Dana, Dhamma Talk or Retreat Was just curious, can doing dana helps in accumulating good karma?
What about attending dhamma talk or those retreat?
Thanks and sadhu x 3!

Merits, through ‘Daana’, ‘Sila’ & ‘Bhavana’ bring you joy. But Bhavana (Meditation) is not so important at the start. So leave the retreats for a later date.   As the Buddha preached:

  “Don’t ignore even a small merit thinking that it will not come to you! It is in fact with each drop of water that a pot is filled. Therefore, a wise person will collect all merits even if it is by bit by bit. In this way, his life will full with merits at the end.”

It is important to know that no degree of generosity can cover up the lack of virtue in personal life. This karmic law cannot be deceived. This is why it has been laid down that "give dana with confidence and always be virtuous" (daanam dadantu saddhaaya - seelam rakkhantu sabbadaa). The two aspects should be complementary to each other.

So cultivate the five ‘Sēkha Bala Dhamma’ – Saddhā (faith), Sīla (virtue), Sutha (Dhamma knowledge), Thyāga (generosity), and Paññā (wisdom of the Dhamma). Also religiously go through the stages of listening, remembering, constant reciting, mental observation and ideologically understanding the Dhamma (Sutha, dhata, vacasa paricita, manasanupekkhita, ditthiya suppatividdha). An interesting fact that very few know of is, nowhere in the Doctrine (Sutta) it is mentioned that one becomes a stream entrant (Sotapanna) through meditation. So to your next question, listening to dhamma is more important than practicing meditation. Meditation comes only when one strives to go beyond the stage of Sotapanna.


Is it "bad" to want a "materialistic" happiness? After reading several articles and a book about Buddhism, I now feel a bit uncertain about what Buddhism actually is about. Am I not allowed to dance? To sing? To fall in love? Is the purpose of Buddhism to become a munk or nun? To meditate and never get a taste of life?

Is it "bad" to want to travel? Is it "bad" to want to be happy and/or content?

Is Buddhism about finding happiness in Nirvana? Is that really it? Is it not about being happy where we currently are? Are we not allowed to truly live in the moment?

I am quite new to everything about Buddhism, and I apologize if anything I've said in this question is insulting or rude. I don't know who else I can ask questions like these. I hope someone can explain to me.

The question is not one of being "allowed" or "not allowed" things, you're taking this too much like a dogmatic religion. Buddhism is more like a form of psychotherapy that comes with its own philosophy that it needs you to understand for the method to work.

The therapeutic method comes in an if-then formulation: IF you do this, THEN that will follow; IF you don't want that to follow, THEN don't do this. Its focus is suffering and the thing it teaches you how to do is eliminate a necessary cause of suffering that is present in your own psyche and without which the suffering cannot happen. If you don't feel any suffering or don't want to eliminate it, then there's nothing to do, you can ignore the Buddhist method. If you do feel suffering, you have in Buddhism a most efficacious method of eliminating it, namely by stripping away one of its necessary causes.

The necessary cause of suffering that's contributed by your psyche is having expectations. An expectation is a certain insistence or dogmatic belief that things having to do with your life must be or remain in a specific way (this is what they call "attachment" - this insistent belief or strong expectation). Unavoidably whenever you entertain such an insistent belief you are setting yourself up for disappointment and suffering - "things must be or remain in this exact way or else... <insert negativity>" - and life, being a process of continuous change, will be all too happy to provide these violations to your expectations and produce said suffering. So to the extent to which you want to avoid suffering, to that extent you must abandon your insistent belief that the world "must" be or remain in a certain way, e.g. that you "must" keep your current level of wealth and never go lower, that everyone in your family "must" remain alive and healthy forever, that you "must" keep all your limbs forever, that you "must" benefit from your current good relationships forever etc. etc. Any of these expectations can be violated by the process of life at any time, and this will immediately cause you great suffering because of your insistent belief that these things must stay constant, especially for you, forever. But the process of the universe is not tuned to such static(!) wishes, and the sooner you understand this the more immune to suffering you will be.

So the short answer would be: sure, enjoy every kind of sense-pleasure and emotion and feeling and whatever you want to enjoy in life, BUT... if to the pleasure you also add an insistent belief (expectation, attachment) that the pleasure "must" last or stay with you for X amount of time, know that you are setting yourself up for disappointment and suffering. If you want to avoid the suffering part, just feel the pleasure that is there to be felt in the present moment and don't create any beliefs about how it should behave in the future. If it continues into the next moment, that's fine, and if it ends and is replaced by some pain in the next moment, that's fine too, because pain is also something that arises and then ceases, and doesn't last forever. Learn not to cling to things, be they pleasant or unpleasant: this is the essence of the Buddhist teaching.


What kind of pleasure is the one we get by pursuing Mathematical problems and solving them? Is it a kind of sensual pleasure? We get pleasure and satisfaction by doing Mathematics. Thinking over math problems and solving them does give us some pleasure. According to Buddhism, what is this pleasure categorized as? A sensual pleasure ? Or is it like pleasure we get from Jhana?

I think it would be classed as household joy;

"And what are the six kinds of household joy? The joy that arises when one regards as an acquisition the acquisition of forms cognizable by the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, connected with worldly baits — or when one recalls the previous acquisition of such forms after they have passed, ceased, & changed: That is called household joy. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)

The other types of joy are tied up with renunciation;

"And what are the six kinds of renunciation joy? The joy that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, stressful, subject to change: That is called renunciation joy. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.) MN137

One like this thinks; i am good because of this [solving], delights in thinking, dwells in solving, neglects seclusion and does not attend to the teacher's message.
I think it's like entertainment, a hobby or a sport.


Sutta request: dedication of offerings in another ones name This is a request for sutta references.

I'd like to know the sutta's that describe how one can dedicate offerings in the name of a dearly departed one so that (s)he can, hopefully, have a better rebirth.
Does anyone know of sutta's describing dedicating of offerings?

Thanks.

This being a gift of devoted and faithful ancestors of yours, having it once dedicated that you might be able to nourish and grow to a better with it:

The most common, (guessing Nyom Medhini asked with kusala and devoted heart) is: 7. Tirokudda Kanda — Hungry Shades Outside the Walls

If further understanding is searched anonymously like a hungry shadow, may it be understood to be dedicated toward the many donors lost ancestors behind the walls: [Q&A] Hungry ghosts and food offerings to the dead and Sharing merits - Freude teilen (pattanumodana & pattidana) [Forum Guide]

Common one tries to reach ones departed ancestors in states where they could rejoice with ones deeds and so it might be that they find better rebirth. That is why there are made certain funeral fests and long ceremonies. The dedication toward the Sangha "secures" that they might meet the Sangha in other existences and with it the Dhamma at later time, and by nourishing it"s existence, making each other familiar, Nissaya and possible meeting increases.

Dedication for and offerings toward the ancestors is one of the laymans duties, if wishing after good and better.

Good if being aware of the many goodness many did by sacrifices for you and use it for good and best, never hurting or harming, misguiding others and become another of the Sages step by step. Anumodana! and Mudita.

So powerful is this,
    the accomplishment of merit.
Thus the wise, the prudent,
    praise the fund of merit
    already made.

In the case one or another has a hard to nourish and swallow it: Not having done merits in the past, even if given by ones previous beloved, one would be incapable to receive/take it. Something to think about if possible to do.

(Note that it is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, although hungry ghosts are incapable even for such, but for getting out of bondages)


Why are the psychological forces that stop us from attaining Nibbana greater/stronger than those propel us towards Nibbana? Why is it that the psychological forces like lust, greed, desire, unskilful emotions, etc, which take us away from Nibbana feel so strong and have greater pull than the forces that propel us towards Nibbana like metta, vipassana (insight), etc?

Instinct (refer to  AN 7.11). The Earth today has 7.7 billion people plus zillions of animals, insects, fish & other life forms. This whole Earth is created by lust & craving (refer to SN 12.44). Basically, each creature is born from reproduction for the purpose to further engage in reproduction. It goes on & on like this, endlessly for the unenlightened (refer to SN 15.1), until the Earth burns up.


How does Dating work in Buddhism What does the Buddha say about dating, in general? This is a fairly open-ended question, and any scriptural references would help.
I would have lustful thoughts when I look at a pretty girl (though I try not to act on it and meditate on impermanence as I walk by her.) But, it just occurred to me that if I eradicate lust, then do I even need a girlfriend in the first place?? Thus, I'm really confused about how the mechanism of dating works.
Is it even possible to have a girlfriend/wife without lust?
Or, is there an entirely different answer?

This question has been bugging me for at least a year, I would really appreciate anyone's efforts in helping me resolve this.
Thanks! Answers with Scriptural references is preferred, but personal experiences are also welcomed.

Praises to the Dharma!

A wise man should avoid unchastity as (he would avoid falling into) a
  pit of glowing charcoal. If unable to lead a celibate life, he should
  not go to another's wife. - Dhammika Sutta

A layman is not expected to lead a celibate life. What you are expected as a Buddhist is to avoid sexual misconduct.

  Is it even possible to have a girlfriend/wife without lust?

Yes, but not necessarily for the good. ex: marrying to get citizenship, marrying for money, power, marrying to cover up sexuality etc.

A good example would be a married man becoming an Anagami later. He can still live in the lay life, but girlfriend/wife will merely be ceremonial positions. He will just treat her as a sister or a friend.


