists use mudras. In the former they show up in inconography, and hand resting positions while meditating, in the later it's part of elaborate rituals.

How are mudras used in lay and monastic practice in Mahayana?

Outside of being a step in larger rituals, how are mudras used in lay and monastic practice in Vajrayana?

In Vajrayana every practice is done on 3 levels - on the level of body, speech and mind. We work with the mind through visualising the Buddha forms, the speech centre is exercised through mantra repetitions and the body - through keeping the posture, using prayer beads (mala) and through the use of mudras.

As a Vajrayana practitioner I can think of a few cases when I use mudras.

First case is while doing the practice of prostrations. A person stands straight and brings their hands together in the 'lotus bud' mudra and places them in the crown of the head, then to the throat and then heart. Then the person kneels down and slides their body on the floor with arms stretched out towards the front. Then hands should meet to form lotus bud mudra again and then the person can stand up to perform another prostration. Touching the head represents purifying the body, touching throat - the speech centre and touching heart - purifying the mind.

People also touch their head, throat and heart centre when standing in front of the Stupa or Buddha statue. When meeting a great teacher or receiving blessing from him people usually hold their hands together and place them on the heart centre. All these gestures signify opening up the mind, speech and body to receive the blessing.

Another example when I use mudras is while attending a recitation of Mandala Offering text. It usually takes place before the teachings or empowerments given by high Lamas. During rituals it is usually the teacher who does the recitation and mudra sequences, however during the Mandala Offering, all students use a special mudra shown on the picture below. One beautiful addition to this mudra is placing rice and flower petals inside the palms and throwing them in the air as soon as the recitation is finished. As for the the meaning of the mudra itself, the arrangement of fingers symbolizes the simplified depiction of the universe one mentally creates and then offers to the Buddha - upright fingers in the middle represent Mount Meru and the 4 pairs around - four continents (if you're interested in details, look here). Mandala Offering is a third part of so-called preliminary practices Ngöndro and it is done to purify attachment, generate merit and create lots of positive impressions in the mind.


Has anybody tried meditating forehead to forehead? Or communicated with others via meditation? I have been trying to hunt far and wide to see if anyone in the internet world has attempted meditating with someone else by connecting your foreheads together?

As discussed in a previous thread about the significance of touching foreheads, the sky-eye, upper dantian, sixth chakra, etc is a hugely powerful aspect of the body and referred to during prostrations and greetings.

I have only meditated with someone else like this once, in a temple and was certainly aware of the intense connection it could hold before I did it. However, I wasn't sure if anyone else has tried to do this, or does this often, and if so, why? What is your experience? I have also experienced this in dreams, as well as visualised doing this in meditation with someone else who has received it during their own meditation practice too (which I find pretty incredible!). I'd love to hear of any experiences where you have managed to connect with others in meditation too?

To be quite frank, I don't really see much point in this from a Buddhist perspective. What is the purpose in doing this? Maybe you can have some interesting experiences with different sensations, and for all I know, visions or psychic powers, but in the end these things don't lead towards awakening.

At most, these things could lead to a kind of concentration being developed, but there are other ways of developing concentration that can be used as part of the path. For example, one could develop the jhanas and then use them as a basis for examination. Practicing in that way would probably lead to a lot more pleasure than meditating on the chakras with your foreheads together, and it can be used to gain awakening.


How does dependent origination and the skandhas fit together? I’m having trouble seeing whether the idea of the five skandhas is meant to fit within dependent origination in any way, or whether the two theories  are meant to be applied as complements to each other.

Is there a sutta elaborating on the correlation between the two of them? (Please note that my question primarily regards suttas that addresses the relationship between the two, instead of  details of either concept).

Dependent origination is about the origination of suffering (sorrow, grief, despair, etc) that comes from ignorantly attaching to the khandhas as 'self' ('upadana') and as 'a being' ('jati'). Not only is attachment itself a mental state fraught with anxiety & stress, but the sorrowful traumatic idea of 'aging-&-death' occurs when the khandhas attached to as 'self' or 'a being' are inevitably subjected to impermanence. SN 12.66 says:

  ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it is born and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be.’

The word "acquisition' ('upadhi') above is a synonym for 'attachment' ('upadana'). SN 12.66 is one of many suttas that shows the word 'jati' in Dependent Origination does not mean 'physical birth'. Instead, 'jati' ('birth') means 'identifying' with something as 'self', 'mine' or 'a being'. MN 26 says:

  And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.

For a more simple explanation of how attachment to the khandhas results in suffering when the khandhas change due to impermanence, SN 22.1 says:

  "Now, how is one afflicted in body & afflicted in mind?

  "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body)
  to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the
  self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am
  form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form
  changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

  "He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He is
  seized with the idea that 'I am feeling' or 'Feeling is mine.' As he
  is seized with these ideas, his feeling changes & alters, and he falls
  into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change &
  alteration.

  "He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in
  perception. He is seized with the idea that 'I am perception' or
  'Perception is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his perception
  changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

  "He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self
  as in fabrications. He is seized with the idea that 'I am
  fabrications' or 'Fabrications are mine.' As he is seized with these
  ideas, his fabrications change & alter, and he falls into sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over their change &
  alteration.

  "He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness. He is seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or
  'Consciousness is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his
  consciousness changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

  "This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body and afflicted in mind.

We should study the whole of SN 22.1 thoroughly until we understand it clearly. SN 22.1 is spoken in simple language and is not rocket science.

All of the above is reflected in the most brief explanation of Dependent Origination, from MN 28, below:

  Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering. The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.’

As for the khandhas, they are merely the components of life. To help give up attachment to the khandhas, SN 22.59 explains the khandhas are unsatisfactory (cannot bring true happiness) & not-self because each khandha, when examined closely, is impermanent and selfless.


Is 'making a strong commitment' a good idea? Is it a good idea to make a strong commitment\determination  to be mindful or to meditate?

If we can't really control what we do in the future, is there a use to make a commitment?

And if the answer is yes   - how to make it ?

I would love to hear tips on how to make the commitment/determination better.

And I would also like to hear your opinion about celibacy in this context - including celibacy from tasty food and from funny videos, from music, from entertainment in general, etc.

To make a  strong commitment,  you want to cultivate right effort by making a continuous effort, by hanging out with wise spiritual friends, by balancing energy with concentration and by not doing things that suck the energy out of you like reacting to your arising defilements, eating too much and getting lost in mental proliferation.

As Ajahn Chah says "Just do it".

Edit

One could reflect on death. This can really be motivating because it lets us know we are pressed for time not just on the surface but in the heart as well.


What are the 8 Consciousness in Chinese Buddhism The answeres to the following question: Is the Ocean Samadhi a metaphor or an actual meditation? implply there are 8 types of conciousness in Chinese Buddhism. What are these? How did they originate? Is this there a common text with Theravada which is cited deriving or rationalising this?

From the wiki page:

  All surviving schools of buddhist thought accept – "in common" – the existence of the first six primary consciousnesses (Sanskrit: vijñāna, Tibetan: རྣམ་ཤེས་, Wylie: rnam-shes).1 The internally coherent Yogācāra school associated with Maitreya, Asaṅga, and Vasubandhu, however, uniquely – or "uncommonly" – also posits the existence of two additional primary consciousnesses, kliṣṭamanas and ālayavijñāna, in order to explain the workings of karma.[2] The first six of these primary consciousnesses comprise the five sensory faculties together with mental consciousness, which is counted as the sixth.


Online reference to AA.i.254 I'm looking for an online reference to AA.i.254 mention at the bottom of this page:

No woman can become a Cakka-vatti (the reasons for this are given at AA.i.254).

Either an English or Sinhala translation would be preferable

Per the List of Abbreviations, "AA" might be "Manorathapūranī, Anguttara Commentary, 2 vols. (S.H.B.)."

This catalog claims that:

The editions are mostly Print books (English or Pali)
There are some eBooks in Pali from the PTS

I don't know that (I doubt whether, but I haven't searched) there's an edition free online.

Google Books shows a limited preview of e.g. the Pali eBooks (e.g. here).


What exactly is Jhana? What exactly is the theory of jhana, how does it come about and how does it relate to the buddhist practice and everyday life?

feel free to answer in depth.

Originally in Hindu yoga and Jainism, Jhana/Dhyana was deliberate thinking on a given topic.

The word seems to share its root with Sanskrit verb "dhyayati" (pronounced JAH-YA-TEE), that supposedly means "to think over", "to imagine", "to visualize".

Jains, the primary contenders for a honorary title of "precursors to Buddhism", used to recognize four types of Dhyana:

Artta Dhyana -- serious mulling over problems and issues coming from one's duties and responsibilities
Rudra Dhyana -- cruel mulling over evil plans
Dharma Dhyana -- rightful mulling over virtuous subjects
Shukla Dhyana --  pure mulling, non-conceptual concentration.

Apparently, Buddha's first teacher, Arada Kalama, taught Shukla Dhyana through visualizing oneself in the center of progressively empty context (village --> empty field --> empty sky --> nothingness), culminating in a state of thoughtless concentration with no content.

While Buddha's second teacher, Udraka Ramaputta, supposedly taught him a different practice, that of deliberately thinking the opposite thoughts (so-called "antidotes") to the ones the mind was dominated by, the target state being one of perfect ambiguity.

Buddha famously mastered and then rejected both target states, instead proposing his own progression of dhyana themes, targeted at achieving first a disgust of this body with its lowly interests, then, once the poisons of worldly desires were destroyed by the antidote of disgust, at generating a joyful mind (first with discursive support, then directly), followed by a calm-and-positive mind, and finally an unfettered mind that sees things as they are (tatha). He subsequently replaced disgust of this body with mindfulness of breathing as the object of meditation he recommended to entry-level students.

A state of having mastered an ability to freely enter into and maintain the first of these states (joyful mind with discursive support) is called "the first jhana".

A state of having mastered an ability to freely enter into and maintain the second state (joyful mind without discursive support) is called "the second jhana" and so on.

In this case the word "jhana" has a more specialized meaning of "level of mastery of Buddhist meditation" rather than "meditation" in general.


Not understanding Jhana Mastery Of Reflection? What is the goal for this mastery exactly? I'm guessing it's to look back at your jhana meditation and see what happen. What went wrong, what are things you can improve, what lead to jhana & lsot the jhana etc.

Is this correct? I want to make sure i understand completely.

Pa-auk monastery tradition:

If you ask this question at pa-auk, they will recommend "you should in meditation, first". Because mind and mind factors arising are very fast and complex. So, it is not possible for no-attained-jhāna-person to clearly understand jhāna factors. And I am agree with that recommend, too.

This image captured from TEACHING & TRAINING book of Pa-auk monastery:

From path of purification pāli, pathavīkasiṇaniddesa:

  ayaṃ panettha atthappakāsanā, paṭhamajjhānato vuṭṭhāya paṭhamaṃ vitakkaṃ āvajjayato bhavaṅgaṃ upacchinditvā uppannāvajjanānantaraṃ vitakkārammaṇāneva cattāri pañca vā javanāni javantiฯ tato dve bhavaṅgāni, tato puna vicārārammaṇaṃ āvajjanaṃ, vuttanayāneva javanānīti evaṃ pañcasu jhānaṅgesu yadā nirantaraṃ cittaṃ pesetuṃ sakkoti, athassa āvajjanavasī siddhā hotiฯ

Translation:

Emerges 1st jhāna, then...
Bhavaṅga-minds auto arising, break it, then ...
Thinking of vitakka by only 4-5 javana-minds arising, then...
Agree only 2 bhavaṅga-minds arising, break it, then...
Thinking of vicāra by only 4-5 javana-minds arising, then...
Loop 4-5 steps by 5 jhāna-elements' sequence, until you will attain Jhana Mastery Of Reflection.

How to notice the Jhana Mastery Of Reflection attainment?

General person use 7 javana-minds arising   per thought and uncountable bhavaṅga arising between thought, but the jhāna-master must use lesser javana-minds and lesser bhavaṅga-minds to take mastery jhāna.

The practitioner attained right, exact  Jhana Mastery Of Reflection, when he can meditate  Jhana Mastery Of Reflection follow above step without any getting struck, such as more than 2 bhavaṅga-minds arising or more than 4-5 javana-minds arising.

Still doubt?

There are many jhāna masters at Pa-Auk Forest Monastery. This is better way, because below quote was written in the path of purification page 94:

  So if someone with cankers destroyed is available, that is good. If
  not, then one should take it from a non-returner, a once-returner, a
  stream-enterer, an ordinary man who has obtained jhána, one who knows
  three Piþakas, one who knows two Piþakas, one who knows one Piþaka, in
  descending order [according as available]. If not even one who knows
  one Piþaka is available, then it should be taken from one who is
  familiar with one Collection together with its commentary and one who
  is himself conscientious. For a teacher such as this, who knows the
  texts, guards the heritage, and protects the tradition, will follow
  the teachers’ opinion rather than his own. Hence the Ancient Elders
  said three times, “One who is conscientious will guard it.”

For alternative translation see:

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/23977/10100

For word definition:

http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_1.htm
http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_2.htm
http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_3.htm
http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_4.htm
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf


Are the four characteristics -- production, abiding, change and destruction -- empty, conceptual constructions? Are the four characteristics -- production, abiding, change and destruction -- empty, conceptual constructions? Does this make production etc., perhaps even impermanence, an illusion, especially according to hua-yen Buddhism [as that's where I've seen these four characteristic enumerated]?

I do not think this is a mere "metaphysical" question in the pejorative, because it may say something about birth and death: whether or not samsara -- karmic conditioning -- and so nirvana -- its termination -- are empty of essence; what the nature of first and third noble truths are.

Well, obviously the notions of production etc are dependent on having the notion of a finite, spatially/temporaly/qualitatively bounded entity (phenomenon) that is being produced etc.

Since the bounds determining the identity of any such entity (phenomenon) are necessarily a product of an act of analysis aka imputation, its production etc. is an empty conceptual construct.

As you correctly supposed, suffering, cessation of suffering, samsara, and cessation of samsara are conceptually constructed notions in the same vein. Hence all the Mahayana talk about transcending the duality of Samsara/Nirvana, liberation from even the concept of liberation, entering true emptiness, the groundless ground etc.


Is Theravada Buddhism the only modern representative of Hinayana Buddhism? Apologies for the term Hinayana but this question is borne out of those discussions.

So - is Theravada Buddhism the only modern representative on Hinayana Buddhism or are there another current branches of Buddhism, no matter how minor, that could also be termed 'Hinayana'. Or in other words would Theravada be completely synonymous with 'currently existing Hinayana Buddhism'.

Hinayana is complicated philosophical term, sometimes it refer to lower motivation, sometimes to some misunderstanding of Teaching, sometimes to smaller knowledge, or restricted acceptance of Buddha's Teaching, and sometimes it's misnomer for early schools. I want to stress, that term is philosophical from just a few of Mahayana sutras. It is not a simple thing as school, (and Mahayana is not a school too).

Hinayana as type of motivation (lower than reaching Buddhahood) is acceptable lower motivation in Mahayana schools for some types of personalities. So, in that sense Hinayana is survived inside of any Mahayana school, which accepts such notion.

In the sense of non-Mahayana: many Mahayana schools accept and their canons contain non-Mahayana teachings. All traditional Mahayana schools actually have survived vinaya lineages of early schools, not related to Mahayana doctrines.

On the other hand, Theravada developed bodhisatta practices and philosophical concepts which thought by some to be distinctively mahayanistic. It just don't generally accepts Mahayana canon, but don't officially denies either. So it's personal choice to accept it or not. Some Theravada scholars studied Mahayana, for example famous Walpola Rahula, he even wrote dissertation on Abhidharmasmuccaya with parallels to Pali canon.


How accurate is AN 9.20 – Velāma Sutta? I would really like to ask here: how accurate is AN 9.20 – Velāma Sutta?

Is stuff exaggerated in places ?
If you give all the stuff Velama gave, wouldn't you get at least a little more than a  "whiff of a heart of good will" while doing so  -  more moments of good will than just one ?

I'm not sure I remember all I want to ask about this sutta so if you have anything to add that is welcomed.

Breath, and those interested, those possible worthy of special gifts, capable to take,

assuming that accurate is meant in regard of the followed question that might be rephrased "Does the Buddha say here: Giving does not lead to merits, when saying: 'If one were to develop even for just a finger-snap the perception of inconstancy, that would be more fruitful than the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and [in addition to that] if one were to feed one person...'.

Actually this Sutta (or better wrong understandig of it) is in fact for most wester and modern people the reason why they deny that making merits, developing goodness, is needed and so deny the developing of generosity, sila, if even, without goodness cause of letting go for the sake of beyond.

Most western, moder "Buddhist" are actually training in line of th Jains who seek refuge in what is called householder-equanimity by the Buddha, meaning that they develope ignorance in the cloth of equanimity the construct around the actual path of letting go and factually do not give anything but merely amass in this way. Make simply sacrifies to keep the flame of death alive, loka-dana. See: [Q&A] What happens when your tank is empty, and you’ve got nothing left to give

It's message is also (and with the same cause) that giving without virtue "regardless of whether a gift is coarse or refined, if it is given inattentively, disrespectfully, not with one's own hand, as if throwing it away, with the view that nothing will come of it", or an object of virtue (without reflecting and keeping "buddha, Dhamma, Sangha", un-deluded in mind, has not much value for the path.

Giving so, no good perception of something worthy for gifts (because there is no worthy known or traced), the gift, sacrify is for like-alike, sacrify for like-alike or even lower, leads one there, keeps one there, simply for the sake of keeping the flame of death alive.

Like many (Brahmans, some even for what they think that it leads them to become Buddhas, being Velama, yet not even have wealth to share, to possible differents to Vemala) here. They possible think that they make merits why carring about an "unclean" place, are attached to like-alike and not directing their sacrifies to the three juwels, the Sangha as the unexcelt field of merits. So they nurish just whe world, what ever one nurishes will grow (inwardl and outwardly), and that counts for staring as well.

Doing "merits" in such a way, it is clear that people putting effort into perceptions which are not worthy of special sacrifies, actually just sacrify for their own sake, becoming and selfish purpose.

That is why one should keep right joy in giving in mind, using the three juwels as persection, Nibbana and what leads there, as object of ones deeds, one who seeks for gaining merits, goodness, that leads upwards and beyound. It such is done in an enviroment that does not provide for developing such, has not the purpose for such, is not supported by proper joy, people directed to Nibbana, but simply fot the worlds and becoming sake, to keep the flame of becoming, death alive, its of no fruits of no merits at all:

  "Householder, regardless of whether a gift is coarse or refined, if it is given inattentively, disrespectfully, not with one's own hand, as if throwing it away, with the view that nothing will come of it: Wherever the result of that gift comes to fruition, one's mind will not incline to the enjoyment of splendid food, will not incline to the enjoyment of splendid clothing, will not incline to the enjoyment of splendid vehicles, will not incline to the enjoyment of the splendid five strings of sensuality. And one's sons & daughters, slaves, servants, & workers will not listen to one, will not lend ear, will not make their minds attend for the sake of knowledge. Why is that? Because that is the result of inattentive actions."

Is like in MN96:

  “Brahmin, it is like a poor miserable man against his wish was told, here good man, you should eat meat and you should not spend money on it. In a likewise manner, without the consent of recluses and Brahmins, have appointed these four services. Brahmin, I do not say all services should be done. I do not say, all services should not be done. When doing those services if there is evil, that service is not good. I say it should not be done. When doing those services, if there is no evil, that service is good. (and vici vera).

Like the person who had put Sister Uppalavannas translation with a lot of sacrifies on the web (obove linked), he had possible made it in a manner of no fruits to aspected from it, althought it might come to frutaions. Possible without keeping Silas, respectless, thinking on amasing for ones own sake or what holding as self/real. Doning for reputations, wealth (physical, mental by knowledge), praise, pleasant feeling... invest his sacrifies for unreal and not to real directed sakes. Not to tend up-wards, most not even tend as it currently is, up simply wasts his als goodness, merits away.

Many of modern lay or opposing undertakings and practices, and their ways, unguided, self-over-estmating in wealth and possiblities, simple waste old merits an goodness possible earlier attained. So it is with all that meditation stuff and well-ness-buddhism, all simple certain ego or not-ego trips.

Be attentive, pay proper attention and learn to judge more wisely, step by step, with real benefical sacrifies and their targets!

[Later Addition (on account of an answer here) to understand quality of Dana better:

There are 3 factors:

The giver (his mindstate, directed to...? free of moha, lobha, dosa, or not) - since Velama was an "ordinary" being, perfection can not be aspected, he also had neither inwardly nor outwardly an access to the tripple gems or the/a Buddha, could possible not even images such.
The recipient (since at this time there where no Buddha no Sangha and the gifts might not have been given to a Pacceccabuddha, they have been directed to "ordinary" people.)
The gift (it was clearly outstanding and therefore had it's certain frutation)

The Suttas give direct 6 factors: Dana Sutta: Giving

When one has the wrong perception of a worthy recipient, holding something not really worthy for worthy, thinking this or that wordling is a Noble one, having no perception of those following the Noble One, it is to be assumed that the gifts are given out of right view and so have not much value in direction of Nibbana. People think normal not in spheres of free of fetters but on what ever benefits or wordily aims. Having the tripple Gems possible still present, many are gifted with that unexcelt field of merits and it is merely "sad" if not used.

That is why just a spoon of rice, with the right mindstate to a worthy person excells even the biggest wealth given if this two factors are not perfect. Or just the Veneration torward a Noble is many times higher as doing charity to torward ordinary people day by day, the whole year. See dhp]

More on Dana, note that the princip in it counts also for the merits sila, samadhi, can be found with references and discussion here: Dana (Generosity, Charity) "Abhidhamma in daily life "

May this sacrify made by me, benefit those able to rejoice with it, lead to highest bliss, path and fruit, and may the Devas inform those who do not have seen or heard yet.

Anumodana!

A possible extended answer as well as space for questions and discussiin can be found here.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, and not meant for commercial purpose or other gains in this world.]


Why does killing produce bad karma? Is it because we cause a being to suffer and experience pain while it's/he's being killed?

Or, is it because we put an end to its/his relationships and desires?

Or what reason can it be?

It is our Perception of the Sensation / Feeling experienced when result bears fruit is what distinguished the Karma as bad and not. I.e., Bad Karma is what you Perceive the results as undesirable and Good Karma is what we would perceive the results as favourable when the doer experiences the result, as well as skill full when this is conducive to reach the Buddhist Goal of Nirvana and un skilful when it is un conducive in reaching the final goal.

Say you kill you will experience the same when your actions catcher upto you. Hence what is needed is to treat other like you would be treated, or treatments you would evaluate positively if you experience it.

Also there is skilfulness of your action towards the goal of liberation. In this light any action which creates fabrication which hamper concentration and insight or the opportunity to practice can be considered unwholesome. Killing has aversion and / or craving as base. This creates fabrication which give painful sensation when meditating which will hamper concentration, insight as well as the needed longevity and conducive human birth to practice Vipassana hence such actions are un skilful.

For a worldly person (or someone not very deep and intensive in Vipassana) it is helpful to build-up Perception (Sanna) what these are good action and bad action so he is steered away from un skilful / un wholesome action towards skilful / wholesome action. As Perception clouds your sense of reality such mental maps ultimately have to be dissolved away too.


Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business? China, Japan, Korea, etc. have so many companies and Buddhism is widespread in those areas. My question is: can a Buddhist make the aim of his life to run a billion dollar business?

Sure! It is allowed for lay people, as long as they observe the five precepts and virtue (sila), which includes Right Livelihood (samma ajivo). Please also see this answer.
The Vanijja Sutta states:

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

The Sigalovada Sutta states:

The wise endowed with virtue
Shine forth like a burning fire,
Gathering wealth as bees do honey
And heaping it up like an ant hill.
Once wealth is accumulated,
Family and household life may follow.
By dividing wealth into four parts,
True friendships are bound;
One part should be enjoyed;
Two parts invested in business;
And the fourth set aside
Against future misfortunes."

The Dighajanu Sutta states:

"And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
my outflow will not exceed my income.'

The Adiya Sutta talks about the five types of benefits that can be obtained from wealth, which are summarized below:

'My wealth has been enjoyed,
my dependents supported,
protected from calamities by me.
I have given supreme offerings
& performed the five oblations.
I have provided for the virtuous,
the restrained,
followers of the holy life.
For whatever aim a wise householder
would desire wealth,
that aim I have attained.
I have done what will not lead to future distress.'
When this is recollected by a mortal,
a person established in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones,
he is praised in this life
and, after death, rejoices in heaven.

Also from the Anana Sutta which talks about "the four kinds of bliss that can be attained in the proper season, on the proper occasions, by a householder partaking of sensuality", summarizes it as follows:

Knowing the bliss of debtlessness,
& recollecting the bliss of having,
enjoying the bliss of wealth,
the mortal then sees clearly with discernment.
Seeing clearly — the wise one —
he knows both sides:
that these are not worth one sixteenth-sixteenth
of the bliss of blamelessness.

Billionaire businessmen can support society by creating jobs, fulfill the needs and wants of the people through supply for demand, and be philanthropists (similar to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett) who donate to charitable causes and also to Buddhist causes.
As pointed out by Samana Johann, Anathapindika is a great example of a very wealthy man in the time of the Buddha, who used his wealth to contribute to the spread of the Dhamma.

Anathapindika had many carts filled with gold coins, and had them
spread out upon the site. Finally only one small patch of ground at
the entrance remained bare. He gave the instructions that more gold be
brought, but the Prince Jeta announced that he was prepared to build a
mighty gate-tower on that spot at his own expense. This imposing
bastion and gate protected the monastery from the outside world,
shielded it from the noises of the road, and emphasized the dividing
line between the realms of the sacred and the worldly. Anathapindika
then spent another eighteen million for buildings and furnishings. He
built individual cells, a meeting hall, a dining hall, storerooms,
walkways, latrines, wells, and lotus ponds for bathing as well as a
large surrounding wall. Thus the forest glade was transformed into a
monastery and stood apart as a religious sanctuary.

Addendum:
Added later to show the benefit of using one's wealth to give gifts to "the upright ones".
This is the story of householder Ugga of Vesālī, who gave a lot of gifts to the Buddha. The Buddha accepted them out of compassion. I only quote the final portion of the sutta here.
From the Manāpadāyī Sutta:

“Bhante, in the presence of the Blessed One I heard and learned this:
‘The giver of what is agreeable gains what is agreeable.’ Bhante, my
couch spread with rugs, blankets, and covers, with an excellent
covering of antelope hide, with a canopy above and red bolsters at
both ends, is agreeable. Although I know this is not allowable for the
Blessed One, this sandalwood plank of mine is worth over a thousand.
Let the Blessed One accept it from me, out of compassion.” The Blessed
One accepted, out of compassion.
Then the Blessed One expressed his appreciation to the householder
Ugga of Vesālī thus:

“The giver of the agreeable gains the agreeable,
when he gives willingly to the upright ones
clothing, bedding, food, and drink,
and various kinds of requisites.
“Having known the arahants to be like a field
for what is relinquished and offered, not held back,
the good person gives what is hard to give:
the giver of agreeable things gains what is agreeable.”

Then, after expressing his appreciation to the householder Ugga of
Vesālī, the Blessed One rose from his seat and left. Then, some time
later, the householder Ugga of Vesālī passed away. After his death,
the householder Ugga of Vesālī was reborn among a certain group of
mind-made deities. On that occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at
Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park. Then, when the night
had advanced, the young deva Ugga, of stunning beauty, illuminating
the entire Jeta’s Grove, approached the Blessed One, paid homage to
him, and stood to one side. The Blessed One then said to him: “I hope,
Ugga, that it is as you would have wished.”
“Surely, Bhante, it is as I had wished.”
Then the Blessed One addressed the young deva Ugga with verses:

“The giver of the agreeable gains the agreeable;
the giver of the foremost again gains the foremost;
the giver of the excellent gains the excellent;
the giver of the best reaches the best state.
“The person who gives the best,
the giver of the foremost,
the giver of the excellent,
is long-lived and famous
wherever he is reborn.”


