Is this a Buddhist poem? Ryōkan Taigu is described as,

  Ryōkan Taigu (良寛大愚?) (1758–1831) was a quiet and eccentric Sōtō Zen Buddhist monk who lived much of his life as a hermit. Ryōkan is remembered for his poetry and calligraphy, which present the essence of Zen life. He is also known by the name Ryokwan in English.

I'm reading this poem and am puzzled by it.

In A Dilapidated Three-Room Hut

In a dilapidated three-room hut
I’ve grown old and tired;
This winter cold is the
Worst I’ve ever suffered through.
I sip thin gruel, waiting for the
Freezing night to pass.
Can I last until spring finally arrives?
Unable to beg for rice,
How will I survive the chill?
Even meditation helps no longer;
Nothing left to do but compose poems
In memory of deceased friends.

One of the things that puzzles me is the last line ("memory of deceased friends").

I thought (I'm probably mistaken again :-) that Buddhists are advised to "live in the present" and to avoid living "in memory", and to deconstruct the self instead of thinking "I feel" and "I suffer" and "I last".

Can you say what Ryōkan's intention might have been in writing this poem?

Wikipedia says, of Sōtō,

  The meditator strives to be aware of the stream of thoughts, allowing them to arise and pass away without interference.

Perhaps that's what this poem is doing: simply awareness of a stream of thoughts? What's the difference between that and, I don't know, any other ordinary unenlightened mode of thought or life?

I think you are confounding Buddhist principles with Japanese culture - of which veneration of the dead is an important part.  If there is one thing you can say about Buddhism, it's that it doesn't exist in a vacuum and often takes on the cultural customs of its practitioners.

Besides, it's a poem.  He's trying to capture a moment for an audience, not make a statement about the dharma.  ;-)


The Intention to Strive Yesterday, I was eating some vegetable sausages and I noticed that there was just a set of teeth rhythmically opening and closing like a lonely metronome with no meaningful sensory instrumentals. It reminded me of one those animations in a Pink Floyd video where unidentified mechanical machinery rocks back and forth which then took me on various excursions through the woeful realms.
Afterwards, the thought occurred to me although with some slight linguistic embellishments here: "isn't it marvelous, isn't it astounding, isn't it stupendous that, amongst the processed and compressed remnants of soy beans shaped into a sausage, one can be brought to the very edges of the cosmos and back again but not actually traverse one single cubic meter of space."
Even going down to the shops in the car to purchase various types of cruciferous vegetables, movement is sometimes stillness.
In the Diamond Sutra, which I very carefully studied for four years, (I don't mean 'study' in the conventional or academic sense) the Buddha eludes to this by saying, "Subhuti, if any person were to say that the Buddha is now coming or going, or sitting up or lying down, they would not have understood the principle I have been teaching. Why? Because while the expression ‘Buddha’ means ‘he who has thus come, thus gone,’ the true Buddha is never coming from anywhere or going anywhere. The name ‘Buddha’ is merely an expression, a figure of speech.”
At this juncture and with the notion and fallacy of time and space falling away, intention and striving seem somewhat superfluous. Striving perhaps takes a new manifestation; one that shimmers ever so slightly rather than presenting as various forms of vigour. In fact, in the Buddhist sense, striving seems counter-intuitive to its original dictionary definition and certainly debunks the overly enhanced ideas derived from the noise that motivates a materialistic-ridden society.
The strange thing about the latter is that there is something ever so right about mundane human striving even in the face of its ensuing sufferings; that this rightness is the product of its own realising tendancies but through various infantile spasms - not infantile in the pejorative sense, but an infancy that is embodied by innocence and love. This is too subtle for me to embrace just now but I see it teetering on the very edges of my awareness prancing alongside some odd luminosity and unmitigated terror.
In the above context what is the meaning of striving to awaken?
Does the initial intention behind striving suggest a network of flimsy ideas indoctrinated by ones chosen context as a form of pacifying the mind from worldly distractions and that these spirituality fabricated artefacts must be later seen to be a hindrance?
Currently, my intention seems to be informed by the way my mind has been previously exposed to the practice which is to say: raw personal experience, but I question the flickering baubles we call spirituality, Buddhism, Theravada, Zen, Mahayana. Is this suitable?
NOTE: I understand it might sound like I'm all over the place but please be assured that this is not the case. I would rather not have a flurry of misdirected aims in this manner. The theme here is striving and intention and how they might be perceived - in the fullest range of perception - by different people and their traditions.
Thanks.

In my experience, it's a kind of phase. First, you don't really strive, but you're intrigued by Dharma enough to keep learning hodgepodge and practicing once in a while.
Then your perception of samsara becomes negative enough that finding the way out becomes an urgent matter. This is the phase when you strive. Some people are more extreme than others and so get pretty unhinged while others are lukewarm, and everything in between.
Then you break through enough barriers or otherwise get enough insight into what's possible and what's fiction that your attitude to striving transforms. You realize that what you thought was striving was actually a neurosis fueled by samsaric confusion and what you thought was non-striving is actually the right striving. You begin to get the true meaning of the word "cessation" and in general the first three Noble Truths become your everyday reality rather than something abstract.
And then slowly but steadily you get more honest with yourself, until you get so honest that you can admit that you are not perfect. Far from it, you admit that occasionally you still get carried away by emotions and make mistakes. And if you think about it very carefully, you realize that being perfect is kind of impossible exactly because of anatta. And so, since you are not and can never be perfect, some amount of striving - not necessarily striving for something extraordinary but simply striving to not be a jerk - will stay relevant for as long as you live and probably even longer.


What should I avoid to maintain sati? To develop sati, we should meditate. So, what should I avoid to maintain sati?

the condition for sati is proper attention

  I say that mindfulness and situational awareness is fueled by
  something, it’s not unfueled. And what is the fuel for mindfulness and
  situational awareness? You should say: ‘Proper attention.’

https://suttacentral.net/an10.62/en/sujato


How to suppress the 5 hindrance to achieve the first jhana? I am reading books on the subject. But don't fully understand the language as im new to meditation and Buddhism. I want to learn the jhanas one at a time to work my way up. But im lost when it comes to getting rid of the 5 hindrances. I dont quiet get how to do t. Any tips.. I wish i could find a teahcer but i have no money to travel and theres no one here in my location.

'Suppressing' the five hindrances is not the method of the Pali suttas.

In the Pali suttas, the five hindrances are 'abandoned', 'purified' or 'cleansed' using wisdom, as explained in MN 19, MN 20, DN 13, SN 46.55, etc.

  Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of
  covetousness. Abandoning ill will & anger, he dwells with an awareness
  devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings.
  He cleanses his mind of ill will & anger. Abandoning sloth &
  drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth & drowsiness,
  mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth &
  drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness & anxiety, he dwells undisturbed,
  his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness &
  anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over
  uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental
  qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty.

  Having abandoned these five hindrances — imperfections of awareness that weaken wisdom — then, quite secluded from sensuality,
  secluded from unskillful qualities, he enters and remains in the first
  jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed
  thought & evaluation.

  MN 38


What is the meaning and/or purpose of life? According to Buddhism, if exists, what is the meaning of life, and if different, what is the purpose of life? And where does this meaning and purpose come from?

I think that, in the zen soto tradition, the answer would be the famous word of Dogen Zenji: "あるがまま" (read: arugamama) which kind of translate as "things are so".

Zen encourage a radical acceptation of "things as they are", and it is believed that through this radical acceptance of "things as they are", right here, right now,  a deeper and non-intellectual understanding of life can be reached, one that words can't describe.

Therefore such question can not be answered. The Buddha himself simply remained silent when such metaphysical questions were addressed to him.


Is the 'best meditation you do' the meditation you do? There is a pithy saying for keeping fit that goes

  The 'best exercise you do' is the exercise you do

i.e. the most important thing is to find something you enjoy and you can stick with rather that do the scientifically proven 'more effective exercise' that you maybe don't enjoy as much.

So I was wondering is the same true of meditation i.e.

  The 'best meditation you do' the meditation you do

So to fill it out - is it more important to find the meditation that suits you personally and perhaps adapt and tweak it until it really suits or is it better to pick a tradition and follow their methods to the letter and force your way through it?

I have not heard of any teacher in any tradition that would say: "Yes, go ahead and shop around, get the best elements from every tradition and construct a teaching and practice that works for you" -- Never.

Every teacher seems to have confidence in their tradition. That said, some of the teachers I personally came in contact with, stayed fairly hands off and minimalistic when it comes to meditation instructions.

My Zen Master famously said "Don't go with the thoughts; don't go against the thoughts" - that's it. No other instructions! He did write a book that had a chapter on meditation, so anyone could read that if they wanted, but he never insisted on meditation to follow a strict order.

Dza Kilung Rinpoche gave rather verbose instructions, as is customary in Tibetan Buddhism but as a Dzogchen Nyingmapa his sentiment has always been that meditation only begins as something guided, because that's how beginner's mind operates, but then as you progress you get to pick your own course in the overall direction prescribed by the teacher or the level you are on.

In my own opinion, meditation is something impossible to pin down and put in a box no matter how hard you try. So even if someone would speak about some particular type of meditation as if many people had the same meditation experience - that would only be a theoretical construct, a figure of speech. In reality every person's meditation, and every meditation session, is different and unique.

It also depends on the situation, the person, the problem, the level, the question, and the current goal. For example in my case, my meditation for many years has been to avoid getting carried away by thoughts. That's what I did, sat and fought with my thoughts and tried to stay in the present. As that did not work too well, I tried meditation that focused on subtle feelings in the diaphragm and lower abdomen, with the goal of discovering and letting go of all tensions and blockages. That worked better and has been helpful. Then for a period of time I meditated on the overall well-being, trying to generate a bright and open, happy mind. That worked quite well. These days I meditate on "no conflict in the mind", in other words the focus of my meditation is sukha-approaching-suchness.

From my perspective, any rigid meditation method is a lie that depends on the student either being blind to the fact, or pretending to not see, that their mind is a not simple mechanical machine but an endlessly fluid spontaneous process with multiple feedback loops.

So in my own personal opinion, of course "it is more important to find the meditation that suits you personally and perhaps adapt and tweak it until it really suits" and no, I would never recommend to "pick a tradition and follow their methods to the letter and force your way through it" - regardless of how many traditional teachers would say so.

That said, it is important that your meditation is not an act of fooling yourself, not an act of indulging in what rubs your ego the right way, but an authentic discovery process. Meditation is the time and place to be absolutely honest with yourself, to see what you normally don't want to see, to feel what you normally don't want to feel, and to get clarity about all this.

For me this type of honesty with yourself is a lot more effective than "to force your way through it".


Music or ambient sounds for meditation? My own experience with meditation is that it works best when I'm alone and it's quiet. But in the dharma center they sell lot of cd's and many of them are titled "for meditation".

Is it absolutely and definitely not "Comme il faut" to meditate with music? Is this music they sell for meditation more for rituals etc? Or is there some kinds of music that can be used for meditation? By "music" I don't necessarily mean melodic compositions, but ambient sounds like fex theta waves. Any experiences and/or advice?

If one is using music in order to be able to e.g. concentrate better, then it might not be the best solution. In time it could become a "crutch".

There are many views and discussions about this and ultimately it comes down to personal preference. For some meditators it might be okay to use a crutch in the beginning, which they can later do away with.

For others, they might prefer to learn meditation or to meditate in silence. Their is no definitive answer to this.


How to make Nirvana as a top priority of your life? Apart from watching dhamma talks, reading dhamma books and watching dhamma related youtube videos, and apart from telling yourselves that ' there is dukkha in life and you have to free yourself from the cycle of birth and death', how can one motivate oneself by making Nirvana as the top priority of one's life?
I mean how can I change the narrative of the perspective of the story of my own life and humanity at large so that Nirvana is all that remains.
How to strive single pointedly towards Nirvana and make all other undertakings of day to day life as secondary?

I am studying MN19 this week and your post resonates with the Buddha's description of his own path to enlightenment. It begins with a very profound view:

MN19:2.1: “Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I thought:
‘Why don’t I meditate by continually dividing my thoughts into two classes?’
So I assigned sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts to one class. And I assigned thoughts of renunciation, good will, and harmlessness to the second class.

Intent on awakening, we focus on the skillful, following what leads upward. MN19 continues on to extinguishment. I hope you may enjoy this sutta as much as I am this week.


Buddhist Ontology/Reductionism vs Science Dear Mighty friends and learned colleagues,

I am a Scientist and have been a philosopher (I don't want to reveal my identity) so far. I have been a strong theist, raised up in an orthodox Hindu Background, with vedic training. So I read Vedas and other texts and always believed in God. Sometimes by convention and sometimes by experiential intuition. God was - unfortunately or fortunately - presented to me in a dogmatic manner. Top-Down. Here is God. Take it. Accept it. Believe it.

I was OK with it, till it started to disturb me deep down. Firstly due to my heavy involvement with the foundations of sciences, I was caught in the method of science. So I can't believe in God and do my science at the same time. At one point one has to give up traveling in two boats.

Buddhism offered solace at that point. I thought it's a logical religion. Totally banishing the dogmas and blind beliefs. But I found some paradoxes in it as well. Perhaps due to my ignorance. I will be grateful if someone throw some light and enlighten me here:

Buddhism's ontology posits a world which don't need a creator. That's fine. But how about the soul? What proof does Buddha have for soul? and What about reincarnation? What are the proofs for it?

What about the Maitri? or Metta? When you close your eyes and let your heart radiate, should we imagine a field (akin to quantum fields) that radiates outside your heart? What's the proof for this again?

Also what about Karma? How can I reap bad when I sow bad? Where does this transaction take place? In ordinary space-time? Because attributing causality to action and reaction posited by Karma principle, is against the modern science whose fundamental elements are quantum particles. Where are this Good and Bad situated?

What about Amitabha?

So the issue is simple. In for pound. In for penny. If Buddhism doesn't accept anything by blind belief, then these elements should be dropped. Because there's no scientific/cognitive proofs of the aforementioned elements given our sensorimotor apparatus.

Can someone enlighten me? Or suggest me some books? Any brief answers addressing these things will be greatly helpful.

Your humble servant.

It's a good question but has some erroneous assumptions.

First, and this would be crucial, if we are speaking of the 'Middle Way' then there are no paradoxes in Buddhist doctrine . This is demonstrable and it has been demonstrated, most notably by Nagarjuna. Nor is there an individual soul or reincarnation.

Rebirth is the usual word and this is not quite reincarnation. Individual souls would not exist but we would share a common 'Self'. (Schrodinger writes well about this, dismissing monads and souls as unworkable ideas. As a scientist you might like to read him since he says a lot about the Upanishadic view and endorses it).

Karma is about causation. Basically it says 'As you sow so shall ye reap'. If you jump off a cliff you'll get hurt, etc. But it operates in more realms than science observes. It operates in time, as you say, and it is able to operate because it is not a process external to our consciousness. That is, no Divine judge that is 'other' would be required for its operation, just our own internal records of our own motives and actions. We would be our own judge and jury.

Karma is tricky in the context of ontology because by reduction it would evaporate along with the subjects and objects on which it operates.

Regarding ontology, for a fundamental analysis nothing would really exist or ever really happen. The world we live in would be a creation of consciousness and as such would have the nature of a dream. To all everyday intents and purposes it would be real but this reality would be 'conventional'. To understand this as an idea would mean studying Nagaruna's doctrine of 'Two Truths' or 'Worlds'.

We normally say a piano is a real object but know that by reduction it's just a thin fog of quanta. The Perennial philosophy says it is not even this but is empty of inherent existence. For Buddhist ontology we need to study 'emptiness' and the idea that all phenomena are empty. Only if they are empty can they be explained, and this would be why Buddhist metaphysics is able to work where theoretical physics and western metaphysics ends in paradox and confusion.

The idea of a field radiating from the heart may be meaningful and useful and perhaps there is such a thing, but in the end Buddhism asks us to look beyond extension. Extension is a paradoxical idea and thus all extended objects - the number line, the continuum, space-time, pianos etc - and by reduction Buddhism disposes of them, thus avoiding the paradoxes that arise for realism.

You say there is no scientific proof of certain elements of the teachings. This is inevitable since they dispose of mundane science and speak of what lies beyond sensory empiricism. This does not mean there is no proof. Buddhist teachers should not be teaching things they have not verified for themselves. The difficulty with discussing this with those unfamiliar with these ideas is that in a sense you'd be right, karma and rebirth are non-existent. This would be why it is possible to transcend them. But to all intents and purposes they would exist until we know they don't.

As for where good and bad are situated they'd be in your mind, along with right and wrong and sin and evil and fear and guilt.

There are many good books. For ontology I'd suggest The Sun of Wisdom by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso (Shamabala). Schrodinger is worth a read, perhaps What is Life and What is Mind. The mathematician Hermann Weyl is good on the continuum and explains the Perennial view. His The Continuum is too much maths for me but his other writings expand on his thoughts. If you're into maths you could try Spencer Brown's Laws of Form in which he reduces the world to formlessness. Bradley's Appearance and Reality is a more chatty reduction of the space-time world to a collection of conceptual imputations for a Reality that is 'non-dual'. If you can do the maths you might like Ulrich Mohrhoff and his text-book The World According to Quantum Mechanics, which gives the interpretation of QM necessary for Nagarjuna's universe.

The literature is so vast we're spoilt for choice. If you specify a topic I could give a more specific recommendation but all the topics overlap so it's just a question of wading in and following your nose.

I'm happy to add to this if I've missed anything. I feel that when scientists ask questions it would be vital to answer them.


Thing-hood in Buddhism and meaningfulness I often struggle with feelings of despair about not so much that I will die but my mortality, my insignificance in a time as time never ends.

But it also occurred to me that actually everyone is in the same boat (so to speak) and so as long as we don't let things define our value, then maybe life has meaning and value.

Is that anything to do with emptiness, or is emptiness more an ontological doctrine than anything about value and meaningfulness ?

I think you should contemplate thus:

  There were many Buddha's before your current Buddha but their significance and influence has come to an end. My influence on earth is comparatively more insignificant. Any influence or value you bring on the earth has a finite time span. No one is indispensable in the long run. In the grand scheme of things you cannot attach a meaning off significance to your existance, life and influence.

But only until your polarity in looking for significance of existance is subdued. For a lasting solution you have to do Vipassana.

Looking for meaning or lasting influence you are trying to exert some control to you environment which you cannot and lead to misery as if it does not materialise you might think of yourself as a failure. You can try without being too attached to result of your influence.

Trying to give meaning to any thing, you are dealing with concepts and perception. Reality will always be different, hence disappointment. So trying to give meaning to anything will not be entirely satisfactory.


Why is the first lines of the Dhammapada twin verses sometimes translated using the word 'heart'? In most of the translations of the Dhammapada I have read the first lines of the Twin Verses (first chapter) are rendered using the words mind or thoughts. For instance this translation by Buddharakkhita

  Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all
  mind-wrought.

However I recently read a translation by Thanissaro (in this book) that renders the lines as

  Phenomena are preceded by heart, ruled by heart, made of heart

I found the variation from mind (or thoughts) to heart quite striking. What is the original Pali phrasing and which words are able to be translated freely between mind and heart? What is the overall sense of the Pali words used i.e. what are the nuances or subtleties to the original Pali?

Thanissaro's translations are... unique. The word being used, as others have pointed out, is "mano", the leader of an irregular group of nouns called the "manogana" - "the group with mano as its leader".

