What does it mean to be upright? In karaniya metta sutta,

He who is skilled in (working out his own) well being, and who wishes to attain that state of Calm (Nibbana) should act thus: he should be dexterous, upright, exceedingly upright, obedient, gentle, and humble.

What does it mean to be upright?

That's one of several translations of this

Karaṇīyamatthakusalena,
Yanta santaṃ padaṃ abhisamecca;
Sakko ujū ca suhujū ca,
Sūvaco cassa mudu anatimānī.

They all translate it with the same word, "upright".
The Pali word are ujū (straight), sakko (able/capable), and su- (good).
Here is a dictionary definition: https://suttacentral.net/define/uju
The dictionary has cross-references to other suttas where it's used. Curiously the first of these is DN.iii.150 i.e. DN 30 where it seems to be used literally/physically -- e.g. a straight, well-formed body -- but there it's also used to describe eyes, behaviour, demeanour:

Mendicants, in some past lives the Realized One was reborn as a human being.
When looking at others he didn’t glare, look askance, or avert his eyes. Being straightforward, he reached out to others with straightforward intentions, looking at people with kindly eyes.


Two unconditioned dhammas? In A history of Indian Buddhism: From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana, Professor Hirakawa states:

  Both nirvana and space were considered to be unconditioned dharmas. This fundamental classification of dharmas into conditioned and unconditioned is found in the Agamas.

In what passage from the agamas (and/or pali?) we read space to be unconditioned?

Space is one of the 24 kinds of derived-materiality (UpadayaRupa), which is one of the 2 kinds of materiality (the other is primary-materiality, BhutaRupa, which is composed of the 4 elements of earth, water, fire, and air). They're all conditioned dhammas. Only Nibbana is the unconditioned one. Further info. is available at Vism.XIV.34


How to get someone to the good path who is not leading a good way of life? If i want to get someone to the good path, who is not leading a good way of life, what should I do and where should I begin?

Many of my friends do not have much understanding of life and they often make so many mistakes. As I have learned about the consequences of untamed words and actions, I fear for them and I want to know how to get them to listen and think about their own stupid actions.

Are there any Theravada teachings on this matter? And/or do you have other advice (all answers are welcome and I am happy to learn every perspective)?

The only way to influence others' behavior is through example. Your question presupposes that your friends have a desire to change.  Not everyone wants to change, or wants your help in modifying their behavior. You might consider expanding your friendship base (i.e., find new friends) if your current friends' behavior is not to your liking.  We cannot assert ourselves or our beliefs onto others.  We can only influence by example.


What is Magga phala? I've come across a few references to Magga phala and can only find obscure half explanations of what it is referring to and some of the explanations seem to be contradictory.

Magga is Pali for "path" or "road", and phala is Pali for "fruit" or "result". Thus it is a compound word that can be understood as the result obtained by proceeding on the path to enlightenment. This is the general use of the term, whenever one refers to the benefits of enlightenment.

It can also be used as a precise technical term by some, but before I get to that I will take a moment to explain something about the path, and its destination.

Many Buddhists believe in a graduated path towards enlightenment. The Theravadan belief describes a very precise (some would even say too precise, but really there are always those who cast doubt on anything in any religion) mapping of these states, where, upon attaining each of these states one is expected to have graduated, and having locked in their attainments, cannot fall back to lower states of being.

The Sutta Pitaka classifies the four levels according to the levels' attainments.  The four Ariya (noble) states are, Sotapanna (stream-enterer), Sakadagami (once-returner), Anagami (non-returner) and Arhat (completely unbound).

  A Stream-enterer is free from:

  Identity view
  Attachment to rites and rituals
  Doubt about the teachings

  A Once-returner has greatly attenuated:

  Sensual desire
  Ill will

  A Non-returner is free from:

  Sensual desire
  Ill will

  An Arahant is free from all of the five lower fetters and the five
  higher fetters, which are:

  Craving for fine material existence
  Craving for existence on the level of formlessness
  Conceit
  Restlessness
  Ignorance

The Visuddhimagga is a commentarial book written by Buddhagosa in Sri Lanka almost a millenium after the Buddha, and is the reference text for many when dealing with intricacies in the stages of the path leading to each of these 4 graduations or path attainments.

Like a package tour covers the key tourist attractions in a foreign land, the Visuddhimagga lists the path in panoramic terms as the 7 stages of purification, and further subdivides them into specific terms as including 16 stages.

One hasn't simply not visited Paris, merely because one hasn't hit a key tourist attraction like the Eiffel tower; and one can visit Paris without using a specific tour operator. Similarly, one can proceed on the path without noticing clearly that one has crossed some of these stages, and one can notice other things not covered in these 16 stages, and one can even remain ignorant of the Visuddhimagga and attain these attainments. So I would say this list is a good way to examine the path, but not the only way.

Following attainment of each of the stages of enlightenment, several final stages of mind arise, of which two significant ones are, Magga and Phala.

  Path Knowledge (magga-ñana)
  It is followed immediately by knowledge that abides in that same Nibbana, which is void of formations since it is
  the cessation of them. This is called "path knowledge."[43] It is also
  called "purification by knowledge and vision."
  Fruition Knowledge (phala-ñana)
  That again is immediately followed by knowledge that belongs to the final stage and continues in the course
  of its predecessor. It abides in that same Nibbana, which is void of
  formations since it is the cessation of them. This is called "fruition
  knowledge."

Source: (Visuddhiñana-katha) by The Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw

For an approachable examination of enlightenment in more detail, please see Mind like Fire, Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

@EyeArrow mentions Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw's "Nature of Nibbana", I've not read it, but it looks interesting, so I'll probably read it soon.


Is lack of inherent existence the same as 'not real'? I'm reading Rob Burbea's book Seeing That Frees. The book is about ways of working with emptiness. In the book he says that things lack inherent existence. I'm fairly sure this isnt the same as not been real. Is that right? Can things be real and lack inherent existence?

I appreciate the real answer will be to meditate on this but I find exploring the issues more intellectually helpful too.

Things do exist just not in the way they appear to be existing.
Lacking inherent existency means that things/objects/phenomena are not set up by themselves. They are set up dependent on other factors. In other words they are conditioned.
That can be seen with e.g. a tree. A tree changes during the different seasons. Why does it change? It changes due to being set up dependent on other factors which again is set up dependent on other factors etc. That means that objects are in a constant flux. They do not stay constant or stable.
If a tree where inherent existent it would never change. It would stay green with flowers on it forever. If it truly were inherent existent then it would be uncaused. It would be completely defined by its own nature. Nothing could be removed or added to it since that would change its inherent existent nature. It would be both eternal and indestructible.
If we take a look at samsara the conditioned existence then we see that all physical and mental phenomena are caused by other factors. They are not stand-alone units. That does not mean that they are not real. It just means that they do not exist in the way they appear to be.
The Dalai Lama has written many great sections on Emptiness in his book "How to See Yourself As You Really Are". Here is a short quote on the existence of phenomena. The quote is from chapter 19: "Viewing Yourself As Like an Illusion", p. 187-188:

"A face in a mirror appears to be a face, but this image is not a real face in any way; it is from all viewpoints empty of being a face. Likewise, a magician can conjure up illusions that seem to be certain things, like a person in a box being skewered by a sword, but they are not at all established as those things. Similarly, phenomena such as bodies appear to be established from the objects' own side but are empty of being established that way and always have been.
It is not that phenomena are illusions; rather, they are like illusions. Even if a mirror image of your face is not really your face, the reflection is not utterly nonexistent. Through its appearance you can understand how your actual face looks. Similarly, although persons and things are empty of existing the way they appear to be established in their own right, they are not utterly nonexistent; they can act and be experienced.
Therefore, being like an illusion is not the same as appearing to exist but actually not existing, like the horns of a rabbit, which do not exist at all."

Here is another one with the title "Emptiness does not mean Nothingness". The quote is from chapter 5: "Appreciating the Reasoning of Dependent-Arising", p. 71-73:

"There is no question that persons and things exist; the question is how, or in what manner, they exist. When we consider a flower, for instance, and think, "This flower has a nice shape, nice color, and nice texture," it seems as if there is something concrete that possesses these qualities of shape, color, and texture. When we look into these qualities, as well as the parts of the flower, they seem to be qualities or parts of the flower, such as the color of the flower, the shape of the flower, the stem of the flower, and the petals of the flower - as if there is a flower that possesses these qualities or parts.
However, if the flower really exists the way it appears, we should be able to come up with something separate from all of these qualities and parts that is the flower. But we cannot. Such a flower is not found upon analysis, or through other scientific tools, even though previously it seemed so substantial, so findable. Because a flower has effects, it certainly exists, but when we search to find a flower existing in accordance with our ideas about it, that is not at all findable.
Something that truly exists from its own side should become more and more obvious when analyzed - it should be clearly found. But the opposite is the case. Nevertheless, this does not meant hat it does not exist, for it is effective - it creates effects. The fact that it is not found under analysis just indicates that it does not exists the way it appear to our senses and to our thoughts - that is, so concretely established with itself."

I would really recommend reading this book since it has a lot of insights about emptiness. I think sometimes its greatly beneficial to study another buddhists school's take on e.g. Anatta/Emptiness in order to "get it" cooked and prepared in another way. Of course the basic doctrine is the same but when reading about it in other terms and ways of expression that gives variety and nuances on the topic.
On purpose i did not go into the insight-meditational aspect of this profound teaching that emptiness is since you asked for an intellectual opinion. Hope this might be of some help.
Lanka


After months of daily meditation I can't concentrate I'm doubting if I will be able. Not even a single breath my mind stop talking. I start with metta and try to sit for at least half an hour to an hour a day. I don't skip even a single day. It's a huge effort and I am starting to feel disappointed.

There are several things I would advise:

Start with your body. Change your attention from "life" to feelings in your body: tensions, emotions, energies etc. Reconnect with the parts you've not been paying attention to. Feet are often completely forgotten. Relearn to feel everything, first part by part, then all of your body at once. Relax all tensions, sometimes there may be tensions in abdomen that take years to relax, just sit & watch it and trust your intuition/feelings which part needs your attention.
Make a very careful study of your breathing. Breathing is always connected with emotions. Short, long, calm, nervous, blocked, there are millions, no - billions - details in the breathing. If you watch your breathing muscles, particularly diaphragm but really chest, shoulders, abdomen, and everything else, you can "read" your subconscious mind like a book. Then start relaxing breathing, no need to force it to be slow or calm, just watch for blockages and remove them. Just remove them one by one. This may take days and days, but eventually you should be able to achieve breathing that is very smooth, very subtle - and your mind will be the same, because by relaxing your breathing you're healing your mind.
If your mind is chatting, pay attention to your mouth muscles: tongue, lips etc. They sometimes have the habit of moving very slightly and "saying" things (this is called "subvocalizing"). Try relaxing the mouth muscles by feeling how tired they are from constant work. If this does not work, try reading a mantra - any mantra that you like and that makes you feel good - it should help wash out habitual talking. In worst cases this may take a long time, up to a year.
Finally, no need to worry so much about "concentration". Women's mind is different from men's (not better or worse, just different). Women's mind is naturally wide open, while men's mind loves to box itself. No need to box it. Just sit and stay open. The more open you get, the less fight there is inside you, the fewer thoughts and images will your brain generate. The metaphor for this is lion's gaze (unlike dog's gaze). Dog's gaze follows the objects, while lion's gaze just stares at everything, ready to jump. Be like a lion, strong, confident. It's a mood you can generate: bright, strong. Don't worry about thoughts, focus on the mood. Thoughts come and go but the lion stays in place, with its majestic presence.


How does the idea of Bodhisatva in Mahayana mesh with anattā? As this is my first posted question, I welcome input as to how to improve it. Many thanks in advance.

When I have heard Mahayana practitioners discuss the concept of Bodhisatva as it varies from Theravadan teachings, it's spoken of as a mark against Theravada. It's suggested that Theravada lacks compassion for others, and that the Bodhisatva ideal "repairs" this lack of compassion.

When I consider this idea, I can't escape the feeling that the concept of a Bodhisatva ("me") helping "others" seems contrary to the idea of anattā. The idea that I would focus on self-ness (either my own or that of another) seems like a mistaken view. Instead, when I think of suffering, I think that, "there is suffering," not that "I am suffering" or "they are suffering." As such, the Bodhisatva concept seems to guide my thinking away from what I believe is Buddha's teacing of correct understanding.

As to lack of compassion... my thinking is that the work I do in my practice is meant to reduce suffering. Not to reduce my suffering and ignore that of others, but to reduce suffering itself.

And so my question is this: Am I understanding the pieces of this correctly? I realize some here adhere to different parts of this issue, and I appreciate feedback from both sides. Perhaps someone can explain how they think of the idea of "no-self" as it related to the Bodhisatva idea?

The lines between helping the self and helping others haven't always been very clear even to accomplished masters of either tradition,  for example, this is from Huang Po,

  Even if you go through all the stages of a Bodhisattva's progress
  toward Buddhahood, one by one; when at last, in a single flash, you
  attain to full realization, you will only be realizing the
  Buddha-Nature which has been with you all the time; and by all the
  foregoing stages you will have added to it nothing at all.

(source)

Then there is of course the position that the very idea of a Bodhisattva way of life isn't a purely Mahayana experiment.

  There is a wide-spread belief, particularly in the West, that the
  ideal of the Theravada, which they conveniently identify with
  Hinayana, is to become an Arahant while that of the Mahayana is to
  become a Bodhisattva and finally to attain the state of a Buddha. It
  must be categorically stated that this is incorrect. This idea was
  spread by some early Orientalists at a time when Buddhist studies were
  beginning in the West, and the others who followed them accepted it
  without taking the trouble to go into the problem by examining the
  texts and living traditions in Buddhist countries. But the fact is
  that both the Theravada and the Mahayana unanimously accept the
  Bodhisattva ideal as the highest.

(source)

When one has gone beyond the idea of self in either case, where does the I end and the We begin?


Was the Abhidhamma taught by the Buddha? According to the Theravada tradition, the Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha.

From "The Abhidhamma in Practice" by N.K.G. Mendis:

  Theravaada tradition holds that the Buddha conceived the Abhidhamma in
  the fourth week after his enlightenment, while still sitting in the
  vicinity of the Bodhi tree. Tradition also has it that he first
  preached the Abhidhamma to the assembly of deities in the Taavatimsa
  heaven; his mother, reborn as a deity, was present in the assembly.
  This can be taken to mean that the Buddha, by intense concentration,
  transcended the earth-bound mentality and rose mentally to the world
  of the deities, a feat made possible by his attainment of higher
  powers (abhiññaa) through utmost perfection in mental concentration.
  Having preached the Abhidhamma to the deities, he returned to earth,
  that is, to normal human consciousness, and preached it to the
  venerable Saariputta, the arahant disciple most advanced in wisdom.

However, in this YouTube video, Ajahn Brahm stated that the Theravada Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha and that the complexity of the Abhidhamma is not needed. He said that the Buddha's original teachings in the Pali suttas is simpler and completely sufficient.

One of the evidences he cited is as follows - only the Suttas (Dhamma) and the Vinaya were recited at the First Buddhist Council and there was no mention of the Abhidhamma.

I quote from Harvey, P (2013), "An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices" (2nd Edition), Cambridge University Press, p. 88:

  Just after the Buddha’s passing away (c. 404 BCE), a 'communal
  recitation' (council)  of 500 Arahats was held at Rājagaha (Skt
  Rājagraha, Vin.ii.284–7) to agree the contents of the Dhamma and
  Vinaya which the Buddha had left as ‘teacher’ (D.ii.154). Ānanda,  the
  Buddha’s  faithful attendant monk, recited the Suttas, such that each
  begins: ‘Thus have I heard’. The monk Upāli recited the Vinaya.

This wikipedia page on Theravada Abhidhamma states that according to scholars, the Theravada Abhidhamma was probably composed in 3rd century BCE, which is after the Buddha's lifetime. I also call it the Theravada Abhidhamma specifically, because there seems to be another Sarvastivada Abhidharma.

So, my question is: Was the Theravada Abhidhamma really taught by the Buddha? Or is that an exaggeration?

Mendis refers to “Theravāda tradition”. His source is the introduction to the Atthasālinī, which was compiled by Buddhaghosa in about 400 AD based on earlier texts that no longer exist.

The Abhidhamma is a framework that consolidates teachings from more than 10,000 Suttas. This framework follows the Theravāda perspective. IMHO, the scholar’s view that the Abhidhamma was developed slightly after the Suttas makes sense.

Though the Abhidhamma may not be the literal word of the Buddha, it is extremely important. The commentaries, which explain the Suttas according to the Theravāda perspective are based on the Abhidhamma.

I once met a monk who had heard that I taught Abhidhamma. The monk said, “I have my own interpretation of the Suttas based on my own experience. It differs from the Abhidhamma and Commentaries.”

I replied, “Venerable Sir, I cannot say whose interpretation is correct. But if I follow your interpretation, then if I have any questions, I have only one source of reference... you. If I follow the traditional Theravāda interpretation, then I can refer to many books and many teachers.”

People who say, “I will only focus on the Suttas and ignore the Abhidhamma and Commentaries” risk misinterpreting the Buddha’s message! Unfortunately, I have seen many examples of this.


Are there any similar characteristics between Nama and Rupa? We can define location, size, velocity for rupa. Can we define these for Nama ?

Can we say "a moving mind", "mind is located inside the body", "after the death, mind leaves the body and step into a new body" ?

Can we imagine "How mind looks like" ?

The best thing to remember the fire simile.
The campfire become a grass fire. the grass fire becomes a bush fire. The bushfire becomes the housefire.
Here the fire is similar to the consciousness (Nama). What fire depends on (grass etc) are the Rupa.
When we take the fire with say grass it is called Namarupa.


Dharma should be free? Dharma is usually donation-ware.

There is a really valuable dharma book that my friend is in no financial condition to buy (it is $100) but he also does not want to download it for free from me.

Is there any sutta which clearly states that dharma is donation-ware and that it is OK to redistribute dharma content even if it is copywritten?

The Buddha did say:

  "One should not go about making a business out of the Dhamma"

This web page gives a source for the quote. They use a different numbering scheme ("Ud 66") to Access to Insight, which gives it in the verse at the end of "Ud 6.2 PTS: Ud 64":

  One   should not make an effort everywhere,
      should not be another's hireling,
      should not live dependent on another,
      should not go about
          as a trader in the Dhamma.

However, this is on the side of the seller. The seller is putting wealth above sharing the dhamma which is why this normally is considered to give bad karma. This quote says nothing about the buyer. Just because selling the dhamma is not a wholesome action does not mean that taking the dhamma is a wholesome action.

There was no written language at the time of the Buddha so there was no such thing as taking the dhamma which was not given.

You'll have to make your own decision about whether you should pirate the book. The second precept may also be relevant but some consider it to not apply to pirating. "I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given"


Ignorant mind and Buddha nature I read in a Mahayana Buddhist book (insight into emptiness) 2 concepts that I find hard to reconcile:

1- Our minds used to be pure, only Buddha nature, and got contaminated with ignorance that led to attachment and it makes us cycle in this cyclic existence.

2- We all have and always had Buddha nature in our minds.

My question is: how could a pure mind with Buddha nature get contaminated in the first place? I can't understand how "Buddha nature" could let itself be tricked by ignorance, sounds strange, sounds like a "Big Buddha failure"!

Unless...Buddha nature means only a distant background on the mind, something weak, that has no power to act by itself, weaker than the aggregates, but it doesn't sound like that. (!?)

Can anyone help?

It seems like you're viewing buddha nature as essence. Freedom from imputations, conceptions, conventions, perspective, etc is buddha nature. But don't view it as essence, which would be a perpetuation of imputation of self and precisely what we are trying to avoid. Hope this helps.


Is Mara a real being or something internal, produced by our own minds? I have heard both interpretations, for me it would make more sense to be something from the mind as there is no creator God or its opposite in Buddhism, the image of a "temptator creature" like Satan sounds strange when we think about impermanence, on the other hand, some suttas that mention Mara may fit better with the concept of an external creature, I know this interpretation is questionable, so I'm making the question!

Two snippets from suttas refering to Mara as an entity/position:
MN 115:

"But, venerable sir, in what way can a bhikkhu be called skilled in what is possible and what is impossible?"
"Here, Ananda, a bhikkhu undersands [...]: "It is possible that a man might occupy the position of Māra [...]"

MN 50:

The venerable Maha Moggallana saw him [Māra] standing there and said: "I see you there too, Evil One. Do not think 'He does not see me.' You are standing against the door bar, Evil One.
"It happened once, Evil One, that I was a Māra named Dusi [...]

A sutta where a disciple directly asks what is Māra (SN 23.1):

"Venerable sir, it is said, 'Māra, Māra.' In what way, venerable sir, might Māra be?"
"When there is form, Radha, there might be Māra, or the killer, or the one who is killed."

The above are from Nanamoli/Bodhi translations. Bhikkhu Bodhi also writes in a note of the Majjhima Nikaya:

The name means "the Corrupter" or "the Corrupted One". In the Buddhist conception of the universe, the position of Mara, like that of Maha Brahma, is a fixed one that is assumed by different individuals in accordance with their kamma.


What are some special meditation techniques and/or objects that have been used to develop mental abilities? What are some special meditation techniques and/or objects that have been used to develop mental abilities to the point of almost being super powers or super human? Not necessarily  "super-mundane" as ESP but something along those lines. There is a lot of controversy in searches but I can not find any specific references. I could read the suttas myself but I am looking for direct tipitika, Buddha involvement.

In ancient India (mostly in southern parts of India) there are people called "Sittars". They possess many super-human powers like foreseeing the future (not just predicting it), alchemism (like converting any metal to gold), super-healing abilities. There are many written manuscripts which are still available but many of them of in Ancient Tamil. They have also written about many techniques which if practiced properly will give us super-human abilities.  Do not think of "Wolverine"-like abilities, but the sort of abilities that normal people cannot think of. It is rumored that they still exist in the western ghats of southern India and that they are in a form of light. I do not know how it is linked to Buddha but I firmly believe Buddhism has its core roots and values derived from Hinduism.


Amisa pooja for Buddha I know that we can make great Karma by offering Flowers,candles,incense,food,robes and other things for the Buddha statue thinking as if the Buddha is alive.
But whenever I do offer these things my mind says "The Buddha is not there to receive this.And this is not the proper way to pay respect for the Buddha. The proper way is to try to be mindful and try to be free from the defilement in the mind."
Am I cultivating bad thoughts by thinking this way? What is the proper way to think when we offer these things to the Buddha statue?

Both are ways to show respect for the Buddha. Offerings are a lesser way compared with the practice of Sila, Samadhi, and Panna, but you do not have to choose between the two. You can develop the path and also make offerings.

The best way to make offerings is to make your offering be endowed with the three factors you have control over. The Buddha once taught that there are six factors that affect the merit of an offering, three of which are determined by the giver's mind:

  "Monks, the lay woman Velukandaki, Nanda's mother, has established a
  donation endowed with six factors for the community of monks headed by
  Sariputta & Moggallana.

  "And how is a donation endowed with six factors? There is the case
  where there are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of
  the recipients.

  "And which are the three factors of the donor? There is the case where
  the donor, before giving, is glad; while giving, his/her mind is
  bright & clear; and after giving is gratified. These are the three
  factors of the donor.

  "And which are the three factors of the recipients? There is the case
  where the recipients are free of passion or are practicing for the
  subduing of passion; free of aversion or practicing for the subduing
  of aversion; and free of delusion or practicing for the subduing of
  delusion. These are the three factors of the recipients.

  "Such are the three factors of the donor, the three factors of the
  recipients. And this is how a donation is endowed with six factors."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.037.than.html

In brief, before giving have a joyous mind, have a mind that is bright and clear during the offering, and be pleased with the offering once you have made it. This is the best way to make offerings.


Evolution of a Buddha vs. Anatta Based on the lifestory of Shakyamuni Buddha, one can see that there is an evolution, from disciple to boddhisatva until the Buddhahood stage... like a path his mind was following, but we know minds just go around samsara up and down, nothing except seeds of kamma goes along with the mind, no such thing as a soul. So how can one relate that to Anatta?

Karma does not go from life to life. Karma is the volitional action performed here and now. It only lasts a moment. But it can have future repercussions. The consequence is the result of a Karma. Not the Karma itself.

The question of if something goes from life to life would not even arise, if you understand what's happening here and now. Lets say now you are thinking about building a house in the future. If you think about it for an hour, does it mean your first thought about it lasted for an hour? No! The first thought moment appeared and vanished then and there. But as a consequence, similar thoughts kept appearing in your mind one after the other. But they all vanished immediately. You might think about the building of the house tomorrow or even months from now. But that doesn't mean your original thought lasted that long. It'll be a new thought, but it can be similar to the thoughts you had today.

So if nothing goes from this moment to the next, even in this life, how can anything go from life to life?


How are the 31 planes of existence (especially Bṛhatphala planes) a practical metaphor? This comment suggests that the various lokas and beings inhabiting them can be taken metaphorically, i.e. it said,

Many of these can be answered with references back to metaphorical interpretations, by both traditional lineages and by the modern secular Buddhism movement. If I were you I would ask questions about the meaning behind the metaphorical language and how it can be applied to solve the problems of life and death.

So, as a follow-on from that comment — i.e. if or when they are interpreted metaphorically:

Is there an overarching metaphorical meaning of the 31 lokas, and the various kinds of beings that inhabit them? What is the meaning, and how does this meaning help the practitioners of Buddhism, and all earthly beings?

Wikipedia descrides the Bṛhatphala planes as follows — unless this reference is inaccurate, would you explain how its metaphorical meaning can help practitioners and all earthly beings?

Bṛhatphala Planes
These two realms are a result of attaining the fourth jhana. They remain in the tranquil state attained in the 4th Jhana, and is characterized by equanimity (upekṣā).

22 - Unconscious beings (Asaññasatta) Realm of mindless beings who have only bodies without consciousness. Rebirth into this plane results from a meditative practice aimed at the suppression of consciousness. Those who take up this practice assume release from suffering can be achieved by attaining unconsciousness. However, when the life span in this realm ends, the beings pass away and are born in other planes where consciousness returns.

21 - Very Fruitful devas (vehapphala deva) In the Jhana Sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya the Buddha said "The Vehapphala devas, monks, have a life-span of 500 eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades."

Is there an overarching metaphorical meaning of the 31 lokas, ...

According to the metaphorical style of interpretation, 31 planes of existence are a map of various lifestyles and mind states (with lower realms corresponding to neurotic conditions, and the higher realms to the meditative trance states) with examples of attitudes leading to and perpetuating such states.

  ... and the various kinds of beings that inhabit them? What is the meaning, ...

Based on my study of texts and my insight meditation, here are some very condensed and simplified descriptions. Please don't take these as all-encompassing definitions, they are just basic pointers:

hell is a subjective state characterized by heavy antipathy and helplessness, in which "how things are" is 100% opposite of "how you think it should be" and you can't do anything about it.
animal realm is a life style characterized by complacency towards hardships and inconveniences, ignorance, lowly values and lack of ownership over one's destiny.
preta's realm is a neurotic condition in which confusion, craving and negative prejudice continuously give rise to a cycle of false hope to attain something 100% worthy, alternating with bitter disappointment when every consecutive object of one's pursuit fails to satisfy one's childishly simplified expectations.
human's realm is lifestyle and condition dominated by attachment to and preoccupation with what one holds important or dear, such as errands, projects, group interests, conflicts etc.
asura's realm is a mindset and attitude of extreme intelligence and ambition / competitiveness, without regards for others' well-being.
gods' realm or heaven is a temporary state when the objective state of things 100% matches one's expectations and one is deluded into assuming that things will never change. Deva' realms from 6 to 11 are different kinds of this state.
the form realms (#12 to 27) are semi-enlightened lifestyles and mindstates characterized by predominance of abstract thinking and substantial levels of insight into the nature of phenomena, resulting in relative absence of strong emotions. The only remaining source of conflicts and suffering in these realms is rigid adherence to one or the other philosophic position.
the formless realms (#28 to 31) are the predominant mindstates of yogis bent on the practice of transcendental absorption (cultivation of meditative trance) which are characterized by a temporary bliss followed by the inevitable return to the empirical world with its problems and pains.

  ... and how does this meaning help the practitioners of Buddhism, ...

Study and meditation on the realms helps practitioners of Buddhism to disidentify / step aside from their own biases and states of mind, as well as to identify the conditions of others, and hopefully pick an appropriate corrective action towards the Liberation-By-Wisdom.

  ... how [realms #21 and 22] metaphorical meaning helps practitioners ...

Realms #21 and 22 is a reference to mindstates of non-buddhist practitioners succeeding in meditation. Even though they may achieve bliss (#21) or suspension of consciousness (#22) because of their Wrong View they are bound to fall back to the lower realms. Metaphorical illustrations like these help the practitioners of Buddhism understand the subtle differences between correct and incorrect practices at advanced stages of the path.

  ... and all earthly beings?

All Buddhist practices directly or indirectly help "all earthly beings" as you call them, by reducing the amount of "suffering pollution" generated due to confusion and ignorance.


Have any Buddhist thinkers responded to the critique of the Brahma Sutras? By far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy, which almost all Hindus nowadays belong to, is the Vedanta school, which is based on an ancient Hindu work called the Brahma Sutras or Vedanta Sutras.  The Brahma Sutras consist of a series of aphorisms which summarize and systematize the philosophical teachings of a set of Hindu scriptures called the Upanishads.  They also spend some time defending the philosophy of the Upanishads against rival schools of Indian philosophy.  In particular, here is what they say concerning Buddhism:

  Topic-4: Refutation of Buddhist Realists

  Even if the integration be supposed to arise from either of the causes, that will not be achieved.
  If it be argued that a combination becomes possible since (nescience and the rest) can be the causes of one another (in a
  successive series), then we say, no, (for nescience etc.,) can each
  merely be the cause of origin of another just succeeding.
  And because the earlier is negated when the later emerges, (therefore nescience and the rest cannot each be the cause of the next
  in the series).
  (If it be contended that the effect arises) even when there is no cause, then your assertion (of causation) will be stultified; else (if
  you contend that the entity of the earlier moment continues till the
  entity of the later moment emerges), the cause and effect will exist
  simultaneously.
  Neither pratisamkhya-nirodha (artificial annihilation) nor an apratisamkhya-nirodha (natural annihilation) is possible, for there
  can be no cessation (either of the current or of the individuals
  forming the current).
  And (the Buddhist view is untenable) owing to defect arising from either point of view.
  And (non-existence cannot be asserted) in the case of Akasa on account of the absence of (its) dissimilarity (with destruction).
  And (a permanent soul has to be admitted) because of the fact of remembrance (ie., memory).
  Something does not come out of nothing, for this does not accord with experience.
  And (if something can come out of nothing, then) on the same ground, success should come even to the indifferent people.

  Topic-5: Buddhist Idealism Refuted

  (External objects are) not non-existent, for they are perceived.
  And because of the difference of nature (the waking state is) not (false) like dream etc.
  (Tendencies) can have no existence since (according to you) external things are not perceived.
  And (the ego-consciousness cannot be the abode), for it is momentary.
  Besides (this view stands condemned), it being untenable from every point of view.

My question is, have any Buddhist thinkers responded to this critique of Buddhism? Note that I don't want answerers to try responding to the critique themselves (which might lead to too much speculation and arguments).  I'm just interested in whether any published works have responded to it.

By the way, the aphorisms of the Brahma Sutras are somewhat cryptic, so their meaning and justification are usually understood with the help of commentaries, like this one and this one.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You in Advance.

EDIT: Here is a book about the Brahma Sutras' critique of the Vedanta school.

I think Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika is the work you are looking for. Just like Brahma-sutras does not mention specific Buddhist sutras it debates with, Mulamadhyamakakarika does not mention Brahma-sutras, but it does methodically address the same points.

As ancient texts go, Mulamadhyamakakarika is way too obscure to be brought in here and contrasted point by point, luckily the details of the polemics between the two commentary traditions are surveyed in the book you mentioned, a modern (1980s) work "An Evaluation of the Vedantic Critique of Buddhism". The author concludes (emphasis mine):

  In this work, an attempt has been made to compare the interpretations by Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva of those sutras of the Vedantic texts, the Brahma-sutra, devoted to a refutation of Buddhism. An attempt has also been made to compare the interpretation by each Vedantic commentator of a particular Buddhist school's position with the actual Buddhist school's position as set forth in its own texts. It has been discovered that Buddhist positions were often distorted out of ignorance or deliberate intent, and that the Vedantic commentators proceeded to build their refutations of Buddhism on the basis of incorrect assumptions. It may have been the case that other matters were of more pressing concerns to the Vedantic commentators than the refutation of Buddhism. [...] In any case, however, it may be concluded that Buddhist positions have not been portrayed correctly in the Vedantic commentaries to the Brahma-sutra.

Another work that compares and contrasts Vedanta and Buddhism is Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche's essay "Madhyamika Buddhism vis-à-vis Hindu Vedanta". Instead of debating with Brahma-sutras it addresses Swami Vivekananda's claim that Buddhism was an offshoot of Vedanta. Although it does not directly address your question, the essay is very informative if you are interested in comparative studies:

  In conclusion, I would like to sum it up by stating that Buddhism (especially Mahayana/Vajrayana) is not a reformulation of Hinduism or a negative way of expressing what Hinduism has formulated positively. Hinduism and Buddhism share a common cultural matrix and therefore tend to use the same or similar words. Even though they share certain concepts like karma and re-incarnation, their interpretations differ. Hindu concepts of karma and reincarnation tend to be rather linear, whereas the Buddhist concept is linked with pratityasamutpada. [...] However, all similarities to Hinduism end there. The Shunyata of the Buddha, Nagarjuna and Candrakirti is by no means a negative way of describing the Brahman of the Upanishad, Samkara and Vidhyaranya groups.


Is is better to search for the stages of insight while meditating or to allow them to arise "naturally"? Are there differences between a person who progresses through insight while looking for the different stages and someone who progresses through insight ignorant of the stages? What are the pros and cons of each approach?

Aware of stage - If you develop craving to move to the next stage this will make excessive Effort and Striving, which isn't balanced by Focus and Concentration, which will lead to Restlessness and Worry.
Unaware of stage - You might not know what is happening. Also you may not know what to do next.

So best is to balance both. Occasionally look into the stage you are, but not frequently. Perhaps once a month review would be OK.

NB: any stage of Insight Meditation happens naturally. You cannot force it. Trying to force if you will not reach the insight you are trying to achieve.


If you build in difference to reach higher jhana won't that make it hard to enter jhana? If i have to review how gross the jhana factors are won't that make it hard to enter the jhana as I don't care for the factors?

The jhana of the Buddha is born from letting go (SN 48.10). When the peace of letting go is always known, the vibrations of rapture will feel unsatisfactory compared to the peace of letting go (i.e., the Nibbana element). Thus, the mind will not cling to the vibrations of rapture and the rapture will lose its energy as the body (rupa) relaxes even more.

The rapture of jhana is merely nervous system bliss arising from the dissolution of sankharas or stress previously stored in the physical body. That is why they are called "rupa jhana"; because the bliss is based on the relaxation of the neurology of the physical body that stores and is stressed by unwholesome mentality.


Can there be "one day becoming a fully-awakened Buddha" after Parinibbana? The Buddha declare to venerable Sâriputra in the Lotus Sutra that he will become a Buddha one day as it read below, but Sariputta has achieved Parinibbana. Can there be becoming a fully-awakened Buddha one day after Parinibbana?

  ...Again, Sâriputra, at a future period, after innumerable,
  inconceivable, immeasurable Æons, when thou shalt have learnt the true
  law of hundred thousand myriads of kotis of Tathâgatas, showed
  devotion in various ways, and achieved the present Bodhisattva-course,
  thou shalt become in the world a Tathâgata, &c., named Padmaprabha,
  endowed with science and conduct, a Sugata, a knower of the world, an
  unsurpassed tamer of men, a master of gods and men, a Lord Buddha.

I have no idea why this question get so horribly down voted. I suspect it's due to angry Theravadins who see this as being against Theravada orthodoxy of final permanent Nibanna.

The fact is the Lotus Sutra aims at deliberately over turning such conception about Arahatship,  Nirvana and Buddhahood. Mahayana Buddhism relies on Prajnaparamita sutras as to establish that there is no final permanent nirvana nor the fact that Arhats are merely to remain as Arhats, but should aspire to Buddhahood with the full capacity of a Buddha. The core doctrine used to explain this view is through the understanding of dependent generation, which consequentially result in the impermanence and hence emptiness and non dual nature of any phenomena.

In the Lotus Sutra, it is therefore posited that Sariputra (Sariputta) shall one day attain full and complete unsurpassed awakening as a completely realized Buddha. The sutra further establish that only with such view, would they be True Arhats.

The sutra further explained that it is through skillful means that the Buddha teach sentient beings to give up their desires and attain Nirvana. Because most beings want to end their suffering but are afraid of taking on the challenge to become a Buddha. This is compared to the story of a rich man whose son have ran away from home, and now becomes a poor labourer. Now the poor man eventually reunite but no longer recognize his own father and is afraid of him thinking he's unworthy of being equal to the rich man. The rich man assigned the poor son various tasks until he gained his confidence and can truly inherit his father's legacy. The rich man is the Buddha who assigned the poor man that is sentient beings work, I.e. the way to end suffering Nibanna. But they should not be content with merely Nirvana but should aspire to be truly equal with the rich man e.g. the Buddha.


Good pair of earmuffs for meditation I am looking for a pair of earmuffs to wear while meditating that are effective at reducing noise and comfortable to wear for at least 2 hours. Does anyone have any recommendations of brands that they have actually used?

Note: I would like to preemptively state that I am in no way interested in any answer that has to do with noticing my aversion to noise or doing vipassana; anything along these lines does not answer my question and will be down-voted.

I don't find earmuffs or ear plugs effective enough for blocking sounds so I use earphones and white noise. I'm not pushing these particularly but this is what I use for blocking noise while mediating. I've bought these Sennheiser ear canal head phones and I play white noise through them via this android app. That pretty much blocks all sound out and I don't find the white noise distracting during meditation. The ear phones also have the advantage of being comfortable enough to sleep in so if you suffer from insomnia or snoring bedfellows then it can be a godsend.

It's not the cheapest solution but it does work for me. There are cheaper in ear head phone such as these but i don't find these as comfortable to sleep in but they do work fine for meditation so that would cheapen this up. Also there is a free version of the white noise app which would make it even less expensive but I'm a believer in paying for software if I like it even if the free version is almost as good (which it is). I don't know versions for other phones but there are also white noise cds as well if you don't have access to a smart phone.

Hope that helps


Dhamma Language Learning Anyone know of any methods of learning languages within a Buddhist setting? Like learning to read and listen to Dhamma talks and suttas or learning conversation with dialogues of a Buddhist nature.

I mean, for example, languages like Thai, Tibetan, Chinese, Burmese, Vietnamese, Sinhalese, English, Spanish and German. Actually, I mean any language that could be in a Buddhist setting.

Maybe a method of learning both a language and beginning Buddhism , meditation at the same time. Maybe Pali and/or Sanskrit too, that would be teaching three birds with one teaching.

You can take one of the Pariyatti-Patipatti courses at Vipassana Research Institute (VRI). You can contact them for more longer and intensive courses done in partnership with universities. Some additional contact details are available in: Pali Study Program.


Where does the consciousness (cittas) originate inside the body? I have heard that all consciousness arise in hadaya vatthu rupa (blood inside the heart) except the five doors perceiving consciousness (Cakku vinnana, Sota vinnana, Ghana vinnana, Jeevha vinnana, Kaya vinnana).

There are some research articles on the internet about the impact on the heart due to brain damage. So one can argue that the brain is merely an organ which supports the functionality of other organs and hadaya vatthu rupa is the place where consciousness originate. Another one can argue the other way around.

So my questions are:

Where does the consciousness (cittas) originate inside the body? Is it in the brain or hadaya vatthu rupa?
Consciousness is nāma (not material/formless). Then how can we talk about a place of origination of it?

Space is a derived quality of matter, so consciousness cannot be said to take up or exist in space. To say that the mind arises here or there is not really proper in an ultimate sense. Consciousness can arise based on physical entities, and hadaya vatthu is the base for both the mind element and mind consciousness element. This doesn't mean that consciousness arises in the hadaya vatthu.

  According to the Pali commentators, the heart serves as the physical support for all cittas other than the two sets of fivefold sense consciousness, which take their respective sensitivities
  as their bases. In the canonical Abhidhamma the heart-base is not expressly mentioned. The Patthāna, the last book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, simply speaks of “that matter in dependence on which the mind element and mind-consciousness element occur”. The Commentaries, however, subsequently specify “that matter” to be the heart-base, a cavity situated within the physical heart. (Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma 144–5 , Bodhi et al)


What exactly was the difference between Alara Kalama & uddaka rāmaputta teachings? Correct me if I am wrong.

Siddharth went to Alara Kalama, who told him to focus on his breath in order to get rid of Feelings, (Buddha achieved Alara Kalama level in 2 months), Now he told his teacher that when he is in meditation, everything is fine but on coming to ordinary state, Negative & positive Feelings again came to him.

Now Alara Kalama told him to go to uddaka rāmaputta, What did Siddharth learn under uddaka rāmaputta ?

Above information is seen in an indian television show "Buddha"
I wanna know what happened in real ?

The two teachers are in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta.

Alara Kalama taught to focus on 'nothingness' and Uddaka Ramaputta taught to enter the 'dimension of neither perception nor non-perception'.

Both meditations are only mental stillness & quiet and do not uproot the causes of suffering. The the 'dimension of neither perception nor non-perception' is very close to unconsciousness. They can only bring temporary peace, which is why the Buddha rejected them. They are not freedom. The Buddha discovered true freedom is having no craving, no attachment and no self.


Should/Would the Noble Sangha let go of the Dhamma? Supposed that respect, veneration and any kind of wisdom has gone missing; and that the Sangha has become a group of householder wearing robes; and the leaders of the Sasana are all but householders. In that case, should the Noble Sangha, the Savaka Sangha, let go of their heritage, like one with Sila would give up a book that has become a target of white ants?

It's a serious question.

While the Buddha did not allow his monks to give up Sangha heritage, generally he allowed it in case thieves and robbers would destroy things and harm in cases the monks would hold on it.

Is that, the degeneration, actually the reason why such as householder movements became that popular?

Spoken in numbers, there are about 99% of laypeople (incl. those in robes) who are engaged in depriving the Dhamma from the Sangha, making a livelihood from it; and somewhat 1% who dedicate their sacrifices toward the gems, and respect the recluses.

I doubt that any at large had understood the meaning of "making the Dhamma your own", yet, with total confusion, running after it out of context.

Should the Noble Sangha let them follow their inclinations which brings not only them long time suffering but for many? Resting simply in "Beings are heirs of their kamma..." or still share as much as compassion as possible to keep those able away from doing really grave wrong doings?

Although "Dhamma" is in the title, the text of the question seems to be asking instead about the Discipline:

If the Sangha has become a group of householder wearing robes, should the Noble Sangha let go of their heritage? ...
Would the Buddha allow monks to give up Sangha heritage in that case?

I read The Broken Buddha so it's not completely new to me to hear of someone saying something like, "the leaders of the Sasana are all but householders".

I wouldn't want to say that, and I couldn't say it about anyone (because I don't know them), but I suppose that what's written in the book has some truth in it, even if only that it's as-witnessed.

Similarly I read a little of the "austere Forest Tradition" -- specifically as contrasted with the living and so on in towns.

I don't have a specific answer for you -- I think there are several:

You might want to find a monastery which you approve of -- a bikkhu, a group of bikkhus, who you approve of. People's biographies, monks and nuns too, often include their visiting and studying in several places, studying under several teachers.
It's common to disrobe -- not that I'm recommending that, but perhaps that's what you meant by "give up Sangha heritage". Perhaps some people who do that give up parts of the the Discipline, but not the Dhamma.
Perhaps consider being less critical of others -- I assume you are critical of others, "You shouldn't practice/live that way", "You don't have a proper teacher", "Your motives aren't proper", etc. To pick an example almost at random, there's this Wikipedia article about Ajahn Sumedho -- which describes him as "engaging and witty communication style", and pictures him and the monk who he's talking with laughing together. Then again the biography of Ajahn Chah says, "He sometimes initiated long and seemingly pointless work projects, in order to frustrate their attachment to tranquility" -- possibly you have some attachment to the way things ought to be, how other people ought to behave.

Is that, the degeneration, actually the reason why such as householder movements became that popular?

How popular is "that popular", what "householder movements"? Perhaps what you're talking about is an "observation bias" i.e. if you observe householder movements then that's what you see; and if you e.g. read the internet less then you wouldn't see them so much -- but I don't know what you're talking about. You see different things than I do, and perhaps you see them differently -- the all.

There are articles in the Appendix which say e.g. (in 1931) that ...

  Already prominent laymen in Burma, Siam, Ceylon, and elsewhere, view with misgivings the present state of affairs and know that sooner or later some alterations will have to be made. Nearly everyone sees signs of decay in the Order, that Order that has continued for 2500 years, but today there are new conditions and forces in the world and unless something radical is done this decay will increase until either the Sangha dies out, or becomes a dead letter, the refuge of the ignorant and unworthy.

It isn't only monks of Western origin who say this. Anyway you might want to read The Broken Buddha assuming you haven't already. I think it talks about issues (i.e. problems within Sangha) which you question here, and quote various people who suggest solutions, and maybe you can find in it some people or organisations who you might concur with.

I don't know that I can answer this question, though, since I don't know what you mean by "householder movements".

I suppose that everyone (householders too) must practice on their own (as "islands"), AND that the Sangha is, has been, will be important.

Should the Noble Sangha let them follow their inclinations which brings not only them long time suffering but for many?

I don't know that it's possible to prevent people from doing what's harmful -- if you knew how to, perhaps you could help drug addicts? -- and if you can't prevent them then I don't see how it's a question of "letting them".

If someone only sees you as getting into arguments, and scolding people, etc., I suppose that's not effective.

Resting simply in "Beings are heirs of their kamma..." or still share as much as compassion as possible to keep those able away from doing really grave wrong doings?

I think the theory is that it isn't one OR the other (i.e. compassion OR equanimity) -- instead it's both (i.e. "and") -- or rather, all four (mudita and metta too).

Also you practice one whenever you can't practice another -- or perhaps one is an antidote to an excess of the other.


meditation - How obvious should the touch of the breath be? When I try to feel the sensations of the breath at the nostrils/upper lip during anapana, it's so faint that after a certain point, I think I may be imagining the touch of the breath.

I may even feel other sensations (pressure/vibrations) on my face but I would still have trouble feeling the touch of my breath at the rims of my nostrils or my upper lip. And my mind is still very much lost in thought so I know it's not because I've become very concentrated or anything.

So how obvious should the touch of the breath be? Should it be as faint/subtle to the point of almost feeling imaginary? Should I stick to this and assume it will approve as does my concentration?

The touch of the breath should be totally obvious and clear.

Anapanasati is not something exactly easy to do. If it was easy to do, all of the posters on this chatsite would be enlightened.

You should stick to it and assume it will improve as does your concentration.

You should experiment with different methods, such as:

Place one finger horizontally under the nostrils and mentally note the thought "out" each time you feel the air touching/striking/warming your finger; and mental note "in" when you feel the air not touching your finger and being sucked back into your nostrils.
Make sure your finger is placed at a distance away from your face where the maximum impact of the breath can be felt. For example, my finger is about 6 millimetres away from my face/upper lip because i have a big nose.

Then continue to do the same but only mentally note "out" and stop mentally noting "in". Instead, let the mind be quiet, open & relaxed on the in breath; but continue to note the out breath.
If your arm gets tired/uncomfortable, change to your other arm & finger.
As your mind familiarizes itself with the sensation of the breath on the finger; then allow the mind to search for & feel the sensation where it is most obvious in the nose/nostril.
Also, as you start to regularly feel the breath in your nostril, then let the eyes & face relax and allow the mind to try to feel the breath in another place, such as in/through the throat. To only watch the breathing around the nostrils is not important.
There are other methods, such as to occasionally deliberately breath a little longer and postpone/extend the end of the breath a little longer (but not too long so it becomes pranayama !!!. We don't want to get dizzy practising Hindu pranayama).

Ultimately, the breath can only be perfectly lucidly experienced by the mind when the mind is very quiet and actually not even try to watch the breath. "Trying" to watch the breath is also another obstacle to clear knowing of the breath. However, if your mind is not quiet and has thoughts, "trying" to watch the breath helps suppress the thoughts.


What is today’s equivalent of a world system? Buddhism mentions “world systems.” What’s the equivalent terminology for a world system in the parlance of contemporary astrophysics?

I don't think it refers to parallel universes as an alternate dimension of the sensous realm because the world systems shake when the Bodhisatta gains final attainment which would be strange if an eventuality caused effect over multiple worlds which are supposedly closed systems with laws of conservation, essentially closed systems of information. To me an eventuality causing a tremble over a multitude of such systems is philosophically like magical thinking as far as i can tell.

Also when the Buddha delivers a discourse such as the Brahmajala Sutta the ten thousandfold world system shakes.

Furthermore given that afaik i've never seen a declaration of a thousandfold multitude of formless realms i think it is the thousandfold world system that undergoes expansion and contraction and the vastness of the universe of form explains the variety of sub worlds which could be planetary systems or galaxies.

Another point is that there is only one Buddha in a world system simultaneously (mn115).  Which is significant because if Buddhas can supposedly teleport and if one followed an intepretation of one Buddha per solar system (as some people do) then a Buddha could meet another and this would be contradictory.

I think there are the 31 planes and it is a single expanding & contracting field of form that is inhabited by a multitude of galaxies with suns and habitable planets. I also think there is only one Maha Brahma per expanding system and one Buddha at a time.

Another point worth mentioning is that during a world system contraction, beings are said to be for the most part inhabiting formless realms.


About the "knower" disappearing during vipassana When inner conversation disappears, the "doer" disappears. How does the "knower" disappear, during vipassana meