self-hypnotization-autosuggestion - chanting I am looking for a solution for my complete lack of control  - tried many things (doing lot of meditation doing 1 minute meditation - no formal meditation - but i never manage to keep it more than a few days usually 1-2 days even with only 1 minute meditation a day)

what im trying to do now is to avoid doing bad stuff in hopes to do good stuff  but i have no self control and always fail in it

thought about a way to change that using some self-hypnosis  - auto suggestion something i asked about here :

Should I use autosuggestion to make myself meditate

now im thinking of doing chanting of sabba papassa akranam  (As to the focus of avoiding doing bad i will do good)   maybe during the day maybe just repeat it 108 times one time a day ?

Do you think this will have a benefit ? can this "work" and cause a big change ?   any tips advice on how to this ?

Sure, best maybe just ten times, when possible situations appear which could be approached by bad thoughts, words or deeds before not doing such. That's the most effective time with most benefical fruits, and if doing seriously and heedfull, watching over it's requirement, Breath will see it's great effects very soon.

Best make a strong resolve and promise to do. Maybe by chanting 108 times, having bowed before the Three Juwels, taken refuge in a small personal sermon. Before going to bed every day, in the case if chanting in such situations was forgotten, chant it 108 times and renew the promis like at the beginning. If having chanted if in situations and did not do the deeds then, best rejoice on it and try to just dwell silently in this joy. If feeling inspired, maybe good to devote gratitude to the Gems at the end.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange. It's given as guest and not as subscriber, as possibility given by the owner of this page here.]


Do any modern ("free-thinking") monks or monastic orders discard elements of the Vinaya? Yesterday I spent some time studying one of the Vinayas and, completely honestly, I couldn't help but think that some of the rules were shockingly superstitious even by the standards of most of the world religions of the time.  For example, rules that emphasize non-violence to such an extent that they forbid monks and nuns from slicing or peeling their own fruits and vegetables.  The food, completely vegetarian, must be "slaughtered" by a lay donor before the monks are allowed to break it or bite it.

I couldn't help but think that such rules actually harm the Sangha by preventing them from operating in present-day capitalistic societies, where self-sufficiency is highly respected and prized.  (And, potentially unsanitary?  Modern churches, by contrast, issue each congregant a separate cup and communion wafer, even though the disciples shared a single loaf and chalice.)

Other parts of the vinaya were surprisingly in-tune with modern sensibilities of social justice and  "Twitter feminism", such as the rule forbidding monks from teaching nuns without being first asked.  #DontMansplainDharmma  Or the rule that a monk must first ask permission of another monk (trigger warning) before reminding him or politely asking him about a possible rule violation.

It made me wonder if there are modern monks and monastic orders that explicitly (and unapologetically) reject the obsolete parts of the vinaya while conscientiously obeying the beneficial parts.  Granted, which parts are obsolete is open to interpretation.

And secondly, I am aware that the text of the vinaya forbids monks from criticizing vinaya or requesting changes to it, especially for the cause of expediency or attracting new followers.  The Buddha himself authored vinaya and expected it to be followed.  Is it permissible for a Buddhist lay follower, one who has taken refuge and has chosen to follow the Eightfold Path without picking and choosing, to discuss certain aspects of the vinaya in a skeptical light, as I have just done?  Or to describe certain texts as mythological or historical disciples as impure?  I have not taken refuge in the Three Jewels and will not unless I can do so in total sincerity and a pure conscience.

CASE 16. UMMON'S SEVEN-FOLD ROBE

  Ummon said, "The world is vast and wide; why do you put on
  your seven-piece robe at the sound of the bell?"

  Mumon's Comment: When one meditates and studies Zen, one extinguishes
  the attachment to sound and color. Even though some have attained
  enlightenment by hearing a sound, or an awakening by seeing a color,
  these are ordinary matters. Those who intend to master Zen freely
  master sounds or colors, see clearly the nature of things and every
  activity of mind. Even though this is so, now tell me: Does the sound
  come to the ear, or does the ear go to the sound? But when both sound
  and silence are forgotten, what would you call this state? If you
  listen with your ear, it is hard to hear truly, but if you listen with
  your eye, then you begin to hear properly.

  If you are awakened, all things are one and the same, If you are
  not awakened, all things are varied and distinguished. If you are
  not awakened, all things are one and the same, If you are
  awakened, all things are varied and distinguished.

You're being way too literal.  The continued execution of religious prescriptions rarely has anything to do with the more or situation that first gave rise to it.  Tradition carries it forward, but not without it first establishing something far more interesting in the process.  Each training rule is an opportunity to subjugate the ego.  Whether it's a matter of how many bowls you own, how you wear your robe, or how you address members of the opposite sex, each instance bends the will away from one's personal concerns and toward the dharma.  In following these laws, we forgot ourselves.  That forgetting is what's important; most of the rules themselves are almost arbitrary (although let me be clear - some exist that are utterly mandatory).

There's a really great movie entitled Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring.  If you get a chance to watch it, pay close attention to the doors.  Every doorway at the monastery depicted in the film can be walked around.  They are just doors built in empty space.  They don't take one through a gate or into a sealed off room.  In practice, there is absolutely no need to use any of them.  But all of the monks do (and poignantly, those who have gone astray do not).  Training rules are no different than the doors depicted in that film.  In fact, the rules are doors themselves.  Each one is an almost arbitrary limit that we place on ourselves.  Nevertheless, when we choose to take up these kinds of restrictions, they convey us into rooms we would not otherwise have been able to reach.

Only when we carefully put on our seven piece robe can we pass through the door that leads to the throne room of the Buddhas.  What does it mean to put on that robe?


Decline and the ending of Buddhism Here is link giving a bit of details that Buddha preached about the decline of Buddhism after parinibbana.
http://www.lawsofthenature.com/GotamaSasana.aspx

 I share with you the following passage taken from the page of the above link

  The Buddha said that after His parinibbaana, only for 1,000 years will
  the monks be able to acquire the analytical knowledge (Patisambhida),
  or what we know as Arahanthship or deep knowledge. Then, as time goes
  on, they will only be able to attain Anaagami (Never return). And then
  only Sakadagami (Once return), and finally, only Sotapanna (Stream
  enterer). With the death of the last disciple who has attained
  Sotapanna, the attainments will disappear.

 Here's my issue with the above. From what I understand is that after a certain period of time after parinibbana, the maximum attainment that one could achieve reduces from arahant to anagami and so on. But this is illogical because if a person attain anaagaami he/she will only have at most 1 life where he/she will become an arahant which makes the above statement false, unless it means that the person will be born as a deva maybe having a very long lifetime until the next Buddha. This is confusing.

All Anagamis are born in one of the five Suddhavasa Brahma realms. There they will attain Arahanthship. Yes, they have a very long life span. The lowest realm 'Aviha' has a life span of 1000 Maha Kalpas. So they will see many Buddhas in the future before entering Parinibbana.

The text is talking about monks. That means the human world. Divine beings are not discussed here.


Alternative to Willpower in Fighting Cravings I noticed that I almost unconsciously revert to trying to fight cravings via willpower, i.e. resisting them. Let's take the example of food cravings. I usually make an internal commitment to avoid junk food, but the cravings nevertheless arise, and when my mood is low I fail to resist.

Are there alternatives to willpower in fighting cravings? I had been wondering whether other solutions  -- like mindfulness or even seeking healthier sources of pleasure -- might be more effective.

More so, I believe I crave more because recently I experience less pleasure from activities or emotional sources. Does Buddhism have any technique specifically linked to pleasure?

Some stuff for you to try:

Pace yourself, by letting cravings go in manageable steps (If everyone else deserves compassion, so do you in your practice of letting go)
Don't quit cold turkey, instead replace your habits with alternative
activitites (essentially anything related to the eightfold path, not
least meditation)
Do Asubha bhavana (foulness meditation)
Study dhamma (disperses ignorance on this topic, and is also conducive to comprehension/panna and hope/saddha, as alternatives to viriya/willpower)
Ask your sangha (You already did)


Does the Nihilism view (natthika-dithi) actually deny rebirths? Is the Nihilism view (natthika-dithi) actually denying rebirths?

In Fuller's The Notion of Diṭṭhi in Theravāda Buddhism: The Point of View, in the translation of the Sāmaññaphala-sutta, natthika-ditthi is formulated like this:

  Nothing is given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; there is no
  fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other
  world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously;
  no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have
  themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the
  other world.

  The person is composed of the four great elements; when
  he dies, earth returns and goes back to the element of earth, water
  returns and goes back to the element of water, fire returns and goes
  back to the element of fire, wind returns and goes back to the element
  of wind, while the senses disappear into space. [Four] men with the
  bier as a fifth take up the corpse, the funeral orations last as far
  as the burning ground, his bones are a dull white, his offerings end
  in ashes. They are fools who teach alms-giving. The doctrine of
  affirmation (atthika-vāda) is empty and false banter. Fools and wise
  alike are destroyed and perish at the breaking up of the body, they do
  not exist after death.

The following statements are related to 'rebirth':

Denying the "fruit or result of good and bad actions" -- which, except this-life fruit or results, are rebirth-related.
Denying "the other world" -- if it's not rebirth-related then it would be interesting to understand what "other world" is actually supposed to mean.
Saying "they do not exist after death" -- description of death as complete destruction (without rebirth).

Nothing is given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; there is no
  fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other
  worlds; no mother, no father; no beings who are spontaneously born;
  no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have
  themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the
  other worlds.

I have amended the translation above.

The word 'beings' ('satta')  is defined in the suttas as mental states of attachment & identity (rather than physical life forms). 'Satta' is merely a 'self-view' held by Mara.
The very fact that 'beings' are 'spontaneously' or 'immediately born' ('opapatika') due to acts of karma into the other worlds (heaven, hell, animal & ghost) show it is not related to after-death-reincarnation or a new physical birth, as explained below:

  32. Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born
  generation and spontaneous generation (opapatika).

  Maha-sihanada Sutta

For example, the very moment the mind gets angry, it is spontaneously born as a 'hell-being'.
'This world' ('loka') refers to the human world of good morals & conscience. The 'other worlds' ('paraloka') refer to the heavenly (bliss), hell (torment), animal (immoral, emotionally reactive & unreflective) and ghost (addiction) worlds. For example, MN 79 refers to the 'world of only pleasant feelings':

  Kiṃ panudāyi, atthi ekantasukho loko, atthi ākāravatī paṭipadā
  ekantasukhassa lokassa sacchikiriyāyā

  Udayi, is there a world of only pleasantness? Is there a course of
  actions to realise that world of only pleasantness?

  Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of
  demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processs and the mind in one point internally appeased, without
  thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with
  equanimuity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too,
  abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in
  pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions,
  for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa
  lokassa).

  The person is composed of the four great elements; when he dies, earth returns and goes back to the element of earth, water returns and
  goes back to the element of water, fire returns and goes back to the
  element of fire, wind returns and goes back to the element of wind,
  while the senses disappear into space. [Four] men with the bier as a
  fifth take up the corpse, the funeral orations last as far as the
  burning ground, his bones are a dull white, his offerings end in
  ashes. They are fools who teach alms-giving. The doctrine of
  affirmation (atthika-vāda) is empty and false banter. Fools and wise
  alike are destroyed and perish at the breaking up of the body, they do
  not exist after death.

This quote from the Samaññaphala Sutta is not a teaching of the Buddha but a teaching of Ajita Kesakambalin. In many places (eg. MN 115, MN 62, etc) it is taught life is only composed of elements (dhatu), which accords with Emptiness (sunnata). That is why the Buddha's response to the doctrine of Ajita Kesakambalin is similar but different, as follows:

  'This body...is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father...subject to
  impermanence...dissolution and dispersion...this consciousness...is
  supported here and bound up here.'

There are two primary reasons why the doctrine of Ajita Kesakambalin (quoted) is 'nihilism'.

The quote denies the efficacy (consequences) of kamma (actions). Thus, Buddhists who believe in present-life kamma-vipaka are not nihilists.
The quote holds there is a 'person' or 'self' that ends at death. This is the precise definition of 'nihilism' found in the suttas. In other words, 'nihilism' is not the view of 'impermanence' but the view that a 'self' is impermanent. Thus, 'nihilism' is a wrong view because it is a 'self-view'. To quote:

  Herein, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self (attā), good sir, has material form; it is
  composed of the four primary elements and originates from father and
  mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated (ucchijjati) and
  destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death,
  at this point the self (attā) is completely annihilated
  (samucchinno).’ In this way some proclaim the annihilation (ucchedaṃ),
  destruction (vināsaṃ) and extermination of an existent being
  (sattassa).

  Brahmajāla Sutta

~~~

  And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being, delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to
  them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or
  acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it.
  Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.

  How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed and disgusted by this very same being (bhaveneva) and they rejoice in (the
  idea of) non-being (vibhavaṃ), asserting: ‘In as much as this self
  (attaṃ), good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated
  (ucchijjati) and destroyed (vinassati) and does not exist (na hoti)
  after death (parammaraṇā) — this is peaceful, this is excellent, this
  is reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.

  Iti 49

~~~

  What you, Kassapa, first called ‘suffering caused by oneself’ — this amounts to the eternalist theory (vadaṃ sassataṃ)….and ‘suffering
  caused by another’ — this amounts to the annihilationist theory (vadaṃ
  ucchedaṃ).