Difference between Attachment and Goals I am confused about the differences between attachment (desire) and having a dream/setting goals. Are they the same or different? I am currently working in a job that I do not love but also do not hate. I could do the job if I make myself to but I am not motivated or feel passionate about it. I am contemplating whether I should change my career or try to pursue what I always wanted to do, which is in the arts. The problem is my family wants me to continue working in my field as they think it is more stable and I'm able to earn money to support myself. I am confused and lost in direction and would like to hear a perspective from a Buddhist as I am a devoted follower. Should I try to meditate and lose the desire to change career and try to be more content? Or should I follow what my heart tells me to? There is also a question about fulfilling or want to fulfill other people's (parents) expectations and filial piety. Please clarify me. Thank you.

Thank you everyone for your advice, you can't believe how relieved I felt after getting this off my chest. Sadhu sadhu sadhu

Technically, you could resolve this either way. As long as you can completely convince yourself to take a stance and forget the other alternative, you'd be fine.

However in Buddhism we are advised to try and maximize the positive qualities of mind. So if one of these choices makes you more motivated and energized than the other, you will probably do better long term by going that way.

Now, regarding your parents, in this case you're not violating any ethics, except their expectations of your life, which is the domain that you own 100%.

Regarding goal vs desire concept, in Buddhism it is the blinding desire/craving/lust that is recognized as a danger, for obvious reasons. Yours is not like that. Also, a type of desire that we think about but never fulfill or can't fulfill, leads to suffering. Yours is like that at the moment, so the most Buddhist advice would be to either start fulfilling it or to drop it. Staying in this limbo is definitely a case of generating suffering.


Why did the Buddha take 7 years to attain Nirvana? Why did the Buddha take 7 years to attain Nirvana?
Since he was a pure-hearted person who had never sinned, why not a shorter time?

the nirvana Gotama sought was a permanent nirvana.
being without sin will not stop suffering from hunger, heat & cold, sickness, etc
the only permanent nirvana is the complete eradication of self-view
it is not easy to comprehend the hallucination of self-view, let alone discover self-view is suffering
for example, the self-instinct of gotama was searching for nirvana therefore it appeared illogical or counter-intuitive to find the self searching for nirvana was the actually obstacle to finding nirvana
therefore it took gotama seven years to find nirvana because 'self' is a strong instinct in people


Does the fifth precept ban smoking? The fifth precept started off as a ban on the drinking of alcohol. It has since been expanded to ban the use of intoxicants. Is tobacco also forbidden under the fifth precept?

I always approached the precepts as very important guidelines rather than rigid rules for banning one's actions.

Certainly, while on the eightfold path, if one intakes a substance that even subtlety  clouds the mind  then that substance would lead to one's suffering and the suffering of those around one. The more one understands this and the more one sees things as they are, the more one will follow the presepts naturally like a river follows the best way down the side of a  mountain.-Metta


How does Buddhism see Islam? I am a Muslim living far away from Myanmar. I always hear about the prosecution of Muslims in Myanmar. The Rohingya people are classified by the UN among the most prosecuted minorities in the world. There is a rich history of Muslims prosecution by Buddhists. I have read about Buddhists not liking Muslim rituals of animal slaughter. I have also read about individual cases of crimes supposedly committed by some Muslims. However, what I have read does not justify this massive retaliation by Buddhists, what makes me think that maybe there is something in Buddhism clearly against Islam and Muslims. Maybe it is not only a political issue.

I would like to know how Buddhism sees Islam and Muslims? How is Islam pictured in the eyes of Buddhism and Buddhists?

Talking about Rohingyas puts your question in a completely different category. The conflict in Myanmar is a political conflict. Rohingyas are originally from Bangladesh. These people invaded Myanmar and slaughtered the people living in the bordering villages, putting their heads on spikes.  When the Myanmar army fought back to protect the citizens, suddenly some media in the West and some officers in the UN with vested interests started talking about human rights. Nowadays it's pretty common knowledge that Western powers use Human rights organizations as tools to create conflicts in countries.

If you did not talk about Rohingyas in your question, the answer would be that Buddhists see Islam in the same way as they see Christianity. It's just another religion based on the belief of an almighty, all creating, all compassionate God. That puts it under Sassatavada, one of the 2 fundamental misbeliefs.

Generally Buddhists are not against anyone's right to believe in whatever they want to believe. They do not put people in jail, stone people to death or butcher them just because they believe something different. But if you think that a Buddhist society will stay idle if you start grabbing their land and butchering them, you are in for an ugly surprise.


How to stop thinking about metaphysical questions? I have been practicing seriously for a month now. I'm mindful a lot of the time but not 100% yet and whenever I'm not I start thinking about metaphysical questions or what could be after death or if it is nothing etc. How can I stop this? Or how to stop thinking about something in general when you don't want to? For some reason I can't be equanimous with metaphysical questions. They run through my head like there's no tomorrow and nothing more important than that. It's quite annoying. Would noting help?

Practice Vipassana meditation using breath or walking. This will help you to contemplate on wholesome thought. If you want to stop Vitakka and Vicara you have to practice Samatha meditation. Vitakka and Vicara stop at second Jhana which is I have not experienced myself. Being aware that your mind is unrest alone is meditation. If you can increase this awareness, you will improve your meditation eventually.


Is there any explanation on why only humans and animals do not remember previous life? I have heard from a Buddhist monk that hungry ghosts usually return to their familis searching for food, which makes me believe they have easy access to memories of their previous life. Some hell beings also know what they did to deserve their punishment (according to what I have heard) so they have access to memories as well, I'm assuming devas should know it too.

Apparently only Humans and animals do not remember previous lifes, is there a reason for that in the teachings?

All the beings you mention as remembering past lives are spontaneously reborn (opapaatika), whereas humans and animals are either egg-born (aṇḍaja), womb-born (jalābuja), or moisture-born (saṃsedaja). Only spontaneously reborn beings are readily able to remember their past lives; most others have their past life memories repressed by the trauma and general coarseness of their rebirth.

I know this is all general Buddhist knowledge, but I can't find a reliable source from the original texts; if anyone knows of one, please feel free to put it in the comments.


How the Buddha retained his awareness? The Buddha (siddhartha, as per me) was a human being. He felt pain, happiness, dullness, recession for himself, his family(age-wise) and other one's and etc. How he retained his awareness? Was there some moments when he (himself) got distracted by worldly behaviour ? Please consider tags while starting wishing to answer my question.

As well as extraordinary personal qualities, I suspect that one of the things which helped him to be free of "distraction by worldly behaviour" was 'renunciation'.
For example, Tapussa Sutta: To Tapussa:

"So at a later time, having seen the drawback of sensual pleasures, I pursued that theme; having understood the reward of renunciation, I familiarized myself with it. My heart leaped up at renunciation, grew confident, steadfast, & firm, seeing it as peace. Then, quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.
"As I remained there, I was beset with attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality. That was an affliction for me. Just as pain arises as an affliction for a healthy person, even so the attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality that beset me was an affliction for me.

It's worth reading that whole sutta. It describes a series of deepening revelations. He practices (practices 'renunciation' to begin with), reaches a stage, ... but it isn't complete, his "heart doesn't leap", until he thinks or realizes something which completes that state and sees him enter the beginning of the next.
Also there are many adjectives in that sutta which seem to me to describe desirable or pleasant mental states; for example, "confident", "internal assurance", "equanimity", "pleasant abiding", "peace", "infinite space / non-resistance", etc.
The Buddha had a keen sense of dukkha (the first noble truth). Assuming that he found a way to escape or avoid dukkha, to find states of being/mind which are 'better' than unsatisfactory, that seems to me a strong and perpetual incentive for him to remain enlightened (i.e. not distracted, and his living as a monk means there is also not worldly behaviour).

My idea is that the Buddha found his 'awareness' to be rewarding; for example, Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose? starts,

"What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"
"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."

... and ends ...

Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge
& vision of release as its reward.
"In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the
consummation of arahantship."

My guess is that:

If his awareness is rewarding and gives him positive feedback I think that's a reason why he would keep it.
Our mundane awareness (chasing sense-objects and mental formations) is, comparatively, not very satisfactory (it's dukkha and impermanent), which is a reason why we don't retain it.


Buddhism is kind of depressing Please correct me if I'm misguided about this but I was doing some reading which seemed to be saying that life on this earth is nothing but suffering. That while we are ignorant we wander around in samsara experiencing the pain of birth, ageing, illness and death etc The goal is to be free of this cycle by reaching nibanna and not be reborn anymore.

I don't see the point. Because if I am no longer reborn then where am I? If I don't exist anymore then I cannot be in nibanna. And if I no  longer exist then what is the point of getting to nibanna anyway as I won't be able to experience it.

I feel that this view is somewhat depressing. It makes me think what is the point of anything.  Why bother even trying to accomplish or achieve anything if it's all suffering and the goal is to not exist anymore?

One way to understand Buddhism, is to understand how the Buddha frames happiness and suffering and what he was trying to achieve.

Wordly Happiness & Suffering

First, the Buddha did not denied that we experience pleasure:

  “Ānanda, there are these five cords of sensual pleasure. What five? Forms cognizable by the eye that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, pleasing, sensually enticing, tantalizing. Sounds cognizable by the ear … Odours cognizable by the nose … Tastes cognizable by the tongue … Tactile objects cognizable by the body that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, pleasing, sensually enticing, tantalizing. These are the five cords of sensual pleasure. The pleasure and joy that arise in dependence on these five cords of sensual pleasure: this is called sensual pleasure.

  “Though some may say, ‘This is the supreme pleasure and joy that beings experience,’ I would not concede this to them. Why is that? Because there is another kind of happiness more excellent and sublime than that happiness."