How can I respond to Christians' unpleasant feedback on Buddhism? I have some friends who are Christian that I can't avoid the subject with. We used to see each other very often for some events. Normally those are friends of friends. Examples of the unpleasant feedback I commonly receive include things like "Buddha is Satan", "Buddha is in hell" and "All Buddhist shall go to hell". There are many other examples and by - for example - searching YouTube, you'll find more than enough examples.
I am looking for some efficient and effective response to avoid this unfruitful conversation and prevent more unpleasant conversation that won't benefit anyone. It's better to have a compassionate discussions instead.
Below are some responses that I came up with:

Oh my God? So far Buddha didn't do me any harm me yet. I will be taking extra precautions for this. Thanks for the concern.

Oh my God? My understanding, based on personally hearing the story from both sides, is that roughly 80% of the teachings of Christianity have a counterpart in Buddhism which has a similar interpretation. How come Satan is teaching the same morals as God?

Oh my God? Where in the Bible is it written so?

I felt hurt that you say Buddha is Satan. In a few cases they will insist to talk on this and ignore my feeling. Not sure they feel righteous to say so on their side?

Oh my God. Can I excuse myself to wash room for some emergency? If talk again and go again.

Post notes:
Thanks guys, there is a chat discussion regarding this with another Christian. If you are interested, let me know and I will add you. I do respect Jesus and Buddha a lot and I hope there is no comment that leads to a battlefield. I will keep my sincere prayers for forgiveness from Jesus and others too if there is unpleasant feeling to others too due to this questions. Really sorry folks.

Just tell them:

I am not a Christian, and I'm not interested in becoming one.
My interest in Buddhism or any other religion is my own business.
Let's not discuss religion.

This answer would be in line with keeping the precept of abstaining from incorrect speech (including lying and speaking harsh words).


Is gender a result of Kamma? Are the genders male/female a result of Kamma, or is it associated with it in any way?

Karma is a very complicated process. We could in fact say that just about everything affects just about everything else - if a butterfly beats its wings in China, it does probably play some infinitesimal role in causing hurricanes in Florida. If, by karma, you mean any old action whatsoever, then indeed, there are probably certain actions (especially mental ones) that lead one to be reborn as one gender or the other.

Specifically, a man's obsession with women would most likely cause him to be reborn as a woman, and vice versa. This is most likely what happened in the stories we have that have been traditionally interpreted as suggesting that adultery leads to being born a woman. It is far more likely, in my mind, that male adultery with women leads to being born a woman, and female adultery with men leads to being born a man. The cause being the insane obsession.

This, of course, is not what is meant by karma and result in a Buddhist sense. Here the fact that one was born a woman or a man was not a "bad" or "good" result, it was just a case of obsession leading to realization of the object of obsession.  If one were insanely obsessed with cats, one would likely be born a cat.

If, by karma, you are referring to ethical acts, in the sense that, for example, being born gender A is the good result of certain good deeds and being born gender B is the evil result of certain evil deeds, it seems unlikely that one could infer that from the Buddha's teaching - itthindriya and purisindriya are just two of the many aspects of physical being; there is nothing intrinsically inferior or superior between the two, I don't think.

That being said, genders are hardly ever equal, physically or socially, in any species of being; in India at the time of the Buddha and when the commentaries were written, for example, being born a human female would have been a bad thing given their inferior social status, and thus could be taken indirectly as a sign of bad past karma. Too, the physiology of a human female is arguably (though not conclusively so) a cause of greater potential suffering than of its male counterpart, forcing one to deal with menstrual cycles, pregnancy, etc., as well as generally inferior strength.

Of course, this need not always be true; nor does it imply that the female faculty itself is inferior to the male faculty, or brought about by bad karma in all cases. Several species of mammal exhibit characteristics of female domination; the human species itself seems to be heading closer to a level of equality between the genders. Thus, it seems erroneous to suggest that one gender is an intrinsic result of good karma and another the intrinsic result of bad karma.

To be perfectly clear, in the abhidhamma, karma refers to one's mental volition or motivation, and the result is always expressed in terms of experience - good karma results in good experience, bad karma results in bad experience (viz. of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking). For gender to play any intrinsic role in bringing about the result of good or bad karma, it would have to intrinsically be the cause of specific pleasant or unpleasant experiences. Again, any such relationship seems more related to the evolution of certain species and cultures than the intrinsic nature of the genders.

Finally, the whole concept of karma is suspect; an arahant performs no karma, good or evil, and doesn't see any experience as either pleasant or unpleasant. In ultimate reality, whether certain experiences are "good" or "bad" seems largely subjective, and any volition or motivation that leads one to be reborn as either a male or a female of any species is definitely "bad" or "wrong" in an ultimate sense.


The experience of silence Is there anything out there in the zen tradition about whether "silence" (do I mean this metaphorically) is to be embraced in meditation?

If you are coming at this from a Zen perspective, I wouldn't use the word "silence" so much as "emptiness" or mu-shin.  And I wouldn't say that the word "embraced" quite gets at what you need to be doing.  Emptiness is embraced, but there is also an element of investigation.  One should become both "one with" mu-shin while looking deeply into it.

I think it's important to understand, however, that this sort of investigation is not a preliminary practice.  The mind has to be quieted and the concentration developed to a certain extent before one has an experience of that emptiness.  Once it is beheld, it should then be stabilized.  This can be done through various techniques - most famously the mu koan.  If you are beginning your meditation practice, you are better off just watching the breath.  This will help lay a foundation for later investigation.


How does the Buddha address powerful spiritual experiences in monks? Specifically, loss of time, distance and size. Also advanced forms of empathy and being in two locations at once. I realise this is quite vague but I hesitate at giving details. I'm more concerned with how these are addressed in Buddhism.

Not really sure what type of answer you are looking for (sutra references about supernormal powers??), but I'll just paraphrase what I heard recently from a Theravada monk that seemed like extremely good advice which reportedly came from Ajahn Chah...

The advice was to simply be mindful and beware growing attached to any weird experiences you have while meditating. With the deep concentrations found in meditation you can have all kinds of seemingly supernatural experiences. So what. They are no more real or inherently existing (nor less!) than any thing experienced in waking life. If you have weird or seemingly supernatural experiences in waking life... again, so what. They are no more real (nor less!) than what you might experience in a dream. All things lack inherent existence and are not worthy of grasping. Grasp at them and you will incur suffering for yourself and others. So don't do it! :)

Now, the one thing you said that I think might deserve extra attention is your remark about "advanced forms of empathy." If by "empathy" you mean compassion (the wish for others to be free from suffering), then this is an unalloyed virtue that should be cultivated to perfection. To do so, I'd suggest Shantideva's Guide and loving kindness or bodhicitta meditation.

Hope this helps!


Nature of Enlightenment How did different people with different philosophies and ideologies attain the same enlightenment or did they not? Buddha attained enlightenment and so did Adi Shankaracharya, but their philosophies are different (not to mention ramanujacharya, nagarjuna and many others). Or is it the case that we can never really know who attains enlightenment? Well I know that there is similarity between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta but at the core they are very different. How did they attain the same enlightenment knowing the real truth in two different ways? At least one of them is wrong.
Well some say the truth can be interpreted in different ways but if advaita says self exists and buddhism denies it there is a big problem you can't make them compatible with one another.

You're absolutely right that they are only superficially appearing similar, but when you dive deep, they are completely different.
This has been discussed in numerous answers, which I will not repeat here - this answer, this answer, this answer, this answer, this answer.
The original teachings of the Buddha are systematic (the four noble truths), empirical (the three marks of existence), soteriological (the Noble Eightfold Path) and avoids intellectual gymnastics and obscure mysticism (Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, Acintita Sutta, Sabba Sutta), while Advaita is metaphysical and based on logic, philosophy and intellectual gymnastics.
For e.g. the Eternal Self as the Universal Consciousness or Cosmic Consciousness that is standalone, indivisible, eternal and witnesses through all living beings is a very elegant idea in Advaita Vedanta.
But the Buddha's empirical observation and realization is that consciousness is dependently originated on the six sensory media, and it is conditioned and impermanent (see MN 38). Even the mental idea of the self is also dependently originated, conditioned and impermanent. This can be realized generally through the Noble Eightfold Path, and specifically through vipassana.
So, which is true? If you dive deeper, you can see for yourself which is true. One is a very elegant intellectual model, while the other is empirically verifiable.


Is Jesus considered to be a buddha? I was wondering what main stream Buddhism think of Jesus, was he a buddha?

Can anyone tell me where Jesus fits into Buddhism?

Buddhism teaches that all misbeliefs(beliefs that block the path to Nibbana) are variations of 2 fundamental misbeliefs.

Sasvatha Vada - Eternalism
Uchcheda Vada - Nihilism

What Jesus preached falls under Sasvatha Vada. Hinduism and Islam are also in the same category. So he couldn't have been even an average Buddhist teacher, let alone a Buddha. Besides, the next Buddha to appear is Maitreya Buddha, the last Buddha of this aeon. After that many aeons will come to pass without even a single Sammasambuddha. So there won't be another Buddha for a long time.


Buddha's view on sexuality In contemporary society (apart from religion) sex is mostly seen as something pleasurable, which is done even without considering childbearing.

As far as I can see, Buddha taught extensively to lay people how to treat each other friendly & compassionately, but omitted the bodily intimacy aspect of it.

It's largely sensual desire that binds human couples together, and I am not merely referring to appearance, but also the craving to be touched etc. (as it's always correctly pointed out in the suttas: Pleasant feelings at the 5 sense doors)

Q1: Did the Buddha remain silent on these matters because of a specific reason?

Q1.1Was the Buddha even concerned about sexual objectification & did he suggested perhaps sexual repression?

Dhammapda 242 states:

  Unchastity is the taint in a woman

Q2: Could it be that a majority of Buddha's teaching are timeless, but few are open for change, due to different societal context etc.? (e.g., 3rd precept)

Q3: In the above quote, isn't it a bit biased to state that it's ONLY a woman's taint? Why not a man? Why focus overly on women?
Back in those days, there were probably fixed gender roles, but I believe society should progress & should rather acknowledge individuality even among the genders. It seems that the Buddha is over-generalizing, or did the miss the boat?

There are two levels of Teaching, for the common people, and for professional seekers of Nirvana.

To first, Buddha taught no-nonsense ethics, chastity etc. Sex for procreation, faithful marriage, these kinds of things. Going mostly by his basic principle of "what leads to peace and harmony is good, what creates causes for potential conflict is bad" - applied to the social norms of those days.

To the second, he taught universal principles operating at cosmic scale. Natural evolution ("dependent origination") emerges as cyclic self-perpetuating tendencies. These self-perpetuating tendencies culminate in arising of sentient experience. Information trapped in these tendencies identifies some elements of this experience as "self". What in reality is a perpetuating part of the tendency (its capacity for continued existence) in sentient experience arises as something subjectively desirable. This includes sexual attraction.

Therefore, breaking through the charm of seemingly pleasant, and correctly attributing its nature to the self-perpetuating tendency for continued existence, is an appropriate component of practice leading to liberation from the trap of subjective experience.


How do experienced Buddhists preserve their equanimity and well-being in unfavourable circumstances? What are the examples in ancient texts or in history when a trained Buddhist sustained their equanimity and well-being through torture, forced isolation or other unfavourable circumstances?

Which tools given in Dhamma do you think would be useful if one had to survive, for example, through the years in prison? Could it be possible to keep on the development of skilful qualities in places like this?

Would you consider suicide as a solution?

Would you consider suicide as a solution?

A big NO...., suicide is not a solution, it creates more problems.

  Which tools given in Dhamma do you think would be useful if one had to survive

Buddhism teaches us consequences for our each action,

For example if you hate someone, that person won't even know that you've hated him/her unless you told, but if you hating someone else and it isn't hurt them or do bad for them, it's really bad for the person who hate. Because hater's mind is impure, and it count as bad Karma.

When you collect bad Karma for long time, and suddenly die, while do the another bad Karma, there's high probability of being reincarnate in one of Four Hell(Animals, Pretha, Asura, Hell). And that's the danger of reincarnation. And those four places has lot more Pain, Suffering than human world, it's unimaginable.

" Imagine while four muscular guys hold your hands and legs and another two of'em rip your body apart with a saw, and no way to survive, And advice for the person who getting hurt is not to hate those six guys, being nice them. " And this is a allegory for Meththa.

So if someone think those accordingly and believe that's it truth, no one would do any bad things, And i think that is the best Motive for the survival of such situations.(If you follow and believe Lord Buddha).

I hope this would help.


Buddhism and self-improvement For a person to have a will to change, there must be some dissonance between its real self and a mental image of ideal self. To put simply, one must be dissatisfied with oneself somehow. This dissatisfaction, or "unacceptance", is the driving force that push people toward better, however they define it. Let it be a stronger physique, better social skills, greater knowledge, better money management, whatever.

One can think that such unacceptance of one's flaws is a good thing.

But here comes Buddhism, and tells you to 'let it go'. To stop focusing on your flaws, to stop creating mental images of yourself, to accept the world (including yourself) as it is. (I say generally 'Buddhism', since I believe this teaching is universal, although I was exposed to Zen mostly)

Now the question: how does Buddhism reconciles the teachings of dropping the ego with having goals to improve ones flaws? It seems contradictory to me, as I assume it's impossible to work on my flaws without focusing on them and relating them to the image of myself, which I'm supposed to drop.

Buddhism is about enlightened self interest - to sharpen one's focus onto the important things - and not just the things that are efficient distractions for most people. So, self improvement or societal improvement is definitely not a problem with Buddhism.

If you woke me up at my deepest sleep, when I am the groggiest, I am of little use to anyone, until I wake up fully. Similarly, to be of use to anyone, whether ourselves or others in our lives, or the world at large, we must first be awakened to reality of life. Or we compound errors, like someone who's just woken up, and can't open his eyes too well.

Take the case of a professional, say a doctor. A junior doctor will likely lose sleep over a mishap, like the loss of a patient, she will agonize over what went wrong, what could have been done to save him, and so on. Whereas, a senior doctor would know nothing more could have been done, and goes about life after a moment's reflection. Nothing surprises the senior professional in her sphere of competence.

It may be a whole another story outside their sphere of competence - if the senior doctor lost a lot of money on the stock market, she may react like a child, crying over it, while the senior banker shuffles off home equanimously after a similar loss because this loss and gain happens to him every day.

  Life happens to all of us everyday but we cry like little children at
  life's agonies, and squeal at life's pleasures. We aren't very mature
  about life.

An enlightened Buddhist looks at all life like a senior professional. With maturity. If something needs doing it is done, if something remains undone despite doing everything, there is no panic, it is just life.

We are in no hurry to arrive, we are in no reluctance to depart.

Buddhism isn't only about denial of the self. That would be an extreme view. Just like belief in a self is an extreme view. Initially when people are unenlightened they can't even conceptualize the idea of a world without a self. At the next stage of awakening, they come to terms with the world that is empty of the self. At the next stage they come to terms with the world where a self is and isn't. They have successfully let go of either extreme.

At this final stage they are neither obsessed about lack of self improvement, nor are they lazing about without self improvement. They have developed a capacity to accept things for what they are, and react suitably. This doesn't mean they let life happen to them like an immobile rock, nor are they supermen who dodge everything life throws at them.

They are in one word - very mature. Like a consummate master of life who has seen it all, stepping out of the way of problems that can be avoided, and accepting what cannot be avoided as necessary.


Signlessness seems to be contradictory to Buddhism Signlessness is a concept that I was taught about Buddhism in a college course on Buddhism. It was defined as "not taking omens to have meaning, whether the omen was good or bad does not matter."

But in the same course I learned the mystical means by which the new Dali Lama was found. They see letters in sky telling them to go to Ando Province.

Maybe this is right-mindfulness(?): we see things as they truly are in reality and do impose logic onto things were there should not be. Like if I see my lucky number right as I have that really good feeling when I know I am making the right decision. Must I regard seeing my lucky number as just a coincidence and not a sign?

As I understand it, in Mahayana, signlessness (animitta) has nothing to do with omens. To quote Wikipedia,

  Signlessness refers to the fact that phenomena seem to possess their
  apparent qualities by way of their own nature, but when one examines
  this appearance one realizes that all qualities are merely mentally
  imputed and not a part of the nature of the objects they appear to
  characterize.

Basically, signlessness means not getting caught into traps of abstractions. This is based on clear understanding that real world is infinitely more nuanced and multifaceted than any concept, however precise, can ever dream to capture. There is an infinite number of alternative ways of describing the world -- each valid in its own context.

The notion of signlessness is related to aniketa-cārī (usually translated as "wandering without a home" but having a broader meaning in Mahayana) -- the practice of "non-abiding", or not settling on any single conceptual, metaphysical, or philosophical base.