  Acela Sutta

~~~

  Don’t say that, friend Yamaka. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One. It’s not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One
  would not say, ‘A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the
  body, is annihilated (ucchijjati), perishes (vinassati) & does not
  exist (na hoti) after death (parammaraṇā).’

  Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death?

  Thus asked, I would answer, ‘Form is impermanent… Feeling… Perception… Fabrications… Consciousness is impermanent. That which is
  impermanent is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased
  and gone to its end.’

  Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.

  Yamaka Sutta

In summary, often unenlightened people (puthujjana) falsely accuse Noble (Enlightened) People of being 'heretics' & 'nihilists', as also occurred to the Lord Buddha himself:

  37. "So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A
  nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the
  destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

  "As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A
  nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the
  destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

  "What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

  Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile


Did the Buddha teach meditation to lay people? During his lifetime, did the Buddha teach meditation to lay people, or did he teach meditation only to monks?

Are there any references to this in the Pali Canon or commentaries?

It's clear that all Buddhists, including lay people, should gain the Right View by learning the Dhamma, for that is the first step on the Noble Eightfold Path. There are also references in the Pali Canon for lay people to live a virtuous life, for example in the Sigalovada Sutta.

However, most of the meditation teachings appear to target monks.

The Buddha taught people according to what interest them. Maybe, there were few lay people interested in meditation while still enjoying lay lifestyle then.

Though there is no record of such meditation suttas teaching to lay people, I believe a few excellent lay disciples received meditation guidance from the Buddha. For example, there is Uttarā Nandamātā who is described as "the best of women disciples in meditative power (jhāyīnam)". There is also Citta the Householder who is well-versed in meditation. There is a whole fascinating Samyutta about him.


Arbitrary conception? What does the Buddha mean by arbitrary conception in the Diamond Sutra?

  Then the lord Buddha made his meaning even more emphatic by saying:
  "Subhuti, when people begin their practice of seeking to attaining
  total Enlightenment, they ought to see, to perceive, to know, to
  understand, and to realize that all things and all spiritual truths
  are no-things, and, therefore, they ought not to conceive within their
  minds any arbitrary conceptions whatsoever."

All things we see are labeled by us human beings but are not the label,  they are just what they are. So when practicing mindfulness(involving seeing, perceiving, knowing and understanding for the purpose of transcending suffering), one experiences things directly as they are with no assumptions, labels, stories or judgements. In other words no "arbitrary conceptions".

If there is verbal thinking happening in one's mind, it is experienced as just a formation and the meaning of the words are conceptual so one doesn't need  to process the content, meaning or "story" of the thinking  even though we are so used to a kind of instant understanding of the conceptual meaning.

If there is pain or pleasure it is a kind of assumption,  judgment or arbitrary conception when we react to it with aversion or clinging. When we are not seeing like this we are in a way just sleeping through life on autopilot in an impulse and arbitrary way.

Even if one could see like this at all times it doesn't mean they must stop understanding all concepts all the time of course.


Subconscious & Vipassana Is the subconscious what becomes conscious when insight occurs? When the hinderances fall is the subconscious seen? What is the subconscious in relationship to the scriptures & the Abhidhamma?

Related to this question: Cravings Arising to Consciousness

One of the best descriptions of the structure of consciousness from a Abhidhamma standpoint is found in Lama Govinda's 'The Psychological Attitude of Early Buddhist Philosophy" pdf page 121. Recommend the entire book, as a user friendly account of the Higher Doctrine of the Buddha i.e. Abhidhamma.


Should Buddhists avoid Amazon and Starbucks out of concerns about tax avoidance? Recently companies such as Starbucks and Amazon were accused of avoiding paying UK tax. Many people were quite upset about this and people began to boycott those companies involved. From a Buddhist perspective is there any problem with this? The companies are not stealing nor are they breaking any laws - tax avoidance is perfectly legal as opposed to evasion which is not.

I appreciate there are many arguments that could be made against this practice around fairness, justice, social responsibly etc... However I'm interested in the Buddhist angle - perhaps thinking about the precepts or maybe broader concepts such as karma and dependent origination or another aspect of Buddhist thought that I'm not aware of.

I think the answer is No. You can, but due to your personal views and believes, it has nothing to do with Buddhism, from a Buddhist's perspective you should take care of your actions, they will receive the results of their kamma (if any). Focus on what you do and left undone as the Buddha taught.

Another thing is that these days almost 99% of the companies do some kind of tax planning that involves similar practices, you just don't know it.

In an extreme example imagine if someone says: I will not pay taxes because the government is corrupt, that is wrong, as a citizen you should pay taxes and the politicians will face, sooner or later, the consequences of their actions.


How do animals attain enlightenment? The Wikipedia article on animals in Buddhism states that animals have Buddha nature, and therefore have potential for enlightenment. I do not dispute this as I sit here petting my cat, but wonder - what are the actual mechanics of how they might go about this? For humans, the path is laid out for us in the teachings of the Buddha. But how can an animal achieve the same final goal?

In short they get reborn as a human being sometime in the future and practice.

You could help by reading some dhamma(suttas) to your cat if you wish.

There is a precedence in a sutta where a frog was listening to a Buddha's discourse and got killed because someone accidentally impaled it with a walking stick. It was then reborn as a deva.


Time and Frequency of Meditation I have read psychological studies and commentaries by meditators that frequency is more important than duration for meditation. Thus, 10 minutes seven days a week is more beneficial than 70 minutes in one sitting according to this view.

I am wondering what this site thinks of this idea. Is regularity more important than duration?
I am wondering whether changing the hour of regular meditation (e.g. one time at 5PM and another at 8AM) impedes on the efficiency of meditation practice. Should meditation occur towards the same time each day ideally?
If the previous ideas are true, then: Would meditating a short amount each day, whatever the time, ensure regularity?

I'm open to hearing any ideas on the subject. Thank you.

Some puthujjanas manage to think that they will progress by spending 20 minutes per day watching the thoughts and suppressing thoughts of harm and lust, then  spending the rest of the day allowing bad thoughts permeated with sensuality, ill-will and harmfulness.

Of course, the only progress possible is first to be mindful of thoughts and perceptions all the time, in order to keep only the good ones.

Sila is made complete with sati sampajana. When sati sampajana declines, sila declines. Without  mindfulness, a puthujjana will only a have sila for a few minutes up to a few hours


What meditation practice will allow me to sleep less and focus more? I have an issue picking meditation to practice during my free time as a medical student. My free time is limited and my stress levels are sky high. What is the best meditation practice for me out there? something that will keep me awake as well as improve my power of focus. My attention deficit is creating huge problems in my studies.

Thanks you guys... the 1st answer is the most comprehensive. I do remember when I was a teenager I used to practice Metta mediation and had a better time falling asleep. But as I became a medical student and am currently studying in my 3rd year, my mind got clogged with the ever increasing amount of knowledge and stress, that I felt like I was trapped in this dogma of man made knowledge and lost all the freedom I had as kid. But I feel now, that that freedom I lost is actually mostly because I lost my path as a meditator and a Buddhist practitioner more than anything else. I should find the time to do these little things, because they are those little things that makes us complete. Thanks so much for the responses!

I am also a second year medical student, and I also used to face the same problems that you do.

The meditation practice of 'Anapanasati' will allow you to sleep less and focus more. For instructions on how to practise it, follow this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=206&v=YKFl4E3YhlI

Practising this meditation makes your mind calm, concentrated and will give you a lot of mental power. The strength and the duration of these effects are dependent on how long you practise (a session of 1 hour would be optimal, but feel free to get up and go if you wish to before the full four), how frequently you practise (at least twice a day would be optimal), how regularly you practise  (try to stick to the schedule as best as you can), and the intention with which you practise (intend to let your mind become calm and concentrated). This practise of Anapanasati is exactly for this purpose of building attention and eliminating any stress you have, and it is also very powerful at accomplishing this purpose, provided you practise correctly and appropriately.
If you practise this meditation appropriately, you will find that your attention will grow rapidly and that your stress levels will be non-existent.

You will also find that you will have a lot more free time, because your elevated attention and non-existent stress levels allows you to get a lot more study done in much less time.Because your mind is very calm (since practising this meditation will declutter your mind) as a result of successful and appropriate practise of this meditation, you will find that your sleep will become very deep, and so you will not only need less sleep but you will also be much more refreshed.

The video that I linked to you that has the instructions on Anapanasati may seem too short, and not very comprehensive. But my advice to you is that comprehensiveness of instruction is not at all the key to success in this meditation, and not much more than what he says in the video needs to be known for successful practise of Anapanasati. The key is to be persistent and stick to the breath as much as you can, and gradually your concentration, calm and mental power will develop.

Although what I am about to say may cause some amount of sensation to arise in people who are attached to their insight meditation traditions, I would advice, from my personal experience, that you don't practise insight meditation exclusively (the anapanasati meditation that I recommend is not an insight meditation, it is a calming meditation) since it will cause many troubles, especially in a student life like ours. This is because exclusive practise of insight meditation will initially cause many defilements to come about (although the goal is the contrary) - for example, all kinds of craving will come about. This is not conducive at all to a successful student life.

You can, however, practise insight meditation during daily life (rather than the main meditation practise) such as while walking and eating and so on, without getting into much trouble, ASSUMING that you have a solid practise of Anapanasati going on.