  -- SN 36.19

One problem with the pleasure/happiness that we experience normally, (through our senses, thoughts, emotions) is that they are impermanent. In this sense, they are only temporary shelters in our lives. A second problem is that they seem unable to absolutely satisfy us, in the greatest sense. For example, eating may satisfy hunger at a certain moment, but does not satisfy every single necessity or desire at that same moment.

In the pāli scriptures, the term that describes the characteristic of being impermanent is anicca. And the term to describe the unsatisfactoriness of things is dukkha. With that said, the Buddha declared:

  "All sankhara are dukkha."
  "All sankhara are anicca."

   -- AN 3.136

sankhara is usually translated as "phenomena", "formations", "fabrications" or "preparations". It refer to the "things", all these "fluxes" that are experienced, touched, heard, smelled, seen, felt, thought, etc. Everything that comes to be with conditions as basis.

At this moment, it's relevant to point out that dhukkha can also mean pain or suffering as well. So, that explains why some people came to conclude that the Buddha said that everything (or life) is suffering, which is problematic, as it should be clear now.

What he said, then, is that all these worldly experiences we go through are unsatisfactory in it's ultimate sense. And even if they may be temporarily pleasing at the present, they always carry the danger of suffering in the future. The Buddha also said:

  “Then, bhikkhus, it occurred to me: ‘The pleasure and joy that arise in dependence on form: this is the gratification in form. That form is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this is the danger in form. [repeats for all aggregates of our individuality]"

  -- SN 22.26

That is, by evaluating all experienced based on our sensory faculties, he established the pleasure that arise with them as condition (the gratification). And due to it's characteristics of being impermanent, he observed it carries a danger for suffering.

That sums up the first noble truth: "this is dukkha".

  “Bhikkhus, there are these five situations that are unobtainable by an ascetic or a brahmin, by a deva, Māra, or Brahmā, or by anyone in the world. What five? (1) ‘May what is subject to old age not grow old!’ ... ‘May what is subject to illness not fall ill!’ [...] (3) ‘May what is subject to death not die!’ [...] (4) ‘May what is subject to destruction not be destroyed!’ [...] (5) ‘May what is subject to loss not be lost!’."

  -- AN 5.48

Nirvana

While most people are fine with all that situation of living with pleasures and sufferings, others feel enslaved by this existential situation they find themselves in. These people came to conclude that no matter what happiness they may find in the world, they know deep inside that such happiness has an expiration date -- and suffering is around the corner. The Buddha was in this later category.

The problem the Buddha set out to solve was: is there the ultimate happiness? and how to achieve it? By ultimate happiness, it's meant something that has no trace of unsatisfactoriness. And also, something that is not impermanent. Because it doesn't change, and because there's nothing else to desire, this is then the ultimate peace, where there's no danger whatsoever of suffering. It's impossible, then, to conceive any happiness greater than that, for this would denounce it's unsatisfactoriness.

In Buddhism, this is called Nirvana, the end of dukkha without reminder. And the third noble truth is a declaration by the Buddha that Nirvana can be attained: "This is the cessation of dukkha".

Because all the "worldly experiences" are conditioned, impermanent, subject to change and to vanish, the Buddha halted any of his attempt to find the ultimate happiness on these things.

  Bhikkhus, it is impossible that a bhikkhu who considers nibbāna to be suffering will possess a conviction in conformity [with the teaching]. [...] [But] it is possible that a bhikkhu who considers nibbāna to be hapiness will possess a conviction in conformity [with the teaching]."

  -- AN 6.101

Samsara

What makes our situation more dramatic is the idea of the cycle of births. While some people don't believe in life after death, the tradition understands the Buddha declaring that after the death of this life there's another (and on it goes), seemingly with no external force that will make it stop.

Some may see this as an endless opportunity for entertainment and living all sorts of interesting things. But others see it as a burden. Here, we go around experiencing things that come to an end, and then experiencing other things, with no pause. Sometimes they please us, sometimes they cause suffering. Things that were something become otherwise, continually. Everything we hold with our hands vanish -- and soon, our hands also vanish.

The Buddha concluded that this "never ending wandering" has a cause: our thirst (tanha), our desires, specially the desires based on the sense faculties. By desiring, we keep experimenting, and these experiences have the nature of changing, the nature of being unable to satisfy us, and the nature of cause suffering.

This thirst, then, is a root of our suffering, the second noble truth: "this is the origin of dukkha."

  “Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father… the death of a brother… the death of a sister… the death of a son… the death of a daughter… loss with regard to relatives… loss with regard to wealth… loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time—crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

  “Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.”

  -- SN 15.13

The Path

Thus, the Buddha taught a progressive training where gross and worldly pleasures are gradually abandoned in favor of more sublime and beneficial pleasures.

  If by renouncing a lesser happiness one may realize a greater happiness, let the wise man renounce the lesser, having regard for the greater.

  -- Dhp 290

This training is the noble eightfold path, the fourth noble truth: "This is the path that leads to the cessation of dukkha."

The Buddha said this path is "good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end". It promotes happiness in this very life, happiness in the after-life, and if taken to it's last consequences, to Nirvana.

Final Notes

It's not known exactly what happens to someone who attained Nirvana after death. When questioned about it, the Buddha did not answer. He denied that after death, an Arahant or Buddha is annihilated. He also denied that he reborns. Finally, he asked that those things that he left undeclared to be remembered as undeclared by him.

But, from what we know he has said, Nirvana is the cessation of dukkha and the end of suffering. We also know that it is said to be, indeed, happiness. So Buddhism is not depressive. It is, in fact, positive. It promotes knowledge about the nature of suffering and happiness and how to cultivate the latter. And to those "tired of the rollercoaster", it affirms there's indeed a secure shelter out of it and shows the path that leads to it.


Is "anupassi" translated as "focused" accurate? I read the following on the internet:

If having a little wisdom one would not see any different between
"staying right focused" and "watch closely", but the fool seeks to
accumulate knowledge just for gain and to pave his way downwardly.

From the Pali suttas, the word "anupassi" is translated as follows:

On that occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of
itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress
with reference to the world. Thanissaro
on that occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body,
ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and
grief for the world. Bodhi
That’s why at that time a mendicant is meditating by observing an
aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and
aversion for the world. Sujato
a monk lives contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly
comprehending and mindful, having overcome, in this world,
covetousness and grief Nyanasatta Thera
a bhikkhu lives contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly
comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome, in this
world, covetousness and grief... Soma Thera
a monk fares along contemplating the body in the body, ardent,
clearly conscious (of it), mindful (of it) so as to control the
covetousness and dejection in the world... Horner
that bhikkhu is considered one who lives constantly contemplating body
in bodies, strives to burn up defilements, comprehends readily, and
is mindful, in order to abandon all liking and disliking toward the
world... Buddhadasa
in regard to the body a monk abides contemplating the body, diligent,
clearly knowing, and mindful, free from desires and discontent in
regard to the world. Analayo
Contemplates the body in the body with effort, sampajañña and sati,
eradicating covetousness and distress with regard to the world...
Payutto
These unpleasant feelings are dukkha-vedana and the contemplation of
these feeling is vedananupassana, contemplation of feeling...
Mahasi Sayadaw

It appears, from the ten translators above, the American Geoffrey DeGraff (also named Bhikkhu Thanissaro) has uniquely translated "anupassi" as "focused".
Questions:

Is Thanissaro's translation accurate? Is the English word "focused" synonymous with the other translations of "contemplating", "observing", "watching closely", etc?

Is there a possible downward path, misguidance &/or confusion in adhering & attaching to Thanissaro's translation? Why?

Is there a possible downward path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why?

Is there a possible upward & even Noble path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why?

Anupassi is watching (by understanding) continuously.
You can translate into many words because when mind arising, there are many mind factors arising together with each mind.
However, according to each Sutta's context, the selected words are the most proper words for that Sutta.
For the example, Anupassi in DN22 MahasatipatthanaSutta.
Anupassi in that Sutta has many situations, many objects, etc., so Anupassi is the conclusion, Uddeso, of the whole  comprehension styles in DN22.
Anupasī is including Viharati, Ātāpī, Sampajañño, Satimā, Vineyya, Pajānāti, SatiPaccupatthitā, Nāna, PatisatiMattāya,Anissito, Na Upādiyati, SampajānaKārī, Paccavekkhati,  Upasanharati, Ariyo Atthangika Maggo, Sammāditthi, SammāSankappo, SammāVācā, SammāKammanto, SammāĀjīvo, SammāVāyāmo, SammāSati, SammāSamādhi, and every word in it's explanation such as Vitaka, Vicāra, pīti, concentration (focusing), etc.
You can see that if you want to translate Anupassī in DN22, you need to translate all of those words together, however you can't. So in this case the translation which is same as in Pāli is better, except you are the Tipitaka Memorizer who teaching one who is going to enlighten immediately. In this case, the proper words for that enlightening person are allowed. However, they need to get back to the original version in Pāli after enlightened to keep Buddha's teaching to 5000th B.E.


What is The Prediction as defined by the Mahayana tradition? Please see this section taken from the wiki page titled Boddhisattva which might help you answer the question:

...what early Mahayana sutras like the Aṣṭa do is to help individuals
determine if they have already received a prediction in a past life,
or if they are close to this point. The Aṣṭa provides a variety of
methods, including forms of ritual or divination, methods dealing with
dreams and various tests, especially tests based on one's reaction to
the hearing of the content in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā itself. The text
states that encountering and accepting its teachings mean one is close
to being given a prediction and that if one does not "shrink back,
cower or despair" from the text, but "firmly believes it", one is
irreversible. Many other Mahayana sutras such as the Akṣobhyavyūha and
the Śūraṃgamasamādhi Sūtra present textual approaches to determine
one's status as an advanced bodhisattva. These mainly consist in one's
attitude towards listening to, believing, preaching, proclaiming,
copying or memorizing and reciting the sutra. According to Drewes,
this claim that merely having faith in Mahāyāna sūtras meant that one
was an advanced bodhisattva, was a departure from previous Nikaya
views about bodhisattvas. It created new groups of Buddhists who
accepted each other's bodhisattva status.