The PED has a huge article on mano, worth reading in full if you're interested. I've copied the gist of it below, but as you should see, it is probably misleading to translate it as "heart". There is a word for that, "hadaya", which is sometimes used as a synonym of mano, viññāṇa, etc., but also refers to the physical heart organ.

It is fair to say he is within his right to use poetic license in this case; it is, after all, poetry, and the mind and the heart are much the same in Buddhism. As you can see below, though, manas generally refers more to the thinking side of things, than the emotive or the substantial entity of "the heart" or "the mind".

  Mano & Mana(s); (nt.) [Vedic manaḥ, see etym. under maññati]

...

  II. Meaning: mind, thought

...

  Mano represents the intellectual functioning of consciousness, while viñnāṇa represents the field of sense and sense -- reaction ("perception"), and citta the subjective aspect of consciousness (cp. Mrs. Rh. D. Buddhist Psychology p. 19) -- The rendering with "mind" covers most of the connotation; sometimes it may be translated "thought. As "mind" it embodies the rational faculty of man which, as the subjective side in our relation to the objective world, may be regarded as a special sense, acting on the world, a sense adapted to the rationality (reasonableness, dhamma) of the phenomena, as our eye is adapted to the visibility of the latter.

...

  As regards the relation of manas to citta, it may be stated that citta is more substantial (as indicated by translation "heart"), more elemental as the seat of emotion, whereas manas is the finer element, a subtler feeling or thinking as such. See also citta2 I., and on rel. to viññāṇa & citta see citta;2 IV. 2b. In the more popular opinion and general phraseology however manas is almost synonymous with citta as opposed to body, cittaŋ iti pi mano iti pi S ii.94.

As to your ancillary questions:

What is the original Pali phrasing?

As others have pointed out, the original is:

  manopubbaṅgamā dhammā, manoseṭṭhā manomayā.
  manasā ce paduṭṭhena, bhāsati vā karoti vā.
  tato naṃ dukkhamanveti, cakkaṃva vahato padaṃ.

Which words are able to be translated freely between mind and heart?

Some words used more or less interchangeably are citta, viññāṇa, mano, hadaya, ceto and nāma. Any one of these could ostensibly be translated as either "heart" or "mind". The only one that literally means "heart", as mentioned, is hadaya. The rest have colloquial connotations and are derived from various roots, e.g. √cit = to think, √ñā = to know, √man = to consider, or not from roots at all (hadaya = heart, nāma = mentality).

What is the overall sense of the Pali words used i.e. what are the nuances or subtleties to the original Pali?

The technical meaning of the verse is that wholesome and unwholesome deeds come from wholesome or unwholesome mind states, not mere physical acts. In this, Thanissaro's translation is misleading. The emphasis should be on the fact that it is the mind as opposed to the body, not the heart as opposed to the mind.

The origin story about the elder Cakkhupala makes this clear; during his walking meditation, many insects were killed because he was blind. The Buddha spoke this verse to show that Cakkhupala was innocent.

To get an understanding of the colloquial meaning of this verse is a bit involved, but reading the PED's article on how mano is generally used might help. Its usage here does seem to be to emphasise the mental nature of guilt and innocence. Otherwise, citta is a more common word. The word for heart, hadaya, is used when talking about emotion, e.g. hadayaṅgamā - going to one's heart (i.e. heartwarming), and doesn't seem appropriate in this context.


Not seeing the wood, for the trees How can I clearly see the lessons my soul needs to learn this lifetime?  I am a householder who has a wonderful life in New Zealand. There have been difficult times too, but even though, as a child I suffered, I was able to self soothe with meditation which I have no idea how I discovered. I have carried this practise with me through my life. Happy as I am, I have this feeling that I am not seeing clearly , the things my soul needs to work on this reincarnation. How can I make sure I don’t waste this rebirth?

Work on testing the credibility of these assumptions: soul, I, me ,mine, "I am happy" etc.  Practice Satipatthana meditation to get the answers you are looking for,


Does perspective to someone else break first precept? Recently I meet a monk, I noticed that he has perspective to politicians that what they doing wrong, they are wrong, but I seem he speak a lot about politics, OK. But he also being little rude even when he was telling an incident he used some 'rude' about politician. So when I tell this to my uncle he said 'When he's monk he should not be rude to someone or harm even by "Kaya (Body/Physically)", "Vacha (Talking)", "Man" (Mind/Thinking)'. So does it break first precept? If you caught me doing wrong(Killing, Stealing, Inhumanity) and if you make specific perspective to me for lifetime does it break first precept? Thinking wrong about someone else for what it is (Thief, Terrorist, Murderer).

It certainly doesn't break the Vinaya rule against killing (which says it doesn't count as "killing" unless somebody dies, plus other conditions).
I expect your uncle is right to say that he should avoid being rude; and even talking about politics at all could be considered questionable behaviour.
I haven't seen any hint, though, that the first precept isn't meant to be taken iterally; for example:

pāṇātipātā veramaṇī：'abstaining from the killing of living beings'，is the first of the 5 moral rules binding upon all Buddhists
(Buddhist Dictionary by Nyanatiloka Mahathera)

If the behaviour is wrong I don't think it's because it breaks the first precept -- instead I think it would be because it's not Right Speech, or something like that (e.g. not friendly).


How does the craving lead to lust, hatred and delusion? I am looking for connection between lust, hatred, and delusion, and craving.

Craving is more fundamental than lust, hatred and delusion: it is the craving which leads to lust, hatred and delusion.

But how ?

My question is -- how does the craving lead to lust, hatred and delusion?

"craving" -- taṇhā
"lust, hatred and delusion" -- lobha, dosa, moha

Whatever experience we get used to and grow comfortable in -- with that we identify, to that we attach. Then anything that looks like it could help us get that experience again -- seems good to us, and anything that goes contrary to that -- seems bad to us.

Next time we see a sign, we recognize the form, we associate the name with that past experience. Based on that, we like or dislike the object. Whenever an object reminds of a good past experience, we crave that object because we crave that experience and we assume it will help us get there.

If you look at your mind very carefully, you'll see that it's not the object that you crave, it's a vague promise to get an experience. Lust/hatred/delusion is about confusing (conflating) experience with objects. You project your own memories onto objects, and based on that you form attitudes to objects.

For example, imagine you sit and suddenly want those sunglasses you've seen in the store yesterday. You liked how they looked on you, or, rather, you liked how you looked in the mirror. You liked how you looked, because your reflection looked cool. It looked cool, because it resembled the images of men you've seen in the advertisement. You liked those men because they were surrounded by the smiling women. Smiling women are happy women. You too want to be surrounded by the happy women.  You want to be near women that laugh and have fun, because you want to be part of that experience. You crave the positive emotions of being in a company of happy women.  You crave positive emotions and that's why you now sit and want those sunglasses!

This is how craving (for positive emotions) leads to lust (for an object).

All of this comes from naive generalization of objects and naive generalization of experiences. Naive generalization comes from ignorance. Like a magic trick, it only works if you don't look carefully. When you look carefully, it disbands:

Upon careful examination, these sunglasses don't really make you look like an actor in that ad. You do look somewhat similar but only under a certain lighting conditions when seen at a certain angle. The women in the ad do smile but are not actually happy, their smiles are smiles of professional models. You don't actually crave to be among the happy women, instead you are craving one experience when you were a little boy visiting your grandma in the summer, and your older cousin-sister and her friends used to play with you. You miss that experience of careless summer days and being playfully cared for by the older girls. More precisely, you miss the experience of being completely at ease, in a safe environment, someone more powerful taking care of you -- and buying those $150 sunglasses won't get you an inch closer to that. Worse than that, the "perfect" childhood experience of being safe and cared for was a 100% illusion because the six-years-old girls could not possibly take care of the four-years-old boy should any real situation arise; he only felt safe and at ease because of his ignorance!

Just like that, you sit on your cushion meditating, and you suddenly realize that you're feeling (subtle) suffering because you don't have $150 to buy those sunglasses. And then you realize that the entire situation, from sunglasses to the childhood memory of feeling at ease, is an illusory bubble due to a chain of naive generalizations! Once you see it completely and thoroughly, the illusion disbands like a dream and with it disappears all craving and all suffering associated with that.

So ignorance leads to naive generalization (formations), which leads to craving for experience (feeling), which leads to pursuit of objects (clinging), which leads to suffering.

Cessation of ignorance (seeing through the illusory bubble to its individual components) leads to cessation of naive generalizations (formations), which leads to cessation of craving for experience (feeling), which leads to cessation of the pursuit of objects (clinging), which leads to cessation of suffering.


In the doctrine of no arising does the past and future still exist? In the doctrine of no arising does the past and future still exist, and if so do they exist in the same way as the present does?

And if not, why?

From Dogen's Genjo-koan:

  Firewood becomes ash. Ash cannot turn back into firewood again. However, we should not view ash as after and firewood as before. We should know that firewood dwells in the dharma position of firewood and it has its own before and after. Although there is before and after, past and future are cut off. Ash stays at the position of ash and it has its own before and after. As firewood never becomes firewood again after it is burned and becomes ash, after person dies, there is no return to living. However, in buddha dharma, it is a never-changing tradition not to say that life becomes death. Therefore we call it no-arising. It is the laid-down way of buddha's turning the dharma wheel not to say that death becomes life. Therefore, we call it no-perishing. Life is a position at one time; death is also a position at one time. For instance, this is like winter and spring. We don't think that winter becomes spring, and we don't say that spring becomes summer.

I wondered whether Dogen is saying that there is a before and after and these are the same as the past and future that are cut off -- from the present: so that anything that occurs only does so in the past or future.

Dogen is saying that from Buddhist perspective, a dharma does not "become" another dharma. Each dharma is a "presence" at its time, static in its own quality, followed by another "presence-quality" and so on.

So wood is wood and ash is ash, it's not the same "thing" changing while moving from point A in time to point B.

To this I can add that the temporal succession of dharmas is similar to a set of real numbers - each individual dharma is a generalization, and we can infinitely "zoom in" on a particular moment between "wood" and "ash" to see a some-level-of-burning-in-progress-dharma.

Wood and ash are connected as cause and effect. Ash exists due to wood (among other things).

Similarly, it's not like a living person dies. They exist in succession, first life, then death. Life and death are connected like cause and effect. Death exists due to life (among other things). Therefore, there is no perishing of the living.

Correspondingly, there is no arising. It's not like the newborn was dead before it was born. Nor is it like the mother turned into the newborn, nor mother's egg, nor the sperm. Instead, these dharmas exist in causal succession.

Now, if you think about it, it's not like any given dharma has exactly one dharma as its predecessor - not at all. Instead, most if not all dharmas have many, many "causing" or "conditioning" dharmas. Which one we consider "the main" cause is entirely up to us.

In this sense, someone who lives now is a "dharma" that has quadrillions of other dharmas as its "inputs" - going up the infinitely forking chains of physical ancestry, informational ancestry, circumstantial conditionality and who knows what else.

This is why there is no arising, because it's an infinitely spanning network of static  non-discrete dharmas causing and conditioning each other. The whole thing is like a multidimensional vector space, without one global time dimension.

So, to answer your question,

Past and future are something observed relative to a particular dharma. Past is the transitive closure of all its causes, and future is the superset of dharmas directly or indirectly conditioned by a given dharma.

Ontologically, there is no becoming, no objects moving through time, nor one global time dimension.


Looking for Buddhist story on Nirvana after being abused I am looking for a Buddhist story from scriptures or otherwise real life, from any tradition, where a person is mentally abused, in a sense insulted, humiliated, looked down upon, etc who achieves Nirvana or Sotapanna or anything substantial towards the direction of Nirvana.

I found the story of Milarepa which fits my need but Milarepa apparently took revenge using black magic and did not forgive his wrong-doers, later on, he understood the uselessness of what he did and he followed Dhamma and got enlightened.

Another story is from the Akkosa sutta but that happened with the Buddha Himself post-Nirvana. I want something with good moral of forgiveness for others, for the perpetrators.

The Therigatha might have examples of this. One I found was the verses of Sumangalamaata:

  O woman well set free! how free am I,
  How throughly free from kitchen drudgery!
  Me stained and squalid 'mong my cooking-pots
  My brutal husband ranked as even less
  Than the sunshades he sits and weaves alway. (23)

  Purged now of all my former lust and hate,
  I dwell, musing at ease beneath the shade
  Of spreading boughs–O, but 'tis well with me! (24)

Patacara is maybe another good example:

  Wailing in her woe– 'My children both are gone, and in the bush
  Dead lies my husband; on one funeral bier
  My mother, father, and my brother burn,'
  she wandered around from that day forth in circles, and because her skirt-cloth fell from her she was given the name 'Cloak-walker.' And people, seeing her, said: 'Go, little mad-woman!' And some threw refuse at her head, some sprinkled dust, some pelted her with clods.

source

There's also the story of an old man who, after giving all his wealth to his children, is left destitute when they refuse to care for him in his old age, so he becomes a monk. I can't remember the name though.


Where is the Buddha originally quoted as saying "On heaven and earth, I alone am honored"? In Chinese and especially Japanese Buddhism, the statement 天上天下唯我独尊 (Japanese tenjou tenge yui ga dokuson; not sure about the Chinese transliteration), which is typically translated as "On heaven and earth, I alone am honored", is considered to be a well-known statement of the Buddha, spoken when the Buddha first emerged from his mother's womb. The quote is sometimes truncated to just the latter half 唯我独尊 "I alone am honored".

I have done a fair bit of searching for a Sanskrit/Prakrit source from which this quote could have been translated into Chinese, but have had no success so far. What text serves as the origin of this quotation? Did it only first appear after the spread of Buddhism into China?

The Pali version isn't quite as strong. According to Malalasekera:

Immediately after birth the Bodhisatta stands firmly on his feet, and having taken seven strides to the north, while a white canopy, is held over his head, looks round and utters in fearless voice the lion's roar: "Aggo 'ham asmi lokassa, jettho 'ham asmi lokassa, settho 'ham asmi lokassa, ayam antimā jāti, natthi dāni punabbhavo” (D.ii.15).
http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/b/buddha.htm

The meaning of the phrase is "I am the highest in this world; I am foremost in this world; I am the best in this world; this is the last birth; there is no further becoming here."
Nothing I've found specifying heaven and earth; it also doesn't seem proper for the Bodhisatta to have said "I alone am honoured", since it is patently untrue.


What is the life of a monk really like? I am curious to know a little bit more about the day-to-day life of Theravada buddhist monks. I am drawn to the idea of ordaining, but I fear this is only because I have romanticized the buddhist monk's life in my mind as easy and care-free; like an escape from my own life. What is monastic life like, and how do the challenges that come with this lifestyle compare with those of lay-life?
I am looking for a reality check if anyone can provide it.
Thx!

I had the same problem as you with romanticising monk life. Of course the day to day living of a monk varies a lot depending on whether they live in a monastery, a cave, or the forest. Despite having many hours in the day for their own practice I often see monks telling of how they have little free time.

This book called The Broken Buddha which was written by an ex-monk exposes the reality about monasticism in thailand/sri lanka/burma http://www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de/downloads/brokenbuddhanew.pdf

Reading that drove away a lot of my dreaming of monk life because I realised the type of people I would be living with if ordaining in Asia. I still strive for a monastic lifestyle but not because of romanticised ideas.


Ajahn Brahm versus others I am practicing samadhi meditation using the breath as an object.  Most teachers say to watch the breath at the tip of the nose.  However, Ajahn Brahm says not to locate the breath anywhere.  I find that these two approaches are very different.  Which one is right?

This stems from the different interpretation of Parimukham in Anapanasati Sutta and relate other Suttas. Here in Ajahn Brahm's tradition what is said is to simply establish mindfulness. (See Ven. Sujato's interpretation in What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?)

One way to judge what is the right interpretation if the instruction can be put to practice easily, after all these are meditation instructions. In this context both interpretations seem valid.

Also Suttas like Sammaditthi Sutta mentions the calming of verbal fabrication, i.e., calming of thinking and pondering. The beast is way to start this process is the develops concentration by anchoring your mind on a small fixed object like the centre of the upper lip.


How does making merit affect karma? I believe I understand the basics of karma as the effects of our intentions and actions (good & evil) which will play some role in this and future lives. But how does merit making affect karma? If a person has done something evil in the past can making merit improve one's karma? Is merit gained even for insincere actions such as when people do something good but are motivated by gaining reputation or status? Or is merit not a real thing but just a concept which functions to encourage people to do more good deeds so they'll have less time or inclination to do bad deeds?

Kamma is action which produces results, which could be called "merit." It's like seeds planted in a field, no one knows for sure when they will ripen, but if they were planted, they will ripen:

  Just as when seeds are not broken, not rotten, not damaged by wind & heat, capable of sprouting, well-buried, planted in well-prepared soil, and the rain-god would offer good streams of rain.
  Those seeds would thus come to growth, increase, & abundance.

  In the same way, any action performed with greed ... performed with aversion ... performed with delusion — born of delusion, caused by delusion, originating from delusion: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that action will ripen.
  Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along in the sequence.

  AN 3.33

Insincere actions are those performed with greed or delusion. There's no "tricking" kamma; if you do a greedy action, the consequences are automatic, like how a person can't indulge in sensual pleasures without also becoming accustomed and attached to them in the process.

If evil has been done in the past, performing good actions now doesn't cause it to become unplanted, but developing good qualities of mind here and now means that when things ripen, you can lessen their effect.

For example, someone who meditates and keeps in mind the impermanence of all things will be less likely to be driven into rage and depression if a flood comes in and destroys their home, because this is a perfect example of that impermanence they keep reminding themselves of. They might even see the positive side that it re-affirms to them the principle of impermanence. If you don't develop good kamma right now by developing the mind, you're more likely to lose it when bad things happen.


What is the difference between anger and frustration? Many times in the suttas the monks are said to be frustrated, but the word anger is never used.. what is the difference?

My short thought is - anger is seeing wrong speech or action, and saying 'why are you acting this way - it hurts the other', whilst frustration is 'why are you acting this way - it hurts you'.

Any thoughts on this from respectable sources?

If I remember correctly my Abhidharma lectures, both anger and frustration are the types of aversion. Anger is how aversion manifests when you feel that you are stronger than the object of your aversion, while frustration is when you feel weaker than the object/cause of aversion.


Jivaka Sutta on three conditions In this Sutta Buddha says there are three conditions meat can be eaten

When the animals are not seen to have been killed for oneself
When someone is not told by other people that an animal has been killed for himself
When one does not suspect an animal has been killed for oneself

What if someone heard an animal was screaming when that particular meat is prepared, is this included in three conditions above or not?

I agree with Dulan's reply. We should heed what “Leave that which makes you doubt” means - that is to refrain from that which you are uncertain. The following example of a "Analogy of Serial Killer" will show you how we can knowingly or unknowingly be involved in 'killing' kamma.

Suppose we have a serial killer in a certain city who has raped and killed many women so that no woman dares to venture outdoor at night. The whole city is in uproar and the citizens demand that the authorities do their duty and catch the killer. So the police, after several months of pains taking effort, finally nabs the culprit. After this is a long trial and then the judge passes the death sentence on him. On the appointed day the killer is led to the execution platform where the executioner pulls the lever to end the killer’s life.

All this now leads to the question: “Who is involved in the evil kamma of killing a human being (i.e. the serial killer)?” According to the law of kamma-vipaka, the executioner bears the heaviest offence because he intentionally carried out the killing. Next would be the judge for pronouncing the death sentence. These two persons are directly involved in the killing kamma of the execution of the serial killer. The police are only indirectly involved and not responsible for the execution. How about the citizens? Ultimately the serial killer was executed to protect the citizens, i.e. he was executed for the sake of the citizens, or the citizens were the main beneficiaries of the execution. So are the citizens responsible for the killing kamma involved? No, because they did not ask for the execution of the serial killer. But they could be if they demanded his execution. The scenario is similar to the slaughter of animals for food.

The persons who slaughter the animals bear the heaviest killing kamma. The persons who breed animals for slaughter are also involved in the killing kamma. They are like the judge who condemned the man to be executed. But the people who buy the meat of animals already slaughtered are not involved in the kamma of killing even though, like the citizens of the city above, they are the main beneficiaries. But if someone orders a live animal to be slaughtered for its meat, then killing kamma is involved for him.


Resistance to Loving-Kindness I have been continuing my meditation practice, and I feel there would be a great benefit from switching to a metta practice instead of breath. Yet, with metta, a strange phenomenon occurs.
I am usually very good during metta bhavana and  generate the feelings. However, it is incredibly hard for me to begin the metta session, and I seem to avoid this type of meditation before and afterwards. Only during the practice do I feel great emotion and compassion.
How can this be explained?
Thank you.

How can this be explained?

That's aversion towards the meditation practice. Just note it as "disliking" and be mindful about it until it passes away. Be very vigilant in observing this aversion when it arises as it can sabotage ones practice if left by itself.
Eventually, as one gains more and more clarity of mind, this aversion will subside due to the mind understanding the benefits and freedom that comes from consistent meditation practice.


Can the practices of 'Art of War' align with Buddhism? The Art of War by Sun Tzu is a philosophy espoused by military, politics and enterprises. I recent read of The complete Art of War translated by Ralph Sawyer proposes its use in personal relationships such as friendship and in marriage.

How does such philosophies align with the practices of Buddhism?

It's a cup is half empty, half full kind of thing.

One says, life is full of suffering so one succeeds by coming out a winner ahead of others.

The other says the life is full of suffering, so one must help everyone out of suffering to personally come out of suffering.

One view point creates conflict, the other eliminates conflict.

I see Art of War as short term thinking, and Buddhism as long term thinking. The former has instant appeal, but the latter has appeal to those who are contemplative and not hasty.

Note: I'd like to mention the short book (50 odd pages), "The Buddha Taught Nonviolence, Not Pacifism" by Paul R. Fleischman, MD on the subject of violence. It's a difficult subject, I can't say I agree with the entire book, but it has interesting ideas.


What arguments are there for "karma" -- that the agent inevitably experiences the result of their actions? There are philosophical arguments for e.g. 'emptiness', as evidenced by it having sections in philosophy encyclopedias. Whether or not you agree with them, probably depends on your language and pre-philosophical intuitions -- which is arguably the same for any philosophy.

What about karma?

  And what he taught is not the version of karma popular in certain circles today, according to which, for instance, an act done out of hatred makes the agent somewhat more disposed to perform similar actions out of similar motives in the future, which in turn makes negative experiences more likely for the agent. What the Buddha teaches is instead the far stricter view that each action has its own specific consequence for the agent, the hedonic nature of which is determined in accordance with causal laws and in such a way as to require rebirth as long as action continues. So if there is a conflict between the doctrine of non-self and the teaching of karma and rebirth, it is not to be resolved by weakening the Buddha’s commitment to the latter.

Or again:

  He who acts is the agent (kartr); that which is performed (kriyate) is
  karma; and the agent of karma is the one who experiences the result of
  that performed karma. Without karma, an agent is not established.

The Inner Kālacakratantra, unknown page.

  The law of karma is a fundamental principle of the Buddhist worldview.
  In brief, karma refers to the idea that intentional actions have
  consequences for the agent, in this life and in future lives; in fact,
  it is karma that leads to rebirth. Buddhists understand the law of
  karma as another manifestation of dependent arising
  (paṭicca-samuppāda), the law of cause and effect, whereby everything
  that exists arises due to specific conditions. In this sense, the law
  of karma is a sort of natural law, so that actions are naturally
  followed by consequences, not as the result of divine judgement. But
  they will follow: the Buddha emphasised that actions lead inevitably
  to appropriate consequences... The inevitability of karmic
  consequences is a large part of the way that traditional Buddhism has
  presented its ethical teachings. Evil actions, like killing, stealing,
  lying and so on, are bad karmas and will lead to rebirth in an
  unpleasant human situation or in hell.

Just trying to explain what the mainstream and traditional interpretation of karma is. I think the conventional argument is from authority and the authority of memories of past lives. These I don't find convincing. Can it be inferred from any other Buddhist doctrine, such as emptiness?

I was looking at the wild fox koan here, and this part struck me:

  Those who say "one does not fall into cause and effect" deny
  causation, thereby falling into the lower realms. Those who say "one
  cannot ignore cause and effect" clearly identify with cause and
  effect. When people hear about identifying with cause and effect, they
  are freed from the lower realms. Do not doubt this.

I think it seems to be saying that -- according to (the philosophy of) emptiness -- there is no escaping cause and effect because any cause is its effect.

But if we think about it, we don't --- or tend not to -- experience cause as effect. If we are going to, that's that, then the effect is somehow put off to another time: karma.

UPDATE based on the edited question with a suggested definition of karma.

While it is true that the Buddha taught that each and every volitional action has specific consequences this is most definitely not in opposition to the fact that repeated actions based on volitional thoughts can be habit forming. Indeed, consequences of a karmic action can be that it leads to further such actions.

If I were to tell you right now not to think of a pink elephant the chances are likely that you will do so in the immediate future. What's more, it is likely that many beings reading this will be thinking of pink elephants in a more distant future as a consequence of the pink elephant they are bringing to mind right now. I invite you to observe your monkey mind at work with its discursive thoughts and see if you can't trace the cause and effect consequence of each thought leading to others in a more or less continuous process. One moment of mind gives birth to the next and on and on.

Surrounding the definition in the Stanford Encyclopedia is a discussion of how karma and rebirth are in some tension with the Buddha's teaching on emptiness. I believe the correct conceptual understandings of emptiness, karma and rebirth resolve this tension.

This whole notion of the fruits of karmic action being delayed as some sort of puzzle is itself somewhat puzzling to me. In my very life I have observed that my actions can have far reaching consequences. Far reaching in time and space. What I have done or failed to do when I was young (decades ago) has manifested in the situation I am in now. Isn't that just obvious for you as well?

Asking where the consequence of a karmic action (that has ceased) is stored in time and space betrays the wish for a metaphysical explanation. And this metaphysical explanation leads to the doctrine of emptiness as it explains how things exist and how they do not. In what manner they exist and in what manner they do not. Asking where the consequence is stored (in time and space) betrays the idea that phenomena (including karmic actions) have substantial inherent own-being. They do not. That is explained and reasoned through by the teaching on emptiness that Nagarjuna has expounded.

The sutra below explicitly lays out that the Buddha says that the consequence is not stored in time and space. And it goes on to show that actions, consequences, death, birth, karma, are all void of own being. This is the teaching on emptiness.

Believing that the teaching on emptiness somehow is problematic for dependent origination or the law of cause and effect is just wrong. In fact, it is quite the opposite as Nagarjuna has said in his famous treatise! Without emptiness - that is if things had their own-being - then actions could not be performed and there would be no cause and effect or dependent origination.

Would encourage you to study Nagarjuna and trace his arguments if you can.

Although I am not certain about what your question actually is about I thought I'd share this passage from a rather obscure sutra that may help your mind:

  THE NOBLE SUTRA OF THE MAHAYANA DENOMINATED - "THE PASSAGE THROUGH
  EXISTENCES"

  Homage to all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvaas. Thus have I heard. Once
  the Bhagavant stayed in Rajagrha, in the Bamboo-Forest, in the place
  of the kalandakas, in the company of a group of one thousand two
  hundred and fifty bhiksus and of very numerous great Bodhisattvas.
  Then, the Bhagavant, while he was surrounded by many hundreds of
  thousands of his followers, looking at them, expounded the Dharma and
  expounded in its integrity the Brahmacarya beautiful in its beginning,
  beautiful in the middle, beautiful in its end, fair in its meaning,
  fair in its expression, without confusion, completely fulfilled,
  completely pure, completely immaculate.

  Then Sreniya Bimbisara, King of the Magadha country, going out from
  the town of Rajagrha, with great royal pomp, with a great royal force,
  went to the Bamboo-Forest where the Bhagavant was. On arriving, after
  bowing down at the feet of the Bhagavant and turning (around the
  Bhagavant) the right side towards him three times, Sreniya Bimbisara,
  King of the Magadha country, spoke thus to the Bhagavant : "O
  Bhagavant, how do actions, (a long time) after having been done (and)
  accumulated, a long time after having ceased, (re)appear in the mind,
  on being near the moment of death? All conditioned things (samskara)
  being void, how do actions pass without being annihilated?"

  So (the King) spoke, and the Bhagavant to Sreniya Bimbisara, King of
  the Magadha country, said thus : "O great King, just as for instance a
  man, in a dream while he is sleeping, dreams that he extremely enjoys
  himself with a beautiful woman of his country and, when he awakes from
  his sleep, remembers that beautiful woman of his country (he has seen
  in his dream) - what do you think, O great King : does that beautiful
  woman of the country, (seen) in the dream, (really) exist?"

  (The King) said : "O Bhagavant, she does not exist."

  The Bhagavant said : "O great King, what do you think : that man who
  ardently desires the beautiful woman of his country, (seen) in his
  dream - is he a wise man?"

  (The King) answered : "O Bhagavant, he is not - if it is asked why, O
  Bhagavant - because that beautiful woman of the country, (seen) in the
  dream, does not exist at all; and although he does not perceive her,
  (nevertheless) he goes on thinking of enjoying himself extremely with
  her. Thus that man, being deprived of her, has a destiny of sorrow."

  The Bhagavant said : "O great King, in the same way, an ordinary man,
  foolish, ignorant, on seeing with his eyes lovely forms, ardently
  desires those forms which are agreeable to his mind. While ardently
  desiring them, he becomes attached to them. On becoming attached to
  them, he feels a passion for them. On feeling a passion for them, he
  performs with his body, speech and mind,, actions that are born out of
  desire, hatred and error. And those actions, after having been
  performed, cease. And after having ceased, (those actions) stay
  neither in the east nor in the south nor in the west nor in the north
  nor up nor down - nor in any region of space. But, at any other time,
  at the moment near the instant of death, when the karma corresponding
  (to the life that is being concluded) is exhausted, at the (very)
  moment the last consciousness ceases, those actions (re)appear in the
  mind (of the dying man) - just as for instance the beautiful woman of
  the country (in the mind) of the man that wakes from his sleep. O
  great King, immediately after the first consciousness has ceased,
  there arises the series of consciousnesses, which corresponds (to the
  life that is beginning), and in which the ripening (of actions
  previously performed) will be experienced. O great King, although no
  element of existence (dharma) passes from this world to another world,
  nevertheless death and birth take place. O great King, the last
  consciousness which ceases is called 'death'; the first consciousness
  which arises is called 'birth'. O great King, the last consciousness,
  at the moment it ceases, does not pass to anywhere; the first
  consciousness, which forms part of the (new) birth, at the moment it
  arises, does not come from anywhere. If it is asked why, (I answer:)
  because of their lack of an own being. O great King, although the last
  consciousness is void (of the own being) of death, action is void (of
  the own being) of action, the first consciousness is void (of the own
  being) of a first consciousness, birth is void (of the own being) of
  birth, (nevertheless) actions do not perish. O great King, immediately
  after the first consciousness, which forms part of the (new) birth,
  has ceased, there arises without interruption the series of
  consciousnesses, in which the ripening (of actions previously done)
  will be experienced."

This sutra speaks directly to karma and how it ripens from moment to moment and life to life even though actions previously arisen have ceased and exist no where whatsoever in space or time and yet they ripen at later times and continue to produce fruit. The important point is that the manner and way this happens from moment to moment in this very life is the same manner and way it happens from life to life. There is no difference in extent or manner.

And note that the doctrine of emptiness is very definitely tied up with this ripening of past karma. Karma could not function without emptiness. Were things not empty, there could not be actions and the ripening of those actions. Understanding emptiness is indispensable in understanding how actions ripen and bear fruit and that is why it is said that emptiness and dependent origination go hand in hand.


Watching Darma Talks on 2x Speed I really like Ajahn Brahm's Darma talks on YouTube. But, I can perfectly understand what he's saying on 2x speed.

Am I losing anything by listening at this speed or is it ok as long as it's not for any other reason than I can understand it so I can watch two in the same amount of time as one?

I have done the same thing for slower speakers. In my opinion, it's just fine to speed up your listening as long as you grasp the content.


Are there any Buddhist charities or organisations funding education in Buddhist studies? Further to answers to this question, I am looking for any Buddhist organizations or charities that may offer to fund for pursuing a higher academic education in Buddhism, all over the world.

I searched but I don't really get proper keywords. So if you know any such institution...

Maitripa College in Portland, Oregon has scholarship opportunities available: https://maitripa.org/event/scholarship-applications-are-available/


How important is constancy in meditation practice? I'm going through a period of meditating every day which is not how I usually practice. Before I would meditate 5-6 times a week then deliberately not do more as I would seem to 'run dry' and lose my feeling for it and felt like a needed a gap. So I'm trying just to keep going and see how that works.

But how important is constancy in meditation? - is it better just to ease off for a day if you feel depleted with it or would the thing be to keep with it even if the practice feels dry and barren.

Many thanks as always

I'm just wondering - if you were to take an antibiotic and not feel the effects, would you lay off the medication for a couple of days?  Meditation is really no different.  Nothing is more important than the consistency of the dosage.  Some days you'll have sits where the heavens open up and angels start singing.  Other days it's a slog.  Your legs hurt, your breathing is shallow, and nothing appears to be happening.  Rest assured, however, that something always is happening.  Tectonic karmic plates are shifting slow deep underground.  Keep applying the pressure of practice and the tremors of insight will eventually rise to the surface.  If anything, those sits where you feel like you're "running dry" are the most important.  The effort that it takes to actually get your butt onto the cushion is exponentially more important than the focused bliss you feel during a good sit.  The selfless offering that you make of yourself to your practice is what makes change happen.


The six realms of existence Lately, i'm finding myself very confused. I don't know whether i'm trying to learn new things to become a better person for myself and the world around me, or am i in fact just a ' hungry ghost' unable to satisfy my hunger. I do feel like i'm constantly searching for something, something which even i do not know what it looks like.

So, my question is; How can i tell if my efforts are for good, or that of an insatiable hungry ghost?

All help is welcome!

Metta

If you are worried that your current karmic existence is, or is related to, that of a hungry ghost you should apply the proper antidote. In this case the proper antidote is practicing/developing the first paramita : generosity  Doing such and being aware of your desires and the desires of others can help curb the feeling of constantly searching for some unknown thing.

As for how to know if your efforts are proper, or for good as you say, I'll turn you to the short and sweet lojung saying "Of the two witnesses, hold the principle one.

Try these things and meditate on them, see if they help, I hope they do. Remember, we all exist in this confusion together, you are not alone in this.


Can a lay person commit sangha-bedha?(five heinous acts) Anantarika-karma https://info-buddhism.com/sangha_schism.html

“A bhikkhunī does not split a Community even if she strives for a split. A female trainee does not split a Community. A novice … A female novice … A male lay-follower … A female lay-follower does not split a Community even if she strives for a split. A regular bhikkhu, of common affiliation, standing in the same territory splits the Community.” — Cv.VII.5.1

It seems from this scripture that only a monk can commit this heinous karma/sangha bedha?(Anantarika-karma)

Is this rightly understood by me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anantarika-karma

Take Care

A lay person cannot commit “Sangha Bedha” as it is only when bhikkhus are concerened, but “Sangha Bedha” is not division among bhikkhus, but the fact of the matter is that today every single Bhikkhu commits schism or “Sangha Bedha” knowingly or unknowingly.

The Buddha condemned schism in strong terms, saying that a person who starts or joins a schism in a Community knowing or suspecting that he is not on the side of the Dhamma and Vinaya, is destined to be boiled for an aeon in hell (AN V.129; Cv.VII.5.3-4). Buddha’s instruction is to look into the matter and to side with the faction on the side of the Dhamma. The Buddha does not advocate superficial unity for its own sake at the expense of the Dhamma, but instead encourages that the Dhamma be clearly defended against non-Dhamma and that the distinction between the two be kept clear.

When a bhikkhu has learned that a dispute has led to a schism and he wants to get involved, he is to side with whichever faction sides with the Dhamma. According to Mv.X.5.4, a speaker of non-Dhamma is to be recognized as such if he “explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …

Thus the ability to take sides requires that one be well-informed about the Buddha’s teachings. A schism can be rightfully ended only if both sides are able to investigate the grounds (i.e., the point of dispute around which the schism crystallized), get to the root (the mind-states motivating the schism — see Cv.IV.14.3-4), and then resolve which side was right, based on the Dhamma and Vinaya.

There are cases where bhikkhus have started or joined a schism rooted in corrupted intent, knowing or suspecting that their views and actions deviate from the Dhamma-Vinaya. Those who joined the schismatic faction through ignorance should be won over to the Dhamma side by explaining the true Dhamma-Vinaya to them.

Ven. Sāriputta: “How am I to behave with regard to these (schismatic) bhikkhus?”
The Buddha: “In that case, Sāriputta, take your stance in line with the Dhamma.”
Ven. Sāriputta: “And how should I know what is Dhamma and what is not-Dhamma?” — Mv.X.5.3
The Buddha: “There are these eighteen grounds by which a speaker of not-Dhamma is to be known. He explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …


Are dark night problems a common thing? It worries me that if I practice they might happen Are dark night problems a common thing? It worries me that if I practice they might happen:

http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-dark-knight-of-the-souls/372766

Yes, passing through what you called "dark night" is a prerequisite for Enlightenment.
The term refers to existential crisis experienced around the time of fully realizing Emptiness and the Three Marks of Existence. In Vajrayana tradition this is also referred to as the death of the ego. As Chogyam Trungpa said,

  Enlightenment is ego's ultimate disappointment.

(On a separate note, I would not blindly believe anything I read on dharmaoverground.org -- that community does not seem to be grounded in genuine teaching.)


What is the appropriate course of action for disagreeing with an authority figure? For example... If a senior monk is basing his judgement on personal opinion and not the vinaya, creating dukkha in the community and sowing discord... how would another person (monk or lay) go about addressing this hindrance?

I think it depends on the nature of the opinion and the nature of the disagreement. Sometimes figures in authority positions have to make a judgement call about an issue where the formal rules of the situation don't clearly address the situation at hand. I think that in such a case the person in authority should have their decision respected, provided that the decision is based on the relevant principles to the case at hand and is a reasonable interpretation of the facts and rules.

If their decision is just plain not reasonably based on the facts or the relevant principles then it is clearly wrong and the best thing to do is to decide whether or not it is a big enough deal to want to appeal, and if it is, then one should take the matter up with the next highest competent authority, be it their boss or the HR department.

In the case of a monk the correct response would be to bring it to bring it up with whoever is higher in the hierarchy with respect to the disputed matter. For example, if you have a dispute with the Monk in charge of the lost and found or something in a monastery, the correct response would be to go to the person in charge of the building, or to the Abbot if the matter was important enough.

If it is a very serious matter then one should probably go to the Abbot directly and if that fails, then try to find a senior Monk to get the matter brought to the attention of the local Sangha council if their actions are breaking the Vinaya. And of course it goes without saying that if they are committing serious crimes or putting people in danger, one should contact the authorities as well.