I said earlier in the post that a sitting session of one hour at least twice a day is optimal. This might seem too much in the beginning, but the effects of sticking to this regular schedule will change your life so much that you will find that it is not too much at all, given the benefits that it provides you, and you will find that in fact it gives you a lot more free time than before.

To clarify what I meant by insight meditation, it is the exclusive practise taught by the Buddha whereby you will be able to understand reality clearly and therefore be free from suffering. Here is a manual on how to practise insight meditation, written by a great monk called Yuttadhammo: http://static.sirimangalo.org/howto/HTM.pdf

My addition of insight meditation here may seem irrelevant to your question, since Anapanasati is the exclusive answer to your question, but I am assuming that you understand the doctrine that the Buddha taught and that you have set yourself on the path to freedom from suffering. So do bear in mind my warnings regarding insight meditation in the context of student life, so make sure that you are only practising Anapanasati during your sitting meditation session, and practise insight meditation during your daily life to the best of your ability.

You will find that if the calming meditation (Anapanasati) and insight meditation (the exclusive practise that the Buddha taught to be free from suffering) are practised together in the manner I described above, insight meditation will not only no longer be a hindrance (because your mind has become powerful and stabilized by your solid practise of Anapanasati, you won't be overcome by craving and other defilements) but it will support your Anapanasati practise, which in turn will support your insight meditation practise as well. In fact, the meditation schedule that I prescribed to you seems to be also what  even the Buddha seems to have taught to some people on a certain occasion, where he provides instructions on both the Anapanasati meditation and the insight meditation (traditionally known as the practise of 'Satipattana').

Feel free to ask for any clarifications, I hope what I said makes sense to you and that you too will be able to solve your problems.


What’s the difference between yathābhūta and yathābhūtaṃ? I’ve been reading about this term and have found it written in both ways. I don’t know if the difference is related to some kind of verb form.

Yathābhūta is not correct in pali-sentence. We have to put the declension-mark at the end of yathābhūta, such as  yathābhūtaṃ, before put it in the sentence.

Yathābhūta is adjective/adverb which is not complete, not ready to use, because the properties of word (vibhatti;case-endings;declension):  preposition(sambandha), amount(vacana), and gender(liṅga), etc., must put at the end of every words, except ready-made-noun (nipāta), some standalone-prefix (upasagga-nipāta; I'm not sure for linguistic name), and compound-word (samāsa). So, it can not come alone, and you can not found only yathābhūta  alone in pāli. It should to be yathābhūtaṃ (si-vibhatti), yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṃ (Deleted vibhatti because of compound-word; Vibhatti still be, but it disappear by pali-processing), yathābhūtena (nā-vibhatti), etc.

See: http://www.buddha-vacana.org/toolbox/noundec.html

For the explanation of the term "yathābhūta":

Yathā ... tathā = How it is ... as it is.

Bhūta = arising/becomming = upatti-bhava-paṭiccasamuppāda = upatti-becoming = jāti(rebirth) + jarā&maraṇa (old-age&death). bhū-root[as arise-term]+ta-suffix[as verb].

Arising of what? Arising of 5 aggregates in paṭiccasamuppāda-cycle. So:

in Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. Dukkhadhammasutta, buddha use yathābhūta
as arising and vanishing of 5 aggregates;
In Sutta. Saṃ. Ni. Dukkhasutta, buddha describe arising and
vanishing of 5 aggregates as paṭiccasamuppāda;
In Khandhapabba of Sutta. Ma. Mū. Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta,
buddha describe arising and vanishing of 5 aggregates as
udayabbaya-ñāṇa-niddeso;
Also, in Khandhapabba, buddha describe vipassanā in arising
and vanishing of 5 aggregates as "samudayavayadhammānupassī
vā" which commentary refer that dhamma-term as
Dukkhadhammasutta;
So, in Sutta. Khu. Paṭisambhidāmaggo
udayabbayānupassanāñāṇa-niddesa & the path of purification
maggāmaggañāṇadassanavisuddhiniddesa udayabbayañāṇakathā, Master
Sāriputta and Master Buddhaghosa describe udayabbaya as
paṭiccasamuppāda as well.

So, yathābhūta-ñāṇa is understanding of arising of 5 aggregates in paṭiccasamuppāda-cycle.

Another, I also describe yathābhūta in this answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26702/10100

Buddha have to cut the big sutta in DN/MN for the students who not smart enough to enlighten/understand/memorize at once. So, you can notice my reference are from DN&MN&SN&KN, and actually AN as well.

Pāli has a very strong structure. This is the reason why we can understand tipitaka's content by just fluent reciting&memorizing. But because of the complicate detail of Dhamma, so when we translate tipitaka to the other languages, such as english or especilly thai, we will lose many important words' properties. Then we can not understand/analysis/find the fact from some translation.

"Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo-the best dhamma was taught by buddha." is not just the psalms, but it is the fact by the linguistics and the truth.


How do buddhist monks who are teachers have time for their own practice? For a while now i have been wondering about how buddhist monks have time for their own practice. When i see buddhist monks like Ven. Yuttadhammo, Ajahn Brahm and Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi who contribute so much to the teaching of the dhamma and have set in motion so many initiatives like making videos, written books, teaching pali language, teaching on retreats etc. i wondered when and how they have time for their own practice?

Thank you for your time.

Lanka

It is a part of their practice. Teaching the Dhamma helps one understand it better. The more one understands the Dhamma, the closer one gets to Nibbana. Besides, how do lay people find time for Dhamma while doing full time jobs? Monks don't do jobs. So they have plenty of time to both teach and meditate.


How to calculate the number of years in a kalpa? Wikipedia's Kalpa(aeon) in Buddhism article says,

  In another simple explanation, there are four different lengths of kalpas. A regular kalpa is approximately 16 million years long (16,798,000 years[1]), and a small kalpa is 1000 regular kalpas, or about 16 billion years. Further, a medium kalpa is roughly 320 billion years, the equivalent of 20 small kalpas. A great kalpa is 4 medium kalpas, or around 1.28 trillion years.

I just went through the Visuddhimagga, and could not find where or how that time in years is calculated.

I was wondering how to calculate it.
Please explain how it's calculated, with reference to scripture where Lord Buddha mentioned it, and/or where the calculation or the result of the calculation is described, perhaps in the Thripitaka or Visuddhimagga?

[1] Wikipedia's reference is to a book:

  Epstein, Ronald B.(2002). Buddhist Text Translation Society's Buddhism A to Z p. 204. Buddhist Text Translation Society. ISBN 0-88139-353-3, ISBN 978-0-88139-353-8.

Perhaps that book may have a reference to where they found it, but I still haven't find that book.

As far as I know, the words used in Buddhist Kalpa in a lot of cases,

for example: Existence, life reduced (when life human destiny decreased from 84,000 years to 10 years),increased lifetime (as opposed to lifetime reduction),

Sub-Kalpa (approximately 16 million years),

Mid-Kalpa (20 sub-life),

Big-Kalpa (4 centered life = 1.3 billion years),

and countless Kalpa ..etc


Why can't existence be mostly good? My question has to do with existence itself. We all know there is suffering in life and that it is due to the fact that fenomena is ever changing, so any state (good or bad) is conditionated and will therefore change. This is what I understand as the number one reason for the pursue of enlightment: reaching the natural, unconditionated and unborn state of (not) being and therefore be released from it.

However, is this search for the ultimate happiness truly hopeless? I mean, imagine if we were to live a life composed of 99% satisfactory states while just a small percentage of it being actual suffering. Wouldn't that life be truly worth striving for? What I see as a human being however is that people mostly suffer just as much as they feel well. We drink, have a great time and then feel empty and a headache; we might even live and overall very pleasant and fulfilling life but in the end suffer greatly from illnesses... Even from my own experience, I don't seem to be able to have any sort of "breakthrough" of overall life satisfactoriness; it always feels to fall back into the same neutral level and I can't scape this.

Personally I feel uncertain about enlightment. Something that has no comming back, nothing for ever after, no pleasure, no pain, just blank, not even color or feelings... I would say it is like being a zero. And if only I could live in a better overall way it would be better than zero. It seems to me that being able to live 1000 very good days every 1 bad day is a pretty good trade. Isn't it possible?

Enlightenment & the path to enlightenment (such as meditative jhana) is a higher & better pleasure than any pleasure that can be experienced in ordinary life.

This is the simple, accurate & correct way to view enlightenment.

Please refer to this link.

  Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Household pleasantness and the pleasantness of one gone forth. Of these two, the
  pleasantness of one gone forth is better.
  Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Sensual pleasantness and the pleasantness of giving up sensuality. Of these
  two, the pleasantness of giving up sensuality is better.
  Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? The pleasantness with substratum and the pleasantness without substratum.
  Of these two, the pleasantness without substratum is better.
  Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? The pleasantness with desires and the pleasantness without desires. Of
  these two, the pleasantness without desires is better.
  Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Material pleasantness and immaterial pleasantness. Of these two, immaterial
  pleasantness is better.
  Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? The noble pleasantness and the ignoble pleasantness. Of these two, the noble
  pleasantness is better.
  Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Bodily pleasantness and mental pleasantness. Of these two, mental
  pleasantness is better.
  Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Pleasantness with joy and pleasantness without joy. Of these two,
  pleasantness without joy is better.
  Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Pleasantness on account of agreeability and pleasantness on account of
  equanimity. Of these two, pleasantness on account of equanimity is
  better.
  Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Pleasantness on account of concentration and pleasantness on account
  of distraction. Of these two, pleasantness on account of concentration
  is better.
  Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Pleasantness with joy for an object and pleasantness without joy for
  an object. Of these two, pleasantness without joy for an object is
  better.

  Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Pleasantness on account of an agreeāble object and pleasantness on
  accout of equanimity for an object . Of these two, pleasantness on
  account of equanimity for an object, is better.

  Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Pleasantness born on account of a material object and pleasantness
  born, on account of an immaterial object. Of these two, pleasantness
  born, on account of an immaterial object is better.

As for your other concerns, they are unrelated to Buddhism. Buddhism is not for people who believe ordinary life can be pleasurable most of the time. Buddhism never ever states all people must follow the Buddhist way of life.


Is it possible to be reborn for all eternity? According to Buddhist teachings, is it possible to continue to reborn and suffer for all eternity?

Suppose if a being never attained any merit, never was able to work through its old karma. Would it be possible for that being to never escape suffering?

I have heard some people say:

  No, nobody can be reborn and suffer forever. For an extremely long time, maybe, but not forever.

I mean, forever is really an astounding concept. Even if you take billions of trillions of gazillions of births it's still nothing compared to forever.

If it's not possible to be reborn forever, then it implies that all beings are eventually destined for Enlightenment. Some may have an insanely long way to go, but if they're not gonna be reborn forever, then they have to eventually attain Enlightenment?

Do some beings continue to be reborn and suffer forever, or are all beings destined to attain Enlightenment eventually?

I prefer answers that give sources and all that. But some nice reasoning is also welcome.

Many people are interested in living forever (eg Christians) because such people do not think living is suffering. Instead, they wish to spend forever with their loved ones. That is why they are not queuing up to practise Buddhism.

My impression is Buddhists are similar, in that they wish to believe in reincarnation so they can live more lives. That is why most Buddhists are not practising the path, hardcore, but preaching that Buddhists must believe in reincarnation, rebirth, whatever.

Also, Buddhism does not state making merit ends suffering (SN 12.51) so what is its relevance?

Also, Buddhism does not state all beings are destined for enlightenment (AN 10.95).

Imo, the questions are an extreme & pointless misrepresentation of Buddhism. If the questioner truly believe they were suffering, they would be a monk urgently putting out the suffering, like as if their hair was on fire.


Sutras in Western Buddhism? How should western practitioners approach the sutras? What are the most important sutras from the main Buddhist traditions for westerners to study? When studying the sutras should that be considered a form of meditation?

I practice with the Triratna Buddhists which is an explicit attempt to bring Buddhism into the Western context. It is ecumenical so brings in all traditions so for me this question is very interesting. For us the sutras that are particularly studied are

Pali Canon
Middle Length Discourses generally but more specifically from the pali canon

Satipatthana sutta
Anapanasati sutta
Karaniya Metta Sutta
Dhammapada
Udana

Mahayana

Heart Sutra
Diamond Sutra
White Lotus Sutra
Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra
Golden Light Sutra

Also

Bodhicaryāvatāra
Life of Milarepa

This list isn't exhaustive by any means but I think represents the ones that are referenced most frequently. However a lot of others come up particularly from the Pali Canon such as the Gotami Sutta and even outside of Buddhism altogether such as the poetry of Rumi.


Did the Buddha talk about "out of body" experiences? Does there exists records of the Buddha talking about something that could be interpreted as an "out of body" experience?

Wikipedia defines this as,

  An out-of-body experience (OBE or sometimes OOBE) is an experience
  that typically involves a sensation of floating outside one's body
  and, in some cases, perceiving one's physical body from a place
  outside one's body.

A related, but different, question: Buddhist view on out of body experience (OBE)

According to DN 2, the Samaññaphala Sutta, it seems that OOBEs are possible:

  "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties.This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

In the Translator's Introduction to the Potthapada Sutta, Thanissaro Bhikku identifies the mind-made body as the astral body:

  The mind-made acquisition can result from an experience of the mind-made body — the "astral body" — that constitutes one of the powers that can be developed through concentration practice.

The mind-made body is a body that is made out of, composed of mind. Seems you can probably OOB with it.


Is uncertainty incompatible with the doctrine of emptiness? For purposes of this question I define “uncertainty” as a willingness to entertain doubt or acknowledge incomplete knowledge with regards to the truth of the matter about what one knows of a particular question of subject. And I define “the truth of the matter” as an objective fact about some aspect of reality which is independent of observer or context and is not contingent in any way.

For a long while I have regarded myself as unusually capable or comfortable with uncertainty. Having a general willingness to see the gray in every question and to acknowledge my own incomplete knowledge. To see and entertain the viewpoints of others and to grant that my own viewpoint is not certain. A general comfortability with complexity that is above average. And this is something I prided myself in thinking of as beneficial.

However, I recently realized that a lot of what I define as “uncertainty” presupposes an objective fact of the matter that is not contingent. And that it handcuffs me at times in that I can be of two, three, or more minds about something and unsure of the proper course to take.

Moreover, it occurred to me that this is not compatible with the doctrine of emptiness which I understand quite clearly as saying that for every conception that I have... it is not undergirded by a genuine non-contingent fact of the matter.

So with that...

Is uncertainty as defined above incompatible with emptiness?

If so, how? If so, what repercussions can be seen as occurring with this misunderstanding? What is an appropriate definition of uncertainty or one that is compatible with emptiness or how things really exist?

If not, why not? Where is the error in my thinking?

A question that might be related, but different is Is lack of doubt a form of self-cherishing?

When fish move through water, however they move, there is no end to the water. When birds fly through the sky, however they fly, there is no end to the sky. Fish and birds have never once, since antiquity, run out of water or run out of sky. When their need for water or sky is great, its availability is great, and when their need for water or sky is small, its availability is small. Acting this way, fish and birds realize their limitations yet at every moment somersault freely through their realm; but if a bird leaves the sky it will die at once, and if a fish leaves the water it will die at once. So we understand that water is life and that sky is life. Birds are life, and fish are life. It may also be that life is birds and that life is fish.

  The experience of our own existence is also like this. If a bird or a fish decided to move through the water or the sky only after getting to the end of water or utterly penetrating the sky, it would never find its way or its place in the water or sky. When we have found our own place in our own realm, we have arrived at potential. When we maintain our own true way, our action is potential itself.

  Our own way and our own place are neither great nor small; they are neither subjective nor objective; they have not existed in the past nor do they arise in the present; they are just as they are. In maintaining our own true way and abiding in our own place, to consider one thing is to explore only that one thing, and to perform one action is to fully participate in that one action. In this state, we exist in our own space and practice our own way, and awareness of ourselves is not conspicuous. The reason this is so is that our own thoughts and actions and the realization of potential appear together and are experienced together.

  Do not assume that we can be conscious of potential, or that potential can be recognized by the intellect. The experience of potential is not necessarily a cognitive realization.

  Realization is the state of ambiguity itself [kahitsu -- how can it be convulsively decided that]

  Dogen


Was the Buddha an arahant? According to Theravadan Buddhism would the Buddha have been considered an arahant? Is this word synonymous with the title 'the Buddha' or does being the Buddha mean something over and above being an arahant? If the terms 'the Buddha' and arahant are synonymous then why don't we call all enlightened beings Buddhas?

My understanding was that once someone was an arahant then that was it, they had done what needed to be done. He/she was enlightened and therefore at the exact same level of attainment as the Buddha. Is that correct?

"According to Theravadan Buddhism would the Buddha have been considered an arahant?"
IN SN 22:58 we read the Buddha saying:

"The Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One [...]"

Describing himself as an Arahant, he proceeds:

"What is the distinction, what is the disparity, what is the difference between the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, and a bhikkhu liberated by wisdom? [...] The Tathagata, bhikkhus, is the originator of the path unarisen before, the producer of the path unproduced before, the declarer of the path undeclared before. He is the knower of the path, the discoverer of the path, the one skilled in the path"

There are other characteristics of a Buddha. In MN 115 (*) he declares:

It is impossible that two rightfully Enlightened Ones should be born in the same world element at one and same time. [...] It is impossible that a woman should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One. [...] It is possible that a man should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One.

Also, MN 12 describes the ten powers of a Buddha (I don't believe these always apply to arahants):

(1) "Here, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the possible as possible and the impossible as impossible."
(2) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the results of actions undertaken, past, future, and present, by way of possibilities and causes."
(3) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the ways leading to all destinations."
(4) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements."
(5) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations."
(6) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons."
(7) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the defilement, the cleansing, and the emergence in regard to the jhānas, liberations, concentrations, and attainments."
(8) "Again, the Tathāgata recollects his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births... Thus with their aspects and particulars he recollects his manifold past lives."
(9) "Again, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, the Tathāgata sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate... and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions."
(10) "Again, by realizing for himself with direct knowledge, the Tathāgata here and now enters upon and abides in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints."

"My understanding was that once someone was an arahant then that was it, they had done what needed to be done. He/she was enlightened and therefore at the exact same level of attainment as the Buddha. Is that correct?"
Yes. The difference, it seems, is not of attainment, but of role and skills. Many suttas depict the different skills of arahants, sometimes in contrast with Bhudda's skills.
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi develops this further on:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html

(*) While this excerpt exemplifies distinct characteristics of Buddhas, its important to note that the portion about the impossibility of a woman to become a Buddha is absent in the agama version of this sutta. See Analayo's paper The Bahudhātuka-sutta and its Parallels On Women’s Inabilities and related Q&A here


What is the meaning behind this chant? Who are the eight [types of] individuals that the chant refers to, and what is the meaning of the chant?

Apparently, it is the Wat Phra Ratana Mahathat Monks at evening service before the great bronze Chinnaret Buddha, Phitsanulok Thailand.

Source: Freesound

The translation came from the YouTube comments section but I cannot locate it any longer. Here is the link to a looped version...

Buddhist Chanting

  Of good conduct is the Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One.
  Of upright conduct is the Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One.
  Of wise conduct is the Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One.
  Of proper conduct is the Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One.

  This Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One, namely these Four Pairs of persons, the eight [types of] individuals,
  is worthy of gifts,
  worthy of hospitality,
  worthy of offerings,
  worthy of reverential salutation,
  and is an incomparable field of merit for the World.

  Supatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho
  Ujupatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho
  Ñāyapatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho
  Sāmīcipatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho

  Yadidam cattāri purisa yugāni
  Attha purisa puggalā
  Esa Bhagavato sāvakasangho
  Āhuneyyo
  Pāhuneyyo
  Dakkhineyyo
  Añjalīkaranīyo
  Anuttaram Puññak khettam lokassāti

It's taken from (or quoted in) MN 7 (but it's one of the Pali Formulae -- buddha-vacana.org says, of this one, "45 occurrences", so I suppose this occurs in 45 suttas; also, that it's a component of the Sekha Paṭipadā).

It's one of the Anussati -- specifically Saṅghānussati. Sati is "mindfulness" -- and anu is "after (behind)", "for (towards an aim)", "according to (in conformity with)", also "each/every/one-by-one" -- so, combined, "remember" or "recollect" or "call to mind".

AN 3.70 says (of all the Anussati) that, "as they recollect ... their mind becomes clear, joy arises, and mental corruptions are given up".

Commentary says that this is referring to the "ariya sangha" (the noble sangha), i.e. all enlightened ones. The "8 [types of] individuals" refer to the "four stages of enlightenment" (sotāpanna etc.) or as it says "the four pairs of persons" -- both ordained and/or lay.


As a lay follower how to deal with uncontrollable sexual urges? I have totally refrained from sexual misconduct and after reading the answers about Masturbation to the previous question on this site I have even refrained from that. Also, I have practically zero sexual thoughts during meditation.

But you see, as we eat food, the body automatically produces semen which is beyond our control. This accumulates and as the epididymis gets full either it ends up in a nightfall or heightened sexual urges which then gets beyond control.

How to deal with this problem? Do monks face this problem?

Stuck on the horny of a dilemma? Want to get rid of it?

The Root of All Things (Mūlapariyāya Sutta MN 1)
But he doesn’t conceive extinguishment, he doesn’t conceive regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t conceive as extinguishment, he doesn’t conceive that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering,

There are indeed simple things that can be done. From "I am horny", simply acknowledge "there is horniness". Unhook the self. There is horniness breathing in. There is horniness breathing out. There is a fly in the room breathing in. There is a fly in the room breathing out. There is breathing in long. There is breathing in short. There is cutting vegetables breathing in long. There is cutting vegetables breathing out long. Etc.
In the modern world with dayglow sexuality in all visible forms around you on the internet or even walking down the street seeing exciting attire or cut bodies, there is a constant stream of distraction. Seeking and abiding in solitude can provide relief. You will need time to deal with each explosion of craving. Exposing yourself to constant stimulus is counterproductive. Look down. Look aside. "No, thank you."
As you relinquish the craving, note that there is also danger in relishing the fight against horniness (hence quote above). As Ajahn Chah might have said. "Can you endure?"
Note: While sleeping, if the sperm is released during a dream, no fault is being committed. Just observe and let go.


Any living teachers claim to be able to attain vajrasamadhi? Are there any living teachers who claim to be able to attain vajrasamadhi? Apologies if looking for a guru questions are off-topic here. Is there any way to verify if they have done so, according to the sutras etc.?

vajrasamadhi translates as "adamantine absorption"(http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Vajrasamadhi). as (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrasamadhi-sutra). According to buddhist scholar Buswell, the Vajrasamadhi-sutra is regarded to be an "apocryphal scripture". The problem with Buddhism is that practitioners are not recommended to speak about their different types of samadhi experience in public cause it can lead you to unskilled clinging to such experience. Try visit local Chan/Zen centres and ask sensei about it.


Repeated blissful experiences in meditation When I first started meditating and after a while, I had a period where I experienced extremely wonderful sensations in my body.

It culminated one day when I was meditating, laying on my bed: I felt like my body has vanished, time stopped and extreme pleasure arose in my body. It was like I was floating in a substance full of pleasure to my mind. I didn't feel my body, it was like my body vanished, I had no thoughts, but was fully aware. I was in this state for 4 hours, and if it wasn't for somebody calling me, I would be even longer. When I emerged from this state it felt like 10 minutes passed. This experience was the most wonderful, joyful, pleasant experience I had ever experienced in my life.

The next time I went into meditation, I had "a kind off" similar experience as described above, but it was different: It was less "mentally powerful". I didn't search for it, nor wanted to have it - I just went into meditation as in my last meditation session when the pleasurable experience arose, but this time the experience had a lesser impact on my mind and body: it didn't give that much pleasure to my body and mind as the first time. It was like I got accustomed to it, and my body and mind were more calm, thus I never noticed that much pleasure and joy as the previous time.

At one moment in the meditation I made an attempt to search for the pleasure I experienced the first time, but I quickly noticed that it just makes my mind wander away from meditation and fills it with "want". So, I stopped "wanting" and just let it go.

The third time I went into meditation, the described experience subsided completely and only calmness, emptiness, no thoughts, neither pleasure nor non pleasure, remained.

I was not bothered forcing the described experience, because I knew that the experience came by not "wanting" it to came. I noticed that if I wanted it, the calmness, no thoughts, neither pleasure nor non pleasure, would subside and my mind would be permeated with "want". Thus, I abandoned "wanting" completely and just let it go and never ever tried to search for it.

I read about the 8 jhanas and during my meditation sessions I experienced "infinite space", "infinite consciousness", "emptiness", "neither perception nor non perception". I noticed this pattern: when the experience arose for the first time, it was the most powerful experience ever. It was like eating the most delicious cake for the first time in my life! The second time, it was less powerful. And so on, until it subsided and the experience "just was". Nonetheless, these experiences were never that much powerful as the first experience I described at the beginning of this question. Is this normal?

Now when I meditate, my mind is calm, one pointed, with no thoughts arising, and neither pleasure nor non pleasure. I can clearly see how and why everything is arising and ceasing in my mind. But I choose not to observe that anymore, I just let go of everything and the arising and ceasing in my mind stops. Everything stops, but I'm fully aware, and the experience is not that powerful as the experiences I described, when they arose for the first time. The experience that I have now during meditation "neither is nor it isn't". I could turn my meditation in an experience that "is", but i choose not to, because then "I'm not". It's hard to explain. From a Buddhist perspective, is this ceasing and letting go of extremely blissful experiences during meditation normal? Or does meditation lead to more and more powerful experiences?

Since that first time, when the described pleasurable experiences arose, they were never again as powerful as the first time they arose. It's like they subsided and only the core remained. From a Buddhist perspective, is this normal? Or should the described experiences always arise and be as powerful as the first time they arise?

From the theravada perspective, you ought to master each jhana. That is, you should have reasonable control of it, enter when you make a resolution to enter, keep it stable and leave when you make a resolution to leave. So you should be able to replicate it. If you identify important factors that are weak, these are factors that need further development. Weak jhana factors mean one does not fully understand their conditions, what obstructs them, how to cultivate them, control and keep them stable.

This is roughly the full jhana/samadhi meditation curriculum, though it can be argued that full mastering of jhanas are optional when pursuing the goal, in favor of mindfulness/sati meditation.

I believe Pa Auk Sayadaw considers a student to have mastered a jhana if he or she is able to enter at will and stay for 3 hours in it (period that testify the meditator skills in stabilizing jhana). This is also what he recommends before moving to the next jhana, which can be impossible to access without a minimum control of the previous jhana (e.g. as the factors to be abandoned might be too strong and unfamiliar to be properly controlled)


Was the London Buddhist Society the first Western Sangha? Christmas Humphreys founded the London Buddhist society in 1924. Would this have been the first sangha in the West? Wikipedia says of it

  The Buddhist Society of London is one of the oldest Buddhist
  organisations outside Asia

So were there other groups of western born Buddhists practicing together even earlier than this or would this truly have been the first such grouping?

For the sake of this question I am taking sangha to mean any sort of Buddhist community. I appreciate it often refers specifically to a monastic community however I want to use a broader definition here.

I am not sure if this fits your definition but the Pali Text Society was older.


Does self end after death? Does self end after death?

Please note:

In my question »death« means: the physical processes of brokenness, graying, wrinkling, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty which turn the physical body into dust. Materialistic death, physical death, the ending of life death that we see happening every day on television, i.e. death that happens when somebody is killed by pistol, disease, car accident, etc. Death that happens at complete breakup of the physical body.

And »self« means: grasping (upadana) as »I«, »me« and »mine« to one or more of the five aggregates (physicality, feeling, perception, mental formations and sense consciousness) with craving (tanha).

In the Dhammapada 153-154, we find the Buddha exclaiming:

  Through the round of many births I roamed
  without reward,
  without rest,
  seeking the house-builder.
  Painful is birth
  again & again.

  House-builder, you're seen!
  You will not build a house again.
  All your rafters broken,
  the ridge pole dismantled,
  immersed in dismantling, the mind
  has attained to the end of craving.

The commentary on these verses by Ven. Thanissaro states:

  DhpA: These verses were the Buddha's first utterance after his full
  Awakening. For some reason, they are not reported in any of the other
  canonical accounts of the events following on the Awakening.

  DhpA: "House" = selfhood; house-builder = craving. "House" may also
  refer to the nine abodes of beings — the seven stations of
  consciousness and two spheres (see Khp 4 and DN 15).

  The word anibbisam in 153 can be read either as the negative gerund of
  nibbisati ("earning, gaining a reward") or as the negative gerund of
  nivisati, altered to fit the meter, meaning "coming to a rest,
  settled, situated." Both readings make sense in the context of the
  verse, so the word is probably intended to have a double meaning:
  without reward, without rest.

The commentary by Acharya Buddharakkhita states:

  According to the commentary, these verses are the Buddha's "Song of
  Victory," his first utterance after his Enlightenment. The house is
  individualized existence in samsara, the house-builder craving, the
  rafters the passions and the ridge-pole ignorance.

I interpret this as saying that the self ("house") is deconstructed at death, but reconstructed again in the following birth, due to craving ("house-builder"), according to dependent origination.

So, the answer to your question would be "yes, it ends, but then it arises again".

Apparently, this question was asked with the skeptical view on whether rebirth truly exists or not.

I think this reference from the DN2 should lay our doubts to rest:

  "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