Also, is the Śūraṃgamasamādhi Sūtra the same as Leng Yen Ching? And, is there an English translation of the Akṣobhyavyūha sutra?

A "prediction" is a statement made by an enlightened person, originally a previous Buddha, or, in Mahayana tradition, an enlightened master, that guarantees its object eventual attainment of enlightenment in a subsequent existence.


Am I condemned for an extramarital affair? A long time ago I had a romantic relationship with a married woman, and later I regretted. How is this seen in Buddhism?

It is classified as sexual misconduct. According to the Cunda Kammaraputa Sutta:

  And how is one made impure in three ways by bodily action? There is
  the case where a certain person takes life, is a hunter,
  bloody-handed, devoted to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to
  living beings. He takes what is not given. He takes, in the manner of
  a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and
  have not been given by them. He engages in sensual misconduct. He
  gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers,
  their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or
  their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments,
  or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is
  made impure in three ways by bodily action.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html

However, that doesn't mean that you are "condemned." You did something that wasn't right, but if you recognize that you did something wrong and strive to do better in the future, that's all you should do. In the Samaññaphala Sutta King Ajatasattu confessed to the Buddha that he had murdered his own father, which in Buddhism is one of 5 Garu Kammas, the 5 most heinous acts a person could possibly commit:

  "...King Ajatasattu said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned,
  to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to
  carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in
  the same way has the Blessed One — through many lines of reasoning —
  made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the
  Dhamma, and to the community of monks. May the Blessed One remember me
  as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day
  forward, for life.

  "A transgression has overcome me, lord, in that I was so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to kill my father — a righteous
  man, a righteous king — for the sake of sovereign rulership. May the
  Blessed One please accept this confession of my transgression as such,
  so that I may restrain myself in the future."

  "Yes, great king, a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to kill your father — a
  righteous man, a righteous king — for the sake of sovereign rulership.
  But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in
  accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a
  cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when,
  seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with
  the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future."
       http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

The Buddha did not condemn King Ajatasattu for his evil act, but encouraged him to have a change of heart and live an ammended life. He did the same for Angulimala the Serial Killer (Angulimala, his nickname, means garland of fingers because he kept his victim's fingers on a string as a garland) having him become a Monk and when Angulimala saw a woman in childbirth and wanted to help, the Buddha said this to ease Angulimala's feelings of guilt over killing so many people:

  "In that case, Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her,
  'Sister, since I was born I do not recall intentionally killing a
  living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you,
  wellbeing for your fetus.'"

  "But, lord, wouldn't that be a lie for me? For I have intentionally
  killed many living beings."

  "Then in that case, Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to
  her, 'Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall
  intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be
  wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.'"

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

The Buddha taught people guilty of the most heinous things to change their ways but to move on and not dwell on their previous errors. If the Buddha encouraged a man guilty of killing his father and a serial killer not to dwell on guilt, how much more would he encourage someone who committed adultery to simply have a change of heart and not dwell on guilt.


How is rebirth to be understood? I have some questions regarding this Buddhadhasa text saying there is no rebirth in Buddhism.
Is rebirth not what enlightenment is supposed to bring an end to? Is there no rebirth because rebirth is actually to be understood in a moment-to-moment manner unrelated to the end of life (rebirth as pertaining to the condition of willing no more)? Then why does Goenkaji talk about "good fortune from a past life"? I thought I also heard him imply the rebirth of our consciousness in the context of suicide being a bad idea for this reason.

Buddhadhasa text saying there is no rebirth in Buddhism

The Buddhadasa text states 'birth' is the mental birth of the 'self' or 'I' thought and that there is no 'rebirth' because each time the conditioned 'I' thought is born it is a brand new 'I' rather than the same 'I' being reborn.

For example, is the 'I' you sense yourself to be today the same 'I' as when you were 4 years old?

Buddhadasa concluded there is on-going 'ego-birth' for unenlightened people but not 'rebirth'.

  Is rebirth not what enlightenment is supposed to bring an end to?

The Pali scriptures state enlightenment brings about the end of the "I-conceit" (MN 22); the end of 'I-making' & 'my-making'.

The Pali scriptures (very end of MN 38) states 'birth' ends while the mind remains conscious, which supports Buddhadasa's view that 'birth' refers to the birth of the 'I' concept.

SN 22.81 also supports Buddhadasa's view.

  Is there no rebirth because rebirth is actually to be understood in a moment-to-moment manner unrelated to the end of life (rebirth as
  pertaining to the condition of willing no more)?

According to Buddhadasa, yes.

  Then why does Goenkaji talk about "good fortune from a past life"?

This is a common idea in cultural Buddhism & Hinduism, which also probably explains why Buddhism became extinct in India (since both doctrines became essentially the same).

  I thought I also heard him imply the rebirth of our consciousness in the context of suicide being a bad idea for this reason.

Yes, this is also a common idea and possibly a beneficial idea, namely, to discourage people from committing suicide. However, there are no references in the Pali suttas I have read where the Buddha was pre-occupied with this concern.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following discussion supports Buddhadasa's viewpoint:

DN 15 is the only discourse from thousands attributed to the Buddha, I am aware of, which makes an unclear inference that consciousness is 'reborn' (i.e., enters into a mother's belly).

Why DN 15 is unclear & considered by many scholars, including scholars that believe in reincarnation/rebirth, to be unauthentic is because it contradicts the many other reported discourses on the same subject.

In the many other discourses, such as MN 43, SN 22.79, MN 9, MN 148, MN 18, SN 12.2, SN 12.67, SN 22.56, SN 22.82, MN 38, SN 22.53, etc, it is written that:

consciousness is (only) mental cognition (MN 43, SN 22.79);
there are only six types of consciousness (SN 12.2; MN 9; MN 148);
consciousness arises in dependence on sense organs & sense objects (MN 148, MN 18, MN 38);
consciousness is caused by the mind-body (SN 12.67, SN 22.56, SN 22.82);
for consciousness to arise without the body, feelings, perceptions & mental formations is impossible (MN 38; SN 22.53).

In summary, similar to DN 15, the idea the consciousness is reborn in the form of a 're-linking consciousness', 'stream of consciousness', 'mindstream', 'storehouse consciousness', etc, are all ideas created after the passing of the Buddha by different & various Buddhist schools. These terms about a 'rebirth consciousness' commonly used by Buddhists have no source in the original teachings.

The Pali scriptures actually state that "beings" ("sattā") or "men & women " (itthī vā puriso vā) are 'reborn'. To quote:

  When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away
  [fall] & reappearance [rise] of beings (satta).

  Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to
  living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on
  the dissolution of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a state of
  deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.

In SN 5.10 & SN 23.2, a "satta" ('being') is described as a 'view' ('idea') about the totality of the five aggregates born from attachment & craving. To quote:

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

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

  SN 5.10

  'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

  Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, feeling, perception, mental formations &/or consciousness, Radha: when one is
  caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

  SN 23.2

Therefore, based on the words attributed to the Buddha, what is 'reborn' appears more likely to be the 'self-view' or 'I-thought' based on all of the five aggregates rather than only consciousness being 'reborn'. In MN 38, the Buddha is reported to have heavily criticized & admonished a monk for holding the view that consciousness is reborn. To quote:

  As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another.

  Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?

  This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions.

  And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
  co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
  no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor
  grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and
  produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term
  harm & suffering.

In conclusion, the ideas of people such as Goenka, which are also held by the majority of Buddhists, seem to have next to no basis in the original Pali scriptures. Where as the ideas of Buddhadasa at least seem to conform with a diligent (rather than superficial) examination of the original Pali scriptures. Further, the ideas of Buddhadasa can also be verified by meditative insight (where as the ideas of Goenka cannot), which conforms again with MN 38, which states:

  Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be
  realized by the observant for themselves.


Nose Object Problems If one practices Goenka style  Vipassana or Anapana meditation then the main object of contemplation is the nose area.

If one has a cold and the nose is blocked then is it o.k. to breath through the mouth, chest or abdomen(in the Goenka, Anapana or any Buddhist meditation that uses the nose area)?

If, in that situation, it is proper to breath through the mouth,  then are there any special instructions for breathing through  the mouth in Anapana, Goenka or any other Buddhist meditation practice that uses the nose area?

What if one has always found it difficult to breath through the nose because of a partial blockage or some unknown condition that might be psychological?

If breathing is difficult concentrate on the sensation at the focal point. Apply (Vitarka) Sustained (Vicara) Attention Directing your Mind (Manasikara) to keep your mind on the focal point to cut out Thinking and Pondering / Verbal Fabrication (Vachi Sankhāra). Even with a stuffed nose you still breath hence you can just concentrate in the in and out flow. I don't think it is very advisable to breath through the mouth through.

See my answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/12342/295 which contains more  details.


Is "ghost month" really a Buddhist concept? I currently live in Taiwan, and we are currently experiencing "ghost month". The Wikipedia article for Ghost Festival starts with:

  The Ghost Festival, also known as the Hungry Ghost Festival, Zhongyuan Festival or Yulan Festival (traditional Chinese: 盂蘭節) is a traditional Buddhist and Taoist festival held in Asian countries.

The use of "traditional festival" suggests it may be more of a cultural tradition than a strict Buddhist concept.

Does the idea that hungry ghosts or spirits escape from (some subset of) Hell once a year and need to be fed have any root in the early origins of Buddhism, or is this an add-on concept coming from cultural ideas or perhaps from Taoism?

It appears this practice originated from Taoism, not from Buddhism. However, there is an account of hungry ghosts stories in Buddhism. (Petavattu)
In Sri Lanka, we pass merits to departed relatives but there is no specific date for it.


Why intake of intoxicating substances is not included in 10 unwholesome actions? Following are the 3 unrighteous bodily conducts out of 10 unwholesome actions described in suttas such as Saleyyaka Sutta.

Killing living beings
Stealing
Sexual misconduct

I would like to know the reason why the intake of intoxicants, liquor and drugs is not listed as one of unwholesome actions.

In a way, the 10 unwholesome actions already take into account the intaking of intoxicants in the sense that intoxicant is a condition for the manifestation of any one of those 10 unwholesome actions. When one is drunk, it could serve as the condition that leads to killing, stealing, raping, etc.. OR it could just cause him to throw up and then pass out. In other words the 10 unwholesome actions are listed because they're all manifested explicit actions while taking intoxicants is a to-be-manifested action..


"..but don't become attached" Do we have control whether we attach or not? Often I hear above mentioned phrase in regards to sex, music, entertainment and basically everything else that is or seems important.

Now the question is: Do we really have control whether we get attached to something or not?

Isn't a little attachment good, i.e., attachment to the Dhamma or the five precepts in order to elicit faith and confidence?

Regards

Isn't a little attachment good, i.e., attachment to the Dhamma or the five precepts in order to elicit faith and confidence?

Ven. Ananda's "going to the park" simile might be helpful in addressing this topic.
Regarding the question about control, of course there is for without it there'd be no Stream-enterer, Once-returners, Non-returners, nor Arahants.


Recognizing the loss of fetters I have a question regarding the fetters. Once a fetter is lost, is it obvious to that person that it has been lost? If one has doubt about the loss of a fetter, is that in itself proof that it has not been lost?

Many thanks.

If one has doubt about the loss of a fetter, is that in itself proof that it has not been lost?

Yes.


Loneliness in Buddhism I am wondering what is the antidote to loneliness, or the approach towards it, within Buddhism. I am finding myself quite lonely despite being previously familiar and at ease with solitude.

I am using social media quite often, mainly to chat with others; I find this might have exacerbated my feelings of loneliness.

I am wondering two things primarily: (1) What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it? What are the non-social antidotes to loneliness?

(2) Does active and directed attention, whether in meditation or attending to tasks, alleviate feelings of loneliness in the long term?

And perhaps (3) what is the Buddhist view on social media use? Is it inherently fragmenting awareness as I suspect? Does it have no benefits?

I am wondering what is the antidote to loneliness, or the approach towards it, within Buddhism.

In Buddhism loneliness is viewed and treated exactly as any other undesirable mindstate.

  What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it?

Any mental activity that involves "feeding" (sustaining) the description or image of the world as such that considers socializing to be a core valuable activity, would naturally cause the feeling of loneliness. This includes watching TV series and using social media. Also, as ChrisW said - comparing one's situation to others who are social, attachment to past pleasant social experiences. All this can be summarized as unwise application of attention which serves as feeding/sustenance of craving.

  What are the non-social antidotes to loneliness?

The same old trick, wise application of attention. Moving one's perception into position where the problem of loneliness does not exist. The possibilities are infinite, from getting oneself involved with abstract sciences, to computer programming, creative performance and art, music -- to convincing oneself that loneliness is not only acceptable, but in fact natural for persons of high realization and beneficial for their well-being -- to direct Jhana experience of reviewing one's mental continuum and praising it for the absence of typical ups and downs that would have inevitably accompanied socializing.

  (2) Does active and directed attention, whether in meditation or attending to tasks, alleviate feelings of loneliness in the long term?

Yes, exactly. See above.

  (3) what is the Buddhist view on social media use? Is it inherently fragmenting awareness as I suspect? Does it have no benefits?

Mahayana view would be, that as long as your motivation is to help others, the use of social networks is appropriate, even if it causes you personal pain. In other words, Mahayana is totally fine with paying the price of suffering for  the higher goal of helping others reduce theirs. This thought in itself reduces personal suffering.

Of course it fragments awareness. But this is the spirit of times, and we want to be in tune with it if we are to be relevant.


Sankharas, once eliminated. Do they have a chance of coming back? When I talk of sankharas, I mean the pattern of the mind and the way in which the sanna recognizes an object. After prolonged Vipassana and remaining equanimous to the body sensations, Many of my thought patterns have changed and I can practically see a link there. But theoretically I am still unaware as to how remaining equanimous to body sensations has anything to do with the deepest habit patterns of the mind.

Now my question is if one stops Vipassana meditation for a sufficient period of time. Is there a way for these sankharas to develop again?

There are ten fetters eliminated in Vipassana meditation. Elimination does not occur before you reach the Sothapanna(stream enterer) state. Until then, fetters are only subdued. Once a fetter is eliminated, it's gone for good. Refer to the table below to know the fetters eliminated at each stage of the path.

Yes, if you stop doing vipassana short of attaining Sothapanna, your mind can fall back to an ordinary corrupted state again.


What is the general Buddhist consensus on catharsis? Is it fine if you are mindful while doing it? Or did the Buddha denounce such practices as revelling or exaggerating emotions to provide temporary relief? I find that simply being mindful while repressing emotions has a tendency towards leading to passive aggressiveness.

To be specific, I mean actions like systematically screaming to release anger, systematically feeling to release sorrow... etc. Purposely releasing these mindstates and going over the top instead of repressing them.

What about other traditions aside from Therevada? Do they share a similar view towards catharsis, or is that not the case?

In my opinion, catharsis is a hindrance (non-meditaion) therefore not really related to Buddhism. Catharsis is a product of a deficiency in morality & self-control (as explained in AN 10.61). In other words, catharsis is a secular matter rather than a Buddhist matter.

What is the nutriment for the five hindrances? It should be said: the three kinds of misconduct.
AN 10.61

This said, in MN 20, it is taught as one of five methods that sometimes a person must let a hindrance arise to overcome it. Often emotions are so strong, they must be endured and allowed to arise & run their course.

If, while he is trying to forget those thoughts and is not giving attention to them, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate and with delusion, then he should give attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts. When he gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside. With the abandoning of them his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness and concentrated. Just as a man walking fast might consider: ‘Why am I walking fast? What if I walk slowly?’ and he would walk slowly; then he might consider: ‘Why am I walking slowly? What if I stand?’ and he would stand; then he might consider: ‘Why am I standing? What if I sit?’ and he would sit; then he might consider: ‘Why am I sitting? What if I lie down?’ and he would lie down. By doing so he would substitute for each grosser posture (thought) one that was subtler. So too…when a bhikkhu gives attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts…his mind becomes steadied internally, quieted, brought to singleness, and concentrated.


Is Gautama Buddha the greatest Buddha who ever existed? According to tradition, there were 27 Buddhas before Gautama Buddha.

Is Gautama Buddha the greatest Buddha out of all the 28 Buddhas?

No! All Sammasambuddhas are equal in their attainment of Buddhahood. They are all omniscient, equal in virtue, concentration and wisdom. However the time they take to cultivate Paramitha might vary from Bodhisatva to Bodhisatva. There are three classes of Bodhisattvas, namely; Intellectual Bodhisattvas (Pannadhika), Devotional Bodhisattvas (Saddhadhika) and Energetic Bodhisattas (Viriyadhika).

The minimum time it takes to become a Buddha after getting the confirmation from another Buddha is called "Sara Asankya Kalpa Lakshaya". Intellectual Bodhisattas take the minimum time. Our Buddha was an intellectual Bodhisatta. Saddhadhika Bodhisattas take double that time. Viriyadhika Bodhisattas take 4 times the minimum time required. Buddha Maitreya who will appear in the future is said to be a Viriyadhika Bodhisatta. But after attaining Buddhahood they are all equal.

Apart from that, there are 30 similarities and 8 dissimilarities. The dissimilarities are not directly related to Buddhahood. Ex: The tree under which they attain enlightenment, the life span, parents, wife, chief disciples, whether there's a Vinaya pitaka etc.
Read the Buddhawamsa for more details.


What is anger. How it is different from violence? I want the differences between the two, followed by their definitions?

Anger refers to a mental state. Violence usually refers to a destructive or harmful physical action caused by an angry mental state. Both are originating from the defilment called Dosa(aversion).


Does the second precept only apply to theft? Considering the second precept

  Adinnādānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.

which I am most familiar with its translation as

  I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given

Does this precept only apply to cases of theft or can it be extended into more intangible possessions such as someones time or energy? Considering the answers around the illegal download question it does seem as if there are interpretation in which it is only theft. I'd particularly like to know interpretations from different schools and the differences (or not) between them.

For this can we take the definition of theft as provided by wikipedia

  theft is the taking of another person's property without that
  person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful
  owner of it.

No, it's meaning is far wider even in Theravada, let alone in Mahayana.

Check out Thanissaro Bhikkhu's compilation of Vinaya: the cases he lists include dealing with counterfeit money and smuggling goods without paying custom duties -- which clearly goes beyond expropriating someone's property.

Of contemporary teachers, e.g. Bro. Chan Khoon San (trained in Myanmar's Theravada) lists the following Types of Taking What Is Not Given in his Introductory Course on Early Buddhism:

  The most blatant, involving threats or force, are daylight  robbery, extortion, purse snatching, kidnapping.
  The second type is stealing or secretly taking the article without  the owner's knowledge such as housebreaking, burglary and
  pick-pocketing.
  The third type is fraud, laying false claims or cheating by  confidence tricksters to gain someone's possessions.
  The fourth type is deceit when dishonest traders cheat their  customers by false weights and measures or supply products of  lower
  quality than specified.
  The fifth type is forgery when people pass counterfeit money as  real or sell counterfeit gold and jewelry.
  The last type, though seemingly slight, is very common and  occurs when employees take small items from their company for  their own use
  without paying for it.

Most importantly, we should not forget the main purpose of training rules: to help one "curb the grosser forms of defilements" (Bro. Chan Khoon San):

  The actions prohibited by the precepts such as killing, stealing,
  sexual misconduct, false speech and  partaking of intoxicants are all
  rooted in greed, hatred and delusion and when we succumb to them, we
  strengthen these evil roots that they become dominant traits. By
  undertaking to observe the precepts, we weaken the grip of these evil
  roots by dispelling them with wholesome mental volitions. Each time
  the precepts are upheld, each time the moral volitions become
  strengthened, until  eventually morality becomes a habitual trait
  through the condition  of repetition (asevana paccaya).

Sat-Dharma (True Dharma) is famously "good in the beginning, good in the middle and good in the end". Among other things this means that Buddhist precepts both play their role at supporting social harmony and decreasing anguish at large, AND they propel the practitioner towards Enlightenment. All interpretation of Buddhist precepts must be made in light of their dual purpose.


How to deal with ADHD and OCD like symptoms causing issues during meditation? I am only 2 months into meditating and I've been having some problems.

I am unsure whether I truly have the behavioral/thought patterns that are considered ADHD and/or OCD, but for a while I've been noticing symptoms for a while now.

The problem I am having during meditation is I overthink things to the extreme. I start thinking about whether I am doing it right. Then I overthink so much that I can't even focus on anything else anymore. I have this problem with reading as well. I start thinking about whether Im reading properly and then my mind starts going into overdrive trying to make sure I do every single detail perfectly but instead my brain just fries up and I can't do anything anymore. Then frustration and doubt sets in and it gets even worse.

I know that this is an overall problem that I need to work on and fix. I am working on it. But I would really appreciate any tips on this for now as I feel it is quite a barrier in my process.

EDIT: I came to the realization that I need to remember that those "symptoms" or behavioral patterns are just thoughts accompanied by strong emotions. As with any other thought, acknowledge and let go.

If you think you got ADHD or OCD you should seek professional help. Even if it turns out you don't suffer from these disorders talking to an expert could help you with your problem.


How to know the progressive state of mind in insight meditation While  doing  meditation thoughts  developing on cittarupa and the what is appearing  on the field too disappears together feel like anattma(non self).At that moment citta goes out into the field and light appears from  the point it has gone.no attachment it is freed and moved towards. No sensations of body has appeared. (Eg sound ....,...,)what is this experience?

I believe the speed of letting go of things is one of the indicators from Indriya-bhavana Sutta

  There is the case where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises
  in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable &
  disagreeable. He discerns that 'This agreeable thing has arisen in me,
  this disagreeable thing... this agreeable & disagreeable thing has
  arisen in me. And that is compounded, gross, dependently co-arisen.
  But this is peaceful, this is exquisite, i.e., equanimity.' With that,
  the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable &
  disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. Just as a
  man with good eyes, having closed them, might open them; or having
  opened them, might close them, that is how quickly, how rapidly, how
  easily, no matter what it refers to, the arisen agreeable thing...
  disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and
  equanimity takes its stance.


How should Buddhists deal with Loneliness I don't know how many Buddhists actually reckon with loneliness and the (very real) suffering associated with it.

It seems to me that a lot of Buddhist teachings emphasize on the value of solitude and deem intimate/personal relationships to be unwholesome karma, which ought to be readily forsaken.

So what should an aspiring Buddhist do if he/she feels perpetually alone, constantly challenged with the near-impossible task of building deep, trusting and long-lasting relationships that are emotionally nourishing and fulfilling?

Should he/she simply forget about such worldly pursuits and learn to live the life of a recluse in a good forest monastery? Or try to do something about this somewhat-unbearable State of Being? If the latter, what can the Dharma teach us about forging human connections that are increasingly loving, kind and deeply meaningful?

Some Afterthought:

From the Samana Johnann's comment and some of the answers below, it does show that Buddhism tend not to view Loneliness as a problem per se.

We do need friends (and Teachers!) to provide consistent spiritual support in each of our paths towards Enlightenment, though. (And people who are lonely often find it hard to express and/or address their need in this respect.)

Also, it is natural for humans, as social beings, to yearn for social bonding and some level of intimacy.

I know many seasoned Yogi(ni)s can attest to the fact that one can be perfectly equanimous being alone in a meditative state.

But are we missing out on something?

Overall, the Buddha says:

MN128:6.30: If you find an alert companion,  a wise and virtuous friend, then, overcoming all challenges, wander with them, joyful and mindful. If you find no alert companion, no wise and virtuous friend, then, like a king who flees his conquered realm, wander alone like a tusker in the wilds.

Rarely do we have to "wander alone like a tusker in the wilds." Spiritual friends often enter our lives when we take the time to recognize them as such.
But the above advice works best for those committed to and firmly on the path. For others struggling with day to day issues it's more challenging given the need to maintain relationships to simply survive. Surrounded by materialistic pursuits and people, alienation and loneliness can overwhelm. If sangha and/or teacher are not available to you locally or even online, then you may very well be a "tusker in the wild."
To build deep, trusting and long-lasting relationships requires ethics. On the path we practice ethics, immersion and wisdom. Ethics define our relationships with others. When we behave ethically, others trust us and relationships grow.
Ethics is surprisingly complicated. In MN8, the Buddha declares forty-four (44!) things to attend to. The list starts with:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

Indeed, for this online age, the following seem quite appropriate:

MN8:12.8: ‘Others will speak harshly, but here we will not speak harshly.’
MN8:12.9: ‘Others will talk nonsense, but here we will not talk nonsense.’
MN8:12.10: ‘Others will be covetous, but here we will not be covetous.’

There are a lot more in that sutta. I read it regularly to refresh my perspective. Perhaps that may help you as well.


What happens to consciousness/awareness when entering Paranirvana? If consciousness/awareness as the 5th skandha is impermanent (?), shouldn't it cease to exist when entering Paranirvana?
But in SN 22.53 the Buddha says:

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then
owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there
is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed,
not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it
is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its
contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is
totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the
holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
world.'"

Here cuddlyable3 answers with a quote which says that:

Damien Keown states: Nirvana [...] involves a radically transformed state of consciousness which is free of the obsession with ‘me and
mine’
when a person attains nirvana, they are liberated from ordinary rebirth. When such a person dies, their physical body disintegrates
and their consciousness is said to be completely liberated. They are
not reborn in the ordinary sense. Their consciousness does not take
rebirth into a physical form
terms like ‘born’ or ‘not born’ do not apply in the case of an Arahant, because those things—matter, sensation, perception, mental
activities, consciousness—with which the terms like ‘born’ and ‘not
born’ are associated, are completely destroyed and uprooted, never to
rise again after his death

Doesn't the last point contradict with the others? For me it makes much sense that consciousness is that which gets enlightened and that Nirvana is the state of free, liberated consciousness. I mean if everything what I am, even consciousness, which I think I ultimately am, vanishes, why should I pursue enlightenment then?
Thank you.

Any form of existence after parinirvana is "an inconceivable" in the Buddha's Dharma. This is equally true of Theravada as it is of Mahayana here. The Buddha, "after death," is inconceivable. The Buddha's mind, after death, is inconceivable. The Buddha's mind, before death, is also inconceivable. The Buddha questions Vesālī:

“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as form?”
“No, sir.”
“Do you regard the Realized One as feeling … perception … choices …
consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as in
form?”
“No, sir.”
“Or do you regard the Realized One as distinct from form?”
“No, sir.”
“Do you regard the Realized One as in feeling … or distinct from
feeling … as in perception … or distinct from perception … as in
choices … or distinct from choices … as in consciousness … or as distinct from consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as
possessing form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as one
who is without form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“No, sir.”

(Anurādhasutta SN 44.2)
The Buddha is not defined via five aggregates like a sattva is. This is before even parinirvāṇa. After parinirvāṇa, the Buddha is also not defined via five aggregates. With this in mind, we can go to the 25th Parīkṣā of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā with the Madhyamakaśāstra commentary from ~2-400 AD by Venerable Vimalākṣa (青目, an alternate Sanskritization is "Piṅgala" )

25:17 The Tathagata, after parinirvāṇa, is neither said to exist nor not to exist, nor is he said to both exist and not exist, nor neither exist nor not exist.
25:18 The Tathagata, presently, is neither said to exist nor not to exist, nor is he said to both exist and not exist, nor neither exist nor not exist.

"Presently" here should be taken as "while alive."

25:19 Between nirvāṇa and the world, there is not the slightest differentiation. Between the world and nirvāṇa, there is also not the slightest differentiation.
25:20 From the true apex of nirvāṇa to the apex of the world, like this, there are two apices with not a sliver of difference between them.
25:21 "Existence or nonexistence after parinirvāṇa," et cetera, "the boundaries of existence," "constancy," et cetera -- all (of these) views depend on nirvāṇa being in the future or in the past.

Venerable Vimalākṣa comments:

(1) "The Tathagata after parinirvāṇa exists," or (2) "The Tathagata does not exist," or (3) "The Tathagata both exists and does not exist," or (4) "The Tathagata neither exists nor not exists," or (5) "The world is finite," or (6) "The world is infinite," or (7) "The world is both finite and infinite," or (8) "The world is neither finite nor infinite," or (9) "The world is constant," or (10) "The world is inconstant," or (11) "The world is both constant and inconstant," or (12) "The world is neither constant nor inconstant" -- these in three kinds are twelve views. When after the Tathagata's parinirvāṇa he is (1) existent or (2) nonexistent, et cetera (3-4), those four views arise dependent on (the notion of) nirvāṇa. When the world is (5) finite or (6) infinite, et cetera (7-8), those four views arise dependent on (the notion of) the future. When the world is (9) constant or (10) inconstant, et cetera (11-12), those four views are dependent on (the notion of) the past. Whether the Tathagata after parinirvāṇa exists or does not exist, et cetera, is inconceivable, and nirvāṇa is also the same. Like the origin and destiny of the world, if it is finite, infinite, constant, inconstant, et cetera, it is inconceivable, and nirvāṇa is also the same. Consequently, we say that the world and nirvāṇa are not different.

Āyuṣmat Nāgārjuna's Kārikā continues.

25:22 If all phenomena are empty, what is finite, infinite, both finite and infinite, or neither finite nor infinite?
25:23 Why is there the one and the many? Why is there the constant, and inconstant, and both constant and inconstant, and neither constant nor inconstant?
25:24 All phenomena being inconceivable is the cessation of the frivolous ponderings. To no person and in no place has the Buddha ever spoken.

Venerable Vimalākṣa comments again:

All phenomena at all times of every variety conform to
dependent origination. All in all, they are empty, and thus they have
not their own natures (自性, svabhāva). Which body exists to be the same
as the soul? Which body exists to be different than the soul? Thus
proceeding are the sixty-two demonic views. Each and every one within
emptiness is untenable. When all existence completely ceases,
frivolous ponderings are entirely gone. When frivolous ponderings are
entirely gone, it is because we have penetrated the true aspect of the
many phenomena and attained the tranquil path. Hearkening back to the
chapter on causality, if we inquire into the many phenomena, they are
neither existent nor nonexistent, nor are they both existent and
nonexistent, and nor are they neither existent nor nonexistent. This
is called 'the true aspect of all phenomena.' It is also called 'the
true nature of the phenomena,' 'reality,' and 'nirvāṇa.' Therefore,
the Tathagata at no time, in no place, to no persons, ever spoke of
nirvāṇa as with particularized characteristics. When all existence has
entirely come to an end, frivolous ponderings have ceased.

(Madhyamakaśāstra T1564.34c14)
Which directs us back to the OP inquiry: What happens to consciousness when entering parinirvāṇa? It ceases.

Of all forms of disease, none is greater than that of having a body —
he extinguished the body. Of all forms of torment, none is more severe
than that of having a calculating mind — he erased it and submerged in
the vacuous. The mind is taxed by the body; the body is burdened by
the intellect. The two pull each other, turning like a wheel on the
endless road of misery. It is said in the sutra, “The intellect is
poison, the body is shackles. Because of them the quiet silence of
liberation remains beyond reach; they are the cause of all
tribulations.”
The Perfect turned his body into ashes and extinguished his intellect,
he relinquished his form and discarded his reason. Within, he
abandoned the stirrings of illumination; without, he put to rest the
basis of misery. Transcendent, perfectly free from all existents;
boundless, he became great and vacuous. Tranquil, inaudible, clear,
non-manifest, mysteriously gone forever into a destination unknown.
When a lamp goes out its flame is extinguished, the oil and the flame
gone all at once.
This is nirvana without remainder. In the words of a sutra, “The five
aggregates are no more, like a flame extinguished.”
[...]
The terms “with remainder” and “without remainder” are only external
appellations for nirvana, conventional designations for the divergent
modes of the sages’ responding to things.
[...]
As for these (two) appellations (of "with remainder" and "without remainder"), they are established to indicate the
various modes of sagely response. When the Sage manifests traces, we
call this “arising”; when he makes them vanish, we call this
“cessation.” His “arising” is referred to as nirvana “with remainder,”
his “cessation” as nirvana “without remainder.” All along both
appellations — “with” and “without remainder” — remain rooted in the
nameless. Surely the nameless will take any name? Thus, the Perfect
becomes a square when he inhabits a square, a circle when he stops in
a circle, a deva when among devas, a human being when among humans. To
become a deva or a human being in accordance with circumstance is
surely not something that devas or humans could do. It is precisely
because he is neither a deva nor a human that he can become one or the
other.

(Venerable Sēngzhào Zhào's Essays T1858, translator unknown by poster, published by BDK as Three Short Treatises by Vasubandhu, Sengzhao, and Zongmi)
Though the Buddha's mind ended upon parinirvāṇa, he was never identified as, with, or in his mind to begin with. When I say "to begin with," I mean "after the bodhimaṇḍa," after he touched the earth in response to Mara, the godling prince. Nothing changes for the Tathāgata when form, consciousness, etc., ends, because he has already discarded, transcended, and escaped all of these.
In the Sarvāstivādin Mahāvibhāṣa ("The Great Commentary" of the Sarvāstivādin Śrāvakas), it explains nirvāṇa using some clever wordplay: "Vāna" means forest and "nir" means escape.
As it is the escape from the forest of the aggregates,
it is called nirvana.
When we ask a question like "Is the Buddha aware after parinirvāṇa," we are trying to pin the Tathāgata down, to identify him, using the aggregates by which ignorant sentient beings are bound. This can't be done.
Overlong, but hopefully helpful in some way.


What can be done when one is having difficulties establishing a regular practice? I just can't manage to maintain a regular practice, not even a short one. From a buddhist point of view, what can be done?

I went on retreats, I sat a few days in a row at home doing meditation, I tried to do small meditations, but I just can't sustain a practice.

This happens when you have a mistaken idea that practice is something separate from your normal life. But meditation is only 1/3rd of the practice, the top of the wedding cake (shila-prajna-samadhi). Most of the practice happens during the day, in what some of us Buddhists semi-jokingly call "post-meditation".

I think meditation looks important to Westerners because it seems to follow familiar functional pattern: do something and get the result. "Leave the rest of your Buddhist B.S. superstitions to the uneducated ancients. I will focus on THE practice." But Buddhism does not work this way. Without right context meditation is useless.

What is the context in Buddhism? The context is removing obstacles to enlightenment, from coarse obstacles, to middling obstacles, to subtle obstacles. You can't remove subtle obstacles until you remove middling obstacles. You can't remove middling obstacles until you remove coarse obstacles. Meditation is a tool that is used for working with subtle obstacles.

What are coarse obstacles? They are coarse biases, coarse illusions, coarse preconceptions, coarse hangups. How can you identify them? By their effects -- production of strong emotions during the day.

Every time you feel strong emotion (e.g. longing, irritation, frustration, resentment, contempt, insult, disgust, anxiety, aversion, strong timidity) - or about to feel strong emotion - therein is attachment (=bias, illusion, preconception, hangup). That's the moment when you should switch your context from whatever it is that you are grasping at, and pause and look at your attachment. At such moments it is right there, like an elephant in the room. What's interesting about attachment, subjectively it always looks legit, it always seems right, appropriate, justified. But that's the way it tricks the rational mind. It may even be attachment to humbleness, attachment to open-mindedness, attachment to kindness, attachment to fairness - any of the good things. But when it becomes all-important it turns into a demon and starts generating judgement, aversion, conflicts, blinding emotions, and bad karma. So as soon as you see the emotion arising - you should step back and identify the attachment / preconception. Then you should let it go while focusing on your recommended anchor:

if you are very mental, focus on your body - esp. lower abdomen and feet. Do you feel any tightness or burning or blockage? Do you feel other parts of your body or are they numb?,
if you are very emotional, focus on your breathing - is it fluid or jerky or blocked?,
if you take real-life situations very seriously, imagine the time of your death,
if you are an earthly person, remember that you exist in the infinite Universe with its worlds, which existed for billions of years and will exist for billions of years into the future,
if you often feel helpless or frustrated getting your point across, remember behavior of Buddha or your teacher.
in any case, let go of your attachment and change your point of view to either very low level (physiology of your psychosomatic expressions and the mechanics of the imprint-based associative cycle) or very high level (the perspective of "God").

When you practice like this you can't forget to practice, there is no problem "establishing" practice - every time there is an obstacle in your life it comes as a reminder to practice!

In the same vein, when you notice yourself getting too happy, too self-righteous, enjoying yourself too much, being too puffed up, doing too well - you should pause and check if there is an attachment at play. When you're doing this right, there should be a feeling of balance, some feeling of ambiguity or open-endedness. But with this I am getting into advanced territory... Anyway.

This is what the practice should be on initial stages, this was my main practice for many years - this and the overcoming of spiritual materialism - before I was even introduced to Buddhist philosophy of anatta and shunyata - and only after I mastered those two conceptually, was I introduced to (shikantaza) meditation.

So yeah like I said, to any Westerner jumping straight into meditation I recommend at least five years of preliminary "shila" practice working with attachments (coarse obstacles), then five years of "prajna" practice studying -- and applying! -- anatta and shunyata to remove middling obstacles, and only then the practice of "samadhi" aka meditation.


Is the Mind [essentially] bound to ignorance "not-knowing" or free? Is the Mind [essentially] bound to ignorance "not-knowing" or free?
If it is bound, then its essential nature of "non-knowing" cannot depart, and, therefore, liberation is not [possible, or] if the essential nature departed, the mind would cease to be a Mind, i,e. it can no longer not-know.
If it is free, the meditation and other means enjoined for the sake of liberation are of no use.

Don't get infatuated with the word "essence" and "essential". Some people talk about "the essence of the mind" and try to make the mind the ultimate reality. What matters is that the mind is the chief of sukha or dukkha -- bad births and good births -- like in the Dhammapada:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

And you still have to "do" the non-bright and non-dark karma, to get fully enlightened.
All this means is that you do have to work on your mind, on your actions through speech, body and thoughts -- to get a good births and/or be fully enlightened -- (not doing rituals or clinging to sensual objects).


Niànfó (念佛, nenbustu) & Morality I would like to pose a question to practitioners of the various diverse sects of Pure Land Buddhism and to those substantially knowledgable of the writings of Pure Land masters.

There exists the notion that Pure Land style buddhānusmṛti, namely invoking the name of Amitābha in the interest of entrance into Sukhāvatī, absolves practitioners from moral obligations and removes morality from the Buddhadharma. I do not agree with this notion, but it does exist, and this in spite of the obvious and apparent reality that Pure Land practitioners are not any more immoral than any other group of people.

Some Pure Land masters are popularly quoted as saying that even the unrepentant and evil gain access to Sukhāvatī via niànfó in this very life in which they are criminals or evil men. Does anyone have any context to offer for this and how it impacts morality in the dispensation of these masters, who clearly did not advocate for immoral behaviour?

Where does morality and virtue sit contextualized within the Dharma in niànfó-centric practices of Pure Land schools, wherein salvation is potentially available to all through niànfó alone?

Thank you all for your time.

I will provide a hint to your question grossly, since I'm running out of time. Provided chance, I shall attend to this question if needed.

  Some Pure Land masters are popularly quoted as saying that even the unrepentant and evil gain access to Sukhāvatī via niànfó in this very life in which they are criminals or evil men.

If you understood the Pureland doctrines thoroughly, you should learn that there are 9 grades for entering Sukhāvatī, called 九品蓮花 (Nine Platforms of the Lotus [transportation vehicles?!]): best, better, good x 3 = 9). The lowest of these 9, i.e., the good of the good (下品下生), is that when a practitioner who's committed incl. the Five Grave Sins (五逆罪) such as killing the parent, by the time of dying is able to remember/ think of (憶念) Amitābha he will be born in Sukhāvatī. However, the Lotus Platform that carried him takes 12 Great Kalpas to open, i.e., he will arrive in Sukhāvatī after 1612800 million years(?) [161.28 亿年]. The Best of the Best takes a blink of eyes. The criteria must be met is that he should be able to remember/ think of Amitabha - top importance; he repents/laments his wrong deed (懺悔) though he couldn't mend it; he himself has the full confidence of being able to be born in Sukhāvatī.

If any teacher just stating that Niànfó is the one-fix-all, without explaining the above, he is misleading and that's why Pureland to outsiders, even insiders, are sometimes criticized rigorously. I knew there is one very popular and famous Pureland School's Bhikkhu living in Singapore migrated from Mainland China who's teaching an abridged version of the doctrine [his own doctrine?]. He is also called into question by Buddhists of if his meeting the qualification of being ordained as a Bhikkhu because in one occasion in defending himself he revealed that he was born incompetent (黃門), this video with his voice is circulating in the internet. I hope you are not the students following his teaching ;).

If you want to learn properly, I suggest you read the original Classical Chinese       《佛說無量壽經》 《佛說觀無量壽經》, 《佛說阿彌陀經》 is translated by Kumarajiva; or letters of 印光大師. They are not that hard to read, if you know Chinese.

Also, for Pureland practice, Niànfó is just one of the many methods. Such as above Sutras, it is in fact in it recorded the visualization method, the 《佛說觀無量壽經》 there are in total 16 visualizations one of it is visualizing the setting sun as described in the Sutra.

But the sad thing is, practitioners just follow the teachers, and the methods reduced to one single Niànfó, it is not sure the teachers if they studied the Sutras, or just busy writing articles giving talks to invoke more audiences to recognize their names/fames. No one care to learn from the original Sutras, from directly the Buddha himself.


How can a lay person approach the learning process of Buddhism? I've read many books on Buddhism in the last 3 years and I started to meditate daily 10 months ago. I have a general idea about many topics, without a deep understanding of any of it. Is there a specific way in which a lay person with a deep commitment for Buddhism should approach the teachings? Is there a specific order of the subjects? Can you, please, give me some advice about where to start and how to proceed? Thank you!

There are many specific ways, giving you the best way requires a scientific study done on every possible way buddism can be taught and then finding a distinct right answer from that, which is currently, and probably never be available. I will give you a source that teaches you in a very specific and effect way of practicing buddism:

https://www.youtube.com/user/ActualizedOrg/videos

Specifically his meditation videos guide you through to enlightenment very effectively.


Watching a stream of thoughts from the mind? Watching bodily sensations is simple ,there is always a sensation to recognize in the present moment .Same with breathing ,hearing and seeing.Always a reception exists realtime.

  For example:-

  In breathing: there is a slow breath ,heavy breath ,refreshing breath.

  In the body:There is comfort ,tightness ,discomfort.

But the mind as a sixth sense isn't as easy .It doesn't seem like it always keeps receiving a continuous stream of thoughts to recognize in the present.

Is there a meditation practice that can help recognize thoughts continuously ?.Or do thoughts pop out erratically and according to ones interaction with the aggregates?.

Edit

What I mean by thoughts as in ideas coming to the mind.

I don’t really understand what you want to watch,.

Do you want to watch the mind or the mind objects (thoughts)?

There are a lot of ways to observe the mind.
Here some questions you can ask yourself for practice, but also in daily life:

How am I feeling right now overall, pleasant, unpleasant or neutral?
Are there any unwholesome states, like anger, greed, frustration, restlessness, uneasiness, irritation, boredom, impatience, clinging, distraction, and so on?
In case of wanting: Can I see if it’s a wholesome desire or an unwholesome one?

Point I’m trying to make is that the mind is so much more than thoughts.

Of course, watching thoughts can help in determining what state the mind is in. But watching them is not the same as getting to understand the mind. The mind is more than it's objects.

Another thing that might be useful to know is that what someone means when they say thought can differ.
Some mean stories in their head, others impulses that come up, and so on. I’m sure you can see that there is a significant difference here. So, it might be useful to always figure out what one means with the word ‘thought’.

Hope this helps a bit.


Do Buddhists see reality as consensual or individual? Do Buddhists see reality as consensual or individual? Are all persons' realities joined in a seamless whole, or is each person a window onto nothingness that can never be seen by anyone else? I am not finding easy words for my question which seems clear to me...

I see two real things (only), that are one: the Void, and Experience. So for me, everything in Experience is one thing, whether I perceive that or not. Yet each is also unique. Are we all connected like fingers on one hand, or more like ants in a colony: each distinct and un-mergeable with the others?

Please provide a reference that I can read. Thank you!

EDIT: I have this well-known quote attributed to the Buddha: "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the World." So, my question is:

The word "We" - does it mean collectively, as a plenary (not by assent but in fact), or does it mean each of us individually? The word "The" World - does it mean the common reality, or each of our individual "realities"? Simple, yet subtle.

From Buddhist perspective, phenomenal (experiential) reality is dependently co-arisen phenomena. In other words, experience depends on convergence of a number of factors. Some of those factors are common across multiple cases of perception, and some are specific to an individual case of perception. To the extent that some factors are shared, realities are similar. To the extent that some factors are unique, realities are dissimilar.

This topic is discussed in depth in a very advanced work of 19th century Buddhist philosopher Mipham, called Beacon of Certainty (topic #6). For a more casual read, check out The Prayer of Kuntuzangpo. Also see Lamp of Mahamudra section one, "Ground Mahamudra".

P.S.

The objects (and subjects!) appearing in each of the realities are not truly existing. But there is only one ground underlying them all. To realize the true meaning of this ground is to be Buddha.

There is an infinite number of valid, internally not inconsistent, but not necessarily compatible with each other, ways to cognize this ground. Although all cognitions (including cognition of the true meaning of the ground!) are construed on the basis of temporarily combined elements (so in this sense no one cognition is fundamentally better than any other), however, since there's a case of being aware (vs. being unaware) of dependently-coarisen nature of objects (and subjects!) of perception, there's a sense in which we can speak of an awakened cognition. Or as Master Dogen said in Genjo-Koan:

  When all dharmas are [seen as] the Buddha-Dharma, then there is delusion and realization, there is practice, there is life and there is death, there are buddhas and there are ordinary beings. When the myriad dharmas are each not of the self, there is no delusion and no realization, no buddhas and no ordinary beings, no life and no death.


Persevering Through Very Difficult Periods How do those who have experienced multiple, profound-negative events, and/or long periods of extreme hardship muster up the will to continue on the path, or even to try to live a morally-upright life when one feels absolutely certain that any effort towards skillful thoughts/actions is only a short-term project that will only be demolished in the near future anyway?

What I discovered only a few years ago, after 25 years of practicing Dharma...is that when things get really rough, it works best to get into absolute here-and-now mode.

Meaning, I don't think about my situation, don't compare, don't analyze, just live one step at a time, one breath at a time, do what's obviously required at the moment, and that's it.

This puts me in pure suchness. Things are such and not otherwise. There's no judgement on my side, nor longing for things to be otherwise. There's just suchness.

When you are fully in this mode, it is actually quite peaceful, despite the rough situation. Suchness is peaceful, because it is just so. There's no conflict in my attitude to it. I am just such, and I do what I do, at the moment.

It is actually a very advanced state, suchness. No need to practice anything else. To be in full peace, without inner conflict, despite the circumstances - is quite an achievement.