But as I said, authority figures have to make judgement calls when the rules of a situation are unclear and as long as their decision is a reasonable one it is better to simply accept their decision. It doesn't make much sense to fight with an authority figure if it's just a case of "They decided A but I think that B is better."


Right Livelihood and Working in Technical Support Currently, I work at home taking calls for tech support for a cable company. I work to help solve customers' issues as best as possible over the phone and send a technician if need be. The one thing I have been able to get past now is getting people onto the newest service available. The way that I see this being right livelihood is due to the fact that I am relieving suffering through poor cable services and possibly stress with paying too much (only sometimes is it paying more for the new service). I would like some thoughts on this as this has been running through my mind lately. No harm is being done through this job from what I can tell.
Thanks in advance and Big Love!

At the core of The Right Livelihood training rule is the same principle as behind the rest of the Eightfold Path: to stop creating causes of suffering.
The jobs and professions that involve creating suffering, either directly - by killing or torturing others, or indirectly - by creating latent conditions for conflict, confusion, physical or mental sickness etc - are obviously unwholesome.
Jobs that focus on healing, rescuing, reconciling, educating about healthy lifestyles, etc. - in other words those that create direct or indirect causes of peace and harmony - are obviously wholesome.
Everything else falls somewhere in between. A job that you describe definitely falls on the "good" side of the spectrum, since like you said it saves the people from frustration and reconciles the potential conflict between them and the company providing the service.
Perhaps if you transmit enough warmth in your communication you can even make a deep and long-lasting difference in someone's life. This definitely sounds like a good livelihood, in my opinion.


What is a skillful way to meditate in the midst of a migraine headache? When the Bod-hisattva Quan the Am, who has been such a source of
  inspiration of peace workers in Viet- nam, saw into the reality of the
  five aggregates giving rise to emptiness of self, she was liberated
  from every suffering, pain, doubt, and anger. -- The Miracle of Mindfulness, p. 48

I have been practicing mindfulness for less than a year. I have had some deep experiences and found benefit. However, when I have a migraine headache my mindfulness feels completely useless.

Any guidance or any good resources that would teach me to practice my mindfulness in the midst of a bad headache would appreciated.

Theravada Buddhist Answer based in the Burmese method as taught by the Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.

The following method is based in Vipassana meditation. This type of meditation is characterized by taking reality as an object of meditation, meaning that one directs attention towards the most apparent object in the present moment.

In terms of a migraine attack one might focus on the pain, nausea if present, a feeling of lightheadedness or ones reaction towards those objects.

One would note whatever object is most predominant and change object when another object becomes predominant. One notes the pain by mentally and slowly saying to oneself "pain, pain, pain". This is done while keeping attention on the object. One notes in order to create clear comprehension about the object, so to not fall into either liking or disliking of the object.

When this is done repeatedly over a period of time the mind will come to see the pain as merely an object. One will come to understand that the pain is not a problem. Instead its our own reaction to the pain that creates suffering for us.

For more in-depth information on the method in relation to dealing with pain, I recommend the following video teachings given by Ven. Yuttadhammo:

Ask A Monk: Dealing With Pain and Using Suffering as a Vehicle for Enlightenment
Ask A Monk: Pain
Monk Radio: When Pain Becomes Unbearable

He also made a booklet, which is available here.

May you have a fruitful practice.


Do I get more merits if I give more? Do I get more merits if I give more? What is considered a reasonable donation?
Please give some examples.

The very intention of making merit is bound in craving & thus in egoism. Please refer to AN 7.49 how to give properly.


Overcoming distractions in meditation as per the Tripitaka? According to the Tripitaka how do you overcome distractions in meditation. Distractions can be including but not limited to:

Wondering mind
Pains
Hindrances
Defilements arising in the mind
etc.

Tibetan Buddhism recognizes following "five faults" arising during meditation:

laziness (kausidya) -- with 3 subtypes;
forgetting the instructions (avavadasammosa) -- aka losing the object of observation;
non-identification of laxity (laya, with three subtypes) or excitement (auddhataya, with three subtypes);
non-application of antidotes (anabhisamskara);
overapplication of antidotes (abhisamskara).

1. Laziness

The 3 types of laziness are:

a sense of inferiority -- a thought like "I cannot possibly succeed at this meditation";
attachment to worldly activities -- the tendency to do something else instead;
the lack of impulse -- absence of motivation to meditate now.

The actual solution for laziness is pliancy (prasrabdhi) -- physical and mental serviceability that comes with experience in meditation. Until that is attained, the antidotes for laziness are faith (sraddha) , aspiration (chanda), and exertion (vyayama), which can be generated through contemplation of the advantages of meditation -- and disadvantages of being driven around by random impulses.

2. Forgetting the instructions

This is when the object of observation suddenly disappears. We lose the object of observation because the mind is greatly distracted.

The antidote for this is called tight mindfulness (smrti). This has three parts to it:

familiarity -- the object of observation must be familiar; the mind should be accustomed to it;
tightness -- continuous (with no gaps) apprehension of the aspects of the object;
non-distraction -- not letting the other objects displace the object of observation.

As soon as the object of observation is lost, we should immediately, with tight grasp, bring it back.

3. Non-identification of Laxity or Excitement

If we don't notice laxity or excitement, we can't apply a corresponding antidote. As a result, laxity or excitement grows until it gets out of control, and then we lose the object of observation.

The antidote for non-identification is introspection (samprajanya). We must occasionally (not continuously!) analyze the mind to see if laxity or excitement has arisen, and which subtype thereof.

The three subtypes of laxity (aka sluggishness) are:

Lethargy (styana) -- heaviness of mind and body, a state of being close to sleep;
Coarse laxity (audarika) -- a case of having stability of mind but not clarity of the mind; This is often caused by the mind becoming too withdrawn inside;
Subtle laxity (suksma) -- a case of having stability and clarity but not intensity of clarity. This is caused by the weakness in the mode of apprehension of the aspects of the object of observation.

The three subtypes of excitement (aka unruliness) are:

Negative scattering -- remembering a disagreeable object;
Coarse excitement -- remembering a pleasant object;
Subtle excitement -- having a part of the mind come under the influence of discursive thinking (vikalpa), and as a result, having an (agreeable) object about to appear to the mind, "like water moving under ice". This is caused by the mind being a little too tight.

4. Non-application of antidotes

After introspection has discovered laxity or excitement and identified its subtype, to not apply an appropriate antidote would lead to laxity or excitement getting out of control and subsequent loss of the object of observation.

The antidote for non-application is ... application (surprise!!!) of antidotes:

The antidote for Subtle Laxity is tightening the mode of apprehension of the aspects of the object of observation.
The antidote for Coarse Laxity is expanding the scope of observation.
The antidote for Lethargy is giving up the object of observation and engaging in invigorating the mind: contemplating topics that get one happy and inspired about practicing Dharma, reducing the amount of food taken prior to meditation; cooling the body down; washing the face with cold water; moving to a higher elevation; moving to place with a wider view; yelping loudly; resting if needed.
The antidote for Subtle Excitement is loosening the mode of apprehension a little.
The antidote for Coarse Excitement is reducing the mind elation by leaving the object of observation and contemplating negative topics that will get the mind sobered (if mind is distracted towards a pleasant object) or by following the inhalations and exhalations (if mind is captured by discursive thinking).
The antidote for Negative scattering is contemplating topics that generate maitri (Pali metta) -- the mind of loving-kindness.

5. Overapplication of antidotes

This means mistakenly applying antidotes for laxity or excitement when meditation is already going well, and/or after laxity or excitement have been eliminated. This also means overapplying an antidote for laxity (which will generate excitement) or overapplying an antidote for excitement (which will generate laxity).

An antidote to overapplication is called desisting from application, also known as equanimity.

........
Source: Meditative States in Tibetan Buddhism by Lati Rinpoche


Which Hindrances are counteracted or enhance by the 37 and Jhana Factors? If you take Jhana factors or the 37 Factors, many of them counteract one of the Hindrances. So if these factors (and perhaps other factors mentioned in the Tripitaka) are grouped with the hindrance they counteract or enhance, what would this grouping look like? I.e.,

each hindrance
with the factors that counteract it
and the factor that enhance them either as a single factor or pair of factor being unbalanced

An answer should minimally include the Jhana and 37 Factors, and references to the Tripitaka.

This is just an outline of a few things I have collected so far:

  Sensual Desire

...

  One-pointedness of mind, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);

  Mindfulness, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);

  Mindfulness, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).

  Ill-Will

  ...

  Rapture, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);

  Faith, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);

  Rapture and equanimity, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).

  Sloth and Torpor

  ...

  Applied thought, of the factors of absorptions (jhananga);
  Energy, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);
  Investigation of reality, energy and rapture, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).

  When the mind is sluggish, it is not the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, because a sluggish mind can hardly be aroused by them.

  When the mind is sluggish, it is the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: investigation of reality, energy and rapture, because a sluggish mind can easily be aroused by them.

  — SN 46:53

  Restlessness and Remorse

  ...

  Rapture, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);

  Concentration, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);

  Tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).

  When the mind is restless it is not the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: investigation of the doctrine, energy and rapture, because an agitated mind can hardly be quietened by them.

  When the mind is restless, it is the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment: tranquillity, concentration and equanimity, because an agitated mind can easily be quietened by them.

  — SN 46:53

  Doubt

  ...

  Reflection, of the factors of absorption (jhananga);

  Wisdom, of the spiritual faculties (indriya);

  Investigation of reality, of the factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga).

Source: The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest, SN 46.53 - Fire


What will erase our good deeds? Our body will die but not our good deeds. If nothing can erase our good deeds, does it mean everyone will become enlightened eventually?

In my article, Escaping the Inescapable: Changes in Buddhist Karma. (Journal of Buddhist Ethics Vol. 21. 2014), I explain that karma was initially believed to be inevitable and that one had to live the consequences of one's actions no matter what. But this changed over time and various practices were developed to mitigate and eradicate evil karma. I didn't study "good" karma, but I see no reason for the same kind of reasoning to apply, i.e. good karma must be erasable in the systems of though in which the consequences of deeds are erasable.

One of the perennial problems for Buddhists is that, for the unenlightened, there is a vast predominance of craving and aversion, due to ignorance. Buddhists swing between enlightenment as transcendental (and therefore more or less unobtainable) and immanent in all beings (and therefore inevitable). The trouble is an immanent model is that it devalues the idea of enlightenment if everyone can get there, and will get there more or less with no effort. The trouble with transcendent models is no one is motivated by the unobtainable for long. Both extremes demotivate people and if on looks at Buddhist history we can see periods of stagnation when one or other model is unchallenged.

As part of this process. earlier models seem to get forgotten or repudiated and new ideas such as "interdependence" or "buddha-nature" get invented to fill the gap.

Many people think that Buddhism will inevitably mean that everyone will get enlightened. Mahāyāna Buddhism makes a big deal of the idea of "saving all being from suffering." Which suggests that they think such a thing is possible (despite the evidence of 2500 year of Buddhism). On the other hand saṃsāra (the cycle of death and rebirth) is usually portrayed in Mainstream Early Buddhist texts as beginningless and endless. Liberation is not found in saṃsāra, but by leaving it behind through ending rebirth. In this case we could have no expectation of everyone getting enlightened because that would mean the end of saṃsāra - a logical inconsistency.

A standard way of looking at karma is that none of our deeds "die" when our body dies. They are the condition which determines our next rebirth which will, in the more general way, reflect the life we have lived, for better or worse. But all deeds come to fruition at some point. Good deeds have to have a time limit also, else they would be permanent, and it is axiomatic in Buddhism that all things are impermanent.

Nāgārjuna spotted a little problem with this standard view however (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Chp 17). It is this: dependent arising specifies that when a condition ceases, the effect for which it is a condition also ceases. Thus there is a problem with karma because it requires that effects manifest a very long time after the condition has ceased. Again Buddhists proposed many solutions to this problem, but none of them actually solve the problem. The arguments are quite complex, but I tried to summarise them in an essay called The Logic of Karma. Unfortunately my conclusion is that the internal logic of all the existing explanations for karma are internally inconsistent. Nāgārjuna's answer was to argue that actions, agents, consequences, etc are all just illusions, which is not very satisfying.


Question on the possibility of higher rebirth for animals In the questions Why not kill animals to hasten their rebirth? and Do the same rules of Karma apply to animals? and others, it in part discusses how animals have a very difficult time to be reborn as humans, and stuck endlessly in a cycle as animals. As I understand it, because they are not capable of Meritorious Deeds on there own.

However, it seems to be possible for humans to transfer some good Karma to them, which may improve their chances of a higher rebirth.

If it is possible, how is this accomplished? Take this case:

Let's say there is a housefly in my house. Of course I could just grab a fly swatter and kill it. However, I choose to take 15 minutes to wait for it to fly to the screen door and then let it out.

If this provides some good Karma for me, can it be transferred to the fly which may be helpful upon its rebirth? Or am I the only beneficiary of saving it (or at least for not killing it)?

No, you can't transfer merits to animals. You can only do that with a class of Petas(hungry ghosts) called the 'Paradattupa-jivi'. Animals at best might hear some Dhamma, memorise it and as a result be born in a better place next life. But that is extremely rare. Animals don't get stuck endlessly in the animal realm. They can easily sink lower and get into more extreme states of suffering. Once their bad karma has been exhausted, a past good Karma may come forward to give them a better life.

There is a classification of Karma, according to the priority of effect:

WEIGHTY (GARUKA) KARMA.
PROXIMATE (ASANNA) KARMA OR DEATH-PROXIMATE KARMA
HABITUAL (ACCINA) KARMA
RESERVE OR CUMULATIVE (KATATTA) KARMA

Katatta Kamma are usually the Kamma done in past lives. So if #1,#2,#3 are missing, Katatta Kamma will get a chance to result in the next birth. But that is highly unlikely as animals mostly have habitual and proximate Kammas. So the chances are that they will keep sinking lower. But once you get into the Niraya, you probably won't be creating any new significant Kamma. Because you will be in a constant state of agony throughout the lifespan.


Nīlakaṇṭha Dhāraṇī (“Great Compassion Mantra”) One of the most popular Mantra in China Ques 1) Base on Wiki below, which English translation found to be accurate? D.T. Suzuki or Kazuaki Tanahashi and Joan Halifax
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C4%ABlaka%E1%B9%87%E1%B9%ADha_Dh%C4%81ra%E1%B9%87%C4%AB
Ques 2) Refer to some Buddhism Documentaries, Theravada Buddhism disallow reciting of Mantra. Does it a truth?
Personally i found this Mantra translated into positive self-talk which physiologically helping on self healing of decease. i.e. Having better peace of mind simply can cure most of the deceases?
https://www.wikihow.com/Think-Positively-About-Yourself
It has content of worshiping too so the person too focus on it without understand the basic Buddhism could be lead to superstitious which is inappropriate. I found no issue combination of meditation and of course focus of practices must be Buddhism basic which is Four Noble of Truths.

Most popular current philosophical movement in China is Falun Gong; they've been cracking down on it. The leader contacted me once... was quite insistent and sure he was "god" I've met another male calling himself god and once a female saying she was god too; the female also identified herself later also as the devil... Eh whatever nice to meet you now go take your medication like you're supposed too.
My favorite movement in China is Wing Chun; used to be a female only martial art then men got involved and it became Tai Chi... Same basic thing these days.
The best cure for Buddhism is just sitting; make sure sitting never stops and you'll be doing it right... breathing can stop, world can stop, everything can else stop... Just don't let sitting cease to be sitting. Before or After that Laying down and standing order doesn't matter.
There probably some wisdom or calmness to be found in what you posted... too many people shopping around chasing mind which is the inexhaustible 7th jhana it is the target audience of the poison arrow sutta... it hits the heart of the matter.
My advice to cure that is to go to one's original practice what got them started on whatever path... see it to the end. Make a firm resolve to do so same as Gotama: I'm gonna sit under this tree and see who dies or achieves enlightenment first.
Doubt however is good... always keep some doubt it builds humility otherwise you might start introducing yourself to other people as god.


To what extent do Zen students study Dhamma? This answer was thought to be Zen-inspired:

  Yes it's wrong. Throw away your statues and burn your dharma books.

Zen has a reputation for being a bit iconoclastic.

But perhaps it is somehow based on dharma or suttas (see e.g. Publishing the sutras, and Korea has a Tripitaka)?

On the other hand I think I remember one user of this site writing that they had a Zen teacher initially, but didn't understand it so well until later, after they studied the Pali suttas a bit on their own -- as if the Zen were maybe not clear about explaining theory?

Some of the famous recorded dialogs (e.g. "Nothing Exists", or the poem contest which Huineng won) seem to be dhamma discussion -- as if they have learned some dhamma to discuss!

But the few popular modern English introductions to Zen that I might have read don't seem to mention dhamma much -- they talk about Zen customs or methods, like sitting and giving students a koan -- not the four noble truths, not the gradual or the threefold training, not the hindrances nor fetters nor the factors of enlightenment, perhaps not even the traditional story of the Buddha (i.e. the four messengers and his living home).

I think that Thich Nhat Hanh probably talked about the three or four characteristics of existence, at least -- I expect that, impermanence, is maybe a famous item of doctrine in the culture (of traditional Zen countries) at large.

What is Zen doctrine, what might be taught to a novice? Does it depend entirely on what the student might have learned already, no fixed curriculum, based on an interview between the student and the teacher?

Is the elementary dhamma -- e.g. as outlined in What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? -- instead a body of knowledge which most laypeople would have learned at home or perhaps in elementary school, in countries where Zen is traditional, therefore something which doesn't need to be taught to adult students?

I found my way into Buddhism via Zen since the teacher 'who appeared when needed' was a Zen and Taoist practitioner. This was fantastically lucky since Zen cuts straight to the chase and I'm impatient with details. As a lazy person 'just sitting' was right up my street.

I started by reading 'Cultivating the Empty Field', a collection of poetry by Master Hongzhi. The preface and introduction are brilliant and from a philosophical perspective explained all I wanted to know. At the time these were by far the two best and most useful philosophical pieces of writing I had ever read.

The dharma in all its details is not especially important since Zen goes straight the heart of practice. But the situation is deceptive. The teachings and practices of Zen are grounded in the metaphysics of Nagarjuna. Thus Zen is iconoclastic as is Mahayana. Nothing really exists or ever really happens and all our mundane idea have to be knocked-down.

There is very little need for organised teaching. I was advised to sit down and give up everything. That's it really, the core of the method, supported by pondering on koans, the occasional touch of austerities and so on.

I would recommend the aforementioned book as a way into this topic. I have no patience with the 8 levels of this, the 43 levels of that, the 9 stages of the other and so on for to me they are merely didactic devices, albeit valuable where they are helpful. It won't suit everyone, but some prefer to burn their books and leap-frog all that.

I feel Zen is the best approach for anyone coming from scholastic philosophy since it is free of clutter and has an explicit, complete and well-formed metaphysical scheme. Whether it is best for you only you can know. It combines well with other simple-minded approaches like philosophical Taoism (not the later religious Taoism) and Sri Ramana's method of self-enquiry.

You ask what is Zen doctrine. It is the Mahayana doctrine stripped-down to its most-minimal practical essentials. One sits and waits for the dust to settle, and as it does ones realisation grows and life improves. No need to fight tendencies and attachments like a battling saint for they gradually fall away in the silence and peace. Also, koans are an effective method of unsettling ones usual way of thinking and getting to grips intellectually and 'intuitively' with non-duality.

Hope this helps. For more of an answer the question would have to be more specific.