  free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the
  recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his
  manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand,
  one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of
  cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion,
  [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had
  such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure
  and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I
  re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan,
  had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of
  pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that
  state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in
  their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home
  village to another village, and then from that village to yet another
  village, and then from that village back to his home village. The
  thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that
  village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way,
  talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that
  village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a
  way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in
  such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way —
  with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
  free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of
  the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past
  lives... in their modes and details.


Do the suttas say the "old kamma" of an Arahant continues to fruit? I read the following on the internet:

  But when the view of "self" ends, kamma also ends Is that plausible?
  Are you saying that kamma is conditioned by self-view? And saying that
  kamma -- the fruit of old kamma and the creation of new kamma -- is
  non-existent for a stream-enterer (who by definition has no
  self-view)?? I thought it was, canonically, an attribute of an arahant
  -- even then old kamma continues to fruit, but no new kamma is created -- it's conditioned not by self-view but by ... by conceit, and by desire-for-existence, that kind of thing ... isn't that the doctrine
  of the suttas?

Do the suttas say the "old kamma" of an Arahant continues to fruit?

Angulimala -- A Murderer's Road to Sainthood

Yet there were still a few who could not forget that Angulimala the bandit, with his superior prowess, had shown them in their weakness and thus had humiliated them. Out of that resentment, as an act of revenge, they were mean enough to injure the venerable Angulimala by throwing stones and sticks which struck him when he had gone for alms. They must have done so from a safe distance.

Then with blood running from his injured head, with his bowl broken, and with his patchwork robe torn, the venerable Angulimala went to the Blessed One. The Blessed One saw him coming, and he told him: "Bear it, brahmana, bear it, brahmana! You have experienced here and now the ripening of kamma whose ripening you might have experienced in hell over many a year, many a century, many a millennium."

Being a saint, his mind and heart were firm and invulnerable. But the body, the product of former craving, the symbol and fruit of previous kamma, was still there in present existence and was still exposed to the effects of former evil deeds. Even to the Buddha himself it happened that, as a result of former deeds, Devadatta was able to cause him a slight injury. Also his two chief disciples had to experience bodily violence. The venerable Sariputta had been hit on the head by a mischievous demon, and the venerable Maha-Moggallana was even cruelly murdered. If this occurred in the case of these three Great Ones, how could Angulimala have fully avoided bodily harm — he who in his present life had committed so much evil! Yet, it was only his body that received these blows, but not his mind. That remained in invulnerable equipoise.


How can I accept losing control of my mind and will? After some reflection, I've noticed many of my mental hangups / dispositions (sankhara) were formed due to a deep seated fear of losing control over my mind / volition.
Examples that come to mind include:

Being deceived into doing something against my principles
Being coerced into doing something unethical
Performing negative actions caused by a mental illness (Alzheimer, ...)
Having my ideas changed through to physical torture

How can I overcome this fear?

My understanding of the Dharma is limited, so I would appreciate help understanding the situation from that perspective.
Is this fear caused by attachment to mental dispositions?
Is this a fetter? In particular, is it caused or conditioned by belief in self? Are dispositions part of self?
I understand that theoretically mental dispositions should be impermanent? But in practice some dispositions are very hard or impossible to change.
Does it make sense to focus on changing unhelpful dispositions? Would it make more sense to keep analysing the causal link of the dispositions, practising more meditation to notice the fear when it arises, or practising acceptance of the current situation?

Fear is a reoccurring companion on the spiritual path. It doesn't mean that something has gone wrong. The particular fear that you describe seems fairly common, but fears can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes; all sorts of feelings and thoughts.
How can I overcome this fear?
The overcoming of fear happens when we become curious about it rather than adhering to its demands which generally push the practitioner towards form-based experiences or sensuality - that is the habitual response. This only serves to cover over the those fears and the practitioner loses sight of some critical knowledge. However, approaching fear with curiosity suggests that there is another way to understand those fears. Therefore, fear holds previously unseen knowledge... knowledge about uncertainty and not just the uncertainty of our mental faculties, but the uncertainty of every single second that passes by.
When one consciously choses to look towards those fears, slowly they lose their power over you. One does not need to analyse why they are there rather, just to notice that they are present. You see, fear is like a snotty-nosed child trying to play a sinister melody with a trumpet, but if we don't turn towards its comical absurdity, we perceive fear as something much greater, something that has much more substance; fear then continues as a deep intrapsychic governor giving determinations on how we live our lives.
Fear only perpetuates when there is an applied force. We can recognize those applied forces in our thoughts and if we buy into those thoughts fear quickly takes the upper hand. One common fear is the fear of going crazy.
Is this a fetter? In particular, is it caused or conditioned by belief in self? Are dispositions part of self?
It's not quite a fetter, but a pre-emptive response to the practice as a whole. The fetter model has its quagmires; it's not a solid base for practice, so I wouldn't hold that model too tightly.
The practice uncovers these deep fears and allows us the opportunity to view them in more healthy ways. It's time to start doing that now. This calls upon a certain degree of wisdom, perhaps some faith, and an ability to find some contextual awareness.
In an nutshell, the fear is the anticipation of its own ending, but it can only express this through negative thoughts. It is fearful because what lies beyond our internal conceptual world cannot be conceived by it, by the feelings it generates or by the thoughts it weaves.
The amazing thing is, we fear the loss of control but none of us ever had any control and never will.
How can I accept losing control of my mind and will?
Chiefly, you'll have to feel your own way with that. When you've accepted it, then you've cracked the entire thing!


If no sentient being exists, for whom is there compassion? 'A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life' by Santideva Quoted below is from 'A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life' by Santideva, Chapter IX: The Perfection of Wisdom. I'm struggling to follow the line of thought, can someone please decipher what it means.

This is what I deduce reading it and It really is incomprehensible to my feeble mind.

Sentient beings do not exist
For one to be compassionate he has to be deluded to believe that sentient beings exist.
Compassion itself is a delusion
One should remain deluded to alleviate the nonexisting suffering of nonexisting sentient beings.

How can all this be true?

Please note I'm writing bluntly because I want to understand what it means not because of lack of respect for Santideva work, far from it his book is always in my heart... it just that I can't get through chapter 9 :/

  [Qualm:] If no sentient being exists, for whom is there compassion?  [Madhyamika:] For one who is imagined through delusion,
  which is accepted for the sake of the task.
  [Qualm:] If there is no sentient being, whose is the task?  [Madhyamika:] True. The effort, too, is due to delusion.
  Nevertheless, in order to alleviate suffering, delusion with regard
  to  one's task is not averted

First, you have to keep in mind that Shantideva's work is versified. This implies that it is not always technically accurate, because words are missing for the sake of poetry. For instance, we will read "sentient beings do not exist" as "sentient beings do not exist inherently" implying "but they do exist conventionally." What does not exist is a mode of existence.

Second, Shantideva was a Prasangika. This is his view of emptiness that neither persons nor phenomena exist inherently. They do exist conventionally. Prasangika also posit that conventional valid cognizers in the continuum of ordinary beings are valid with regard to the entity of the thing, but mistaken with regard to the mode of existence of said things. This all helps you understand that we do not negate conventions.

Third, Gyaltsab Je wrote a Prasangika commentary to Shantideva. He explains verse 9.75 as follows:

  Gyaltsab Je: Realist: If there is absolutely no inherently existing
  person, then, as there is no focal object for compassion, for whom
  should one practice meditation on compassion? Madhyamaka: If there is
  no inherently existing person, then it follows there is no such fault
  that the focal object of compassion is non-existent, because that
  nominally existing sentient being, labelled by mental darkness, which
  is accepted for the purpose of achieving the result of liberation, is
  valid to be the focal object of compassion.

While part of his commentary on verse 9.76 says:

  The opponent says that if sentient beings do not exist inherently they
  do not exist at all. The question is that if sentient beings do not
  exist, who would experience the result of meditation on compassion
  that is buddhahood? It is clear that the object of observation as well
  as the result of the meditation on compassion do not exist truly, but
  the problem as posited by the opponent does not exist for us, in that
  sentient beings still exist conventionally, and therefore
  conventionally it makes sense to meditate on compassion.

Now, to answer your questions more directly:

1) Sentient beings do not exist
They do not exist inherently (or truly), they do exist conventionally. A valid eye consciousness apprehending a person is valid with regard to the entity of the thing. Compassion towards a person is valid with regard to the entity of the thing as well. Compassion towards a unicorn, however, is not.

2)For one to be compassionate he has to be deluded to believe that sentient beings exist.
No. For one to be compassionate, he has to have some sort of insight into the four noble truths. Also, he who believes that sentient beings are utterly non-existent is deluded. So is he who believes they exist inherently (which is the whole topic here).

3)Compassion itself is a delusion
It is not, because a delusion is never valid with regard to the entity of the thing. For instance, anger does not engage its object correctly. The object [of engagement] of anger is as non-existent as a unicorn. In addition, delusions take away the peace of the mind (it's their definition) and superimpose.

4)One should remain deluded to alleviate the nonexisting suffering of nonexisting sentient beings.
This is not the case, since the conventionally existent buddhas do alleviate the conventionally existing suffering of conventionally existent sentient beings.

Non-versified books you can read on the topic are:

1. Commentary on Shantiva

Gyaltsab Dharma Rinchen, The Entrance for the Children of the Conquerors, A Commentary on Shantideva’s Introduction to the Actions of Bodhisattvas

2. Madhyamika

Elizabeth Napper, Dependent‑Arising and Emptiness

3. Special Insight

Je Tsongkhapa, Lam Rim Chen Mo, Volume 3, Part 2
Je Tsongkhapa, Middle Length Lam Rim, Chapter Five
Guy Newland, Introduction to Emptiness
Guy Newland, The two truths
Jeffrey Hopkins, Tsongkhapa's Final Exposition of Wisdom
Khedrup Je - A Dose of Emptiness


Is there a proper name for my recent experience? I don't meditate often, and I've never had an experience like the following while meditating, but I feel that the following experience probably has a proper name in Buddhism (or Hinduism for that matter).

A few days ago, I woke up to a horrible bout of depressive thoughts (deep depression being something I have been struggling with for almost as long as I can remember). I have gotten better at combating it recently, but this particular time, after the storm of bad thoughts had been beaten back, I had this feeling that my awareness somehow expanded. I felt as thought I could see my emotions and opinions and thoughts pass in front of me, almost like I was standing in the middle of a carousel with different lenses passing in front of me, those "lenses" being my notions and emotions through which I viewed the world; it was as if I had somehow "stepped back" 15 or so feet to view from a more removed vantage point. I noticed that my ability to "manage" my emotions went through the roof, and I was much, much happier all day. I also noticed that it was hard for me to say words that I felt were untruthful, or to say things I didn't know were true or not, as I could feel in my stomach whether they were truthful or not. I also (weirdly) felt as if I could tell when others said something they didn't actually believe, or if they were lying. I felt as if most "talk" was mainly chatter, not in a condescending sense, but more in a "not worth it" sense. I felt as if many things I used to take stock in just became... flat, totally uninteresting. I felt this state until I went to bed that night.

But now, a few days later, I'm back to the way I was (as far as I can tell) and I also had a depressive bout as well (I'm guessing somehow brought on in part by this experience). The things that didn't matter that day, the opinions and expectations of others, their ideologies and so on, suddenly popped back up, are no longer "flat" so to speak, and are "real" again -- though not as "real" to me as they had been previously.

Is there a proper name for this state of consciousness?

Common signs of depression:

---> Decreased Interest or Pleasure

The second core symptom of major depressive disorder is a decreased interest or pleasure in things that were once enjoyed. A person exhibiting this symptom will show markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, daily activities.

---> Disengaged

A developed practice of being distant or disengaged, uninvolved with things that usually matter, negligent towards loved ones.

Depression can be dangerous, do not take it lightly and seek proper medical support is also a preferred way.


What are ways "common" and not so known to practice the first kind of proper giving? One may know, recognize or have ideas about the "fist proper kind/season of giving" which leads to a better and is trained by those devoted to the Gems, and probably like to share such.

How can "giving to one arriving (new)" be very practical and in many situations be done?

Mental, verbal (signs) and physical?

At which point it might leave it's good and lead to increase bonds and debts?

Feel invited to share for theoretical up to very self investigated ways of merits around it.

(Note: this question is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment here, but as a tiny door into another direction)

A general run-down of all aspects of the practice of Dana - the first step in the Gradual Course, the instructions usually given by Ananda to lay disciples - the very first steps that should be taken by a very beginning Buddhist are described here:

http://buddhadust.net/dhammatalk/the_pali_line/course/gradualdana.htm

In the list defining when to give, the first is to give to one arriving. That means when someone visits you or is new to an institution or neighborhood then it is a good time to make a gift to them. Welcome baskets, signing bonuses and so forth as well as the more basic: food, clothing, shelter and medicine that would be helpful to a visiting bhikkhu or for making good kamma giving what you would need in times of need.

But also of interest there: Who to give to, what to give, how to give, the best gift, repaying one's parents, etc. ... and then the rest of that Course.

The main problem with beginning Buddhists today: they want to start at the top, with jhana practice where what should be done first is the building of a strong foundation as described in this course. There is no attaining jhana without a platform based on giving, ethical behavior, self-control and organization of the mind as described in this course.


Are these simple sentences right? They are about 4 noble truths, 3 characteristics, craving, etc The sentences I want to check with you are:

Reducing suffering (or eliminating it) is the main goal.
The main reason we keep suffering is desire and aversion.
We can experience craving to any of the five aggregates (e.g. thoughts) and also to the situation in general (e.g. become a teacher or become enlightened).
We have tools to reduce desire and aversion (or promote this reduction in others). E.g. not-self, impermanence and dukkha. Jhana.
This tools (3 characteristics, jhana, etc.) are truthful (they are not white lies).
This tools lead to a "desinterest" (equanimity) that gives freedom. For example, by
seeing pain as impermanent (as lasting briefly or nothing) then
there is "desinterest" in it (equanimity to it), and as such there is a freedom to
either experience it or not without suffering it.
Ultimately it's best to be equanimous even to becoming enlightened (a case of bhava-tanha?), the tools ("the raft" that is abandoned after crossing the river), no-thoughts (aversion to thoughts?), etc.

That's it, feel free to make little corrections or flat out tell me there are big mistakes there. Thanks.

People argue whether "suffering" is the best translation. Perhaps it depends on context. I guess dukkha has range of meaning from (extreme) anguish to (chronic) unsatisfactoriness to (eventual) insufficiency.
And whose goal?
And is it possible that the goal varies -- at the beginning people are caught up in suffering and want to escape it. Perhaps later they're not suffering so much, and there's a slightly different goal i.e. "liberation" or "unbinding".

The "root" poison is ignorance.

They're called "clinging-aggregates". To the extent that the doctrine distinguishes "craving" from "clinging", I think it's "clinging" to aggregates.

I think that tool is the noble eightfold path -- "right view" etc.
Seeing the three characteristics is an example of right view, Jhana is an example of adhicitta-sikkhā

Here I think I'd refer to the Dhammanusati and say, "The doctrine is effective etc.".


Why did we first incarnate? Our Number of births going into the past has to necasserily be finite not infinite.an infinite number of births without a first is logically infathomable.so why did we first incarnate?

Most suttas in SN 15 like SN 15.1, have the following ending:

Transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of
sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and
fettered by craving. For such a long time you have undergone
suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries. This is quite
enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed
regarding all conditions.”

From a different translation of the Tears Sutta:

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."

Please also see this answer.


Time period between Buddhas Does anyone know how long did it take for Gotama Buddha to appear in the world, after Buddha Kassapa? The interval between the 2 Buddhas

See:
http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/dhamma_talk/dt_019.previous.buddhas.htm
for a table giving various features of the previous 7 Buddhas. The Direct answer to your question is that Kassapa and our Buddha were both born in this kappa, that is, world-cycle, or aeon. The kappa consists of a period of evolution, a period of stasis, a period of devolution and a period of stasis. This current period is the period of devolution (as if anyone had to tell you). It is not clear, but it is likely that Kassapa was born in the period of Evolution.

The kappa is described as: 10,395,902,500 years: 103,959,025 sesame seeds removed from a Magadhan Karika one at a time every hundred years (see Magadha Karika)


Strange feelings after meditation and mindfulness practice? I started to meditate half a year ago with my first Vipassana retreat in Bodhgaya. I'm trying to meditate every day since then. Around two months ago I started to practice mindfulness and try to bring meditation into my daily life and not to be mindful only on the cushion. Last week I was getting some strange results. I feel like almost all I do is automatic. I don't feel that it's me who is doing it. When I talk to people, going to work, riding on the bus. I feel like I'm watching the movie. Two days ago I was watching my breath on the bus and when the bus stopped I couldn't move for two minutes. It felt like my will was totally gone. Before, during my day I felt that I wasn't present. Now I feel present but detached, and not in a good way. Am I doing something wrong? Or it is only a stage of the practice that I must go through? Thank you for your answers.

I don't think you are alone in this. Susan Blakemore in her excellent book Zen and the Art of Consciousness describes almost this exact situation. She paid attention in her everyday life just as you have done and found it very illuminating. However after two weeks of this she reach a point when she couldn't cross the road. She was paralysed as you were. She abandoned this 'experiment' and went back to her meditation and retreats the results of which she details in the book.

I hesitate to give advice in your case as I am woefully unqualified to do it. However it does seem you are having trouble integrating you experiences, you might even be have a kind of alienated awareness experience where you are very aware but not emotionally connected. I think with all these practices wisdom and compassion need to be balanced. I would be tempted to back off a little and engage with some metta type practices - kindly awareness towards yourself and others. But please disregard this - it's only what I would try.


In the Dependent Origination formula, shouldn't perception precede craving instead of feeling? In the paticcasamuppada's formulation of the twelve nidanas, vedana precedes tanha.

As far as I currently understand, vedana is just the physiological and psychological -and involuntary- response
(felt as a pleasent, unpleasent or neutral sensation) to an specific stimulus. Vedana by itself shouldn't be an enough condition to give rise to tanha, because there's no necessarily an evaluation (sañña) of that feeling that could lead to the rise of a preference (like, dislike or neither-like-nor-dislike), and consequently, to the rise of tanha.

If read in this fashion, shouldn't be sañña placed between vedana and tanha?

Thanks in beforehand.

Vedana and Sanna are conjoined not disjoint.
When it says Vedan it implies there is Sanna as well.

=============

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them?"

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html


Can we program or pre-define our last thoughts? I have heard the last thoughts of a person can define next life.

If so can we somehow define them through practice, so when the time comes they will be as we planned?

Or is there a practice that would cause them to be positive?

Autopositivity is indeed a great skill, virtue, accomplishment, and in its own way a paradise.  With constant watchfulness and training in the Four Immeasurables (the four Divine Abodes) ones natural and spontaneously occurring thoughts can be patterned and trained to be of a purely helpful and nonharmful nature.

Essentially we are developing the skill of choosing positive conscious states and being patient with nonpositive states.  Anyway, as mentioned above, the four immeasurables are worthy of your immediate attention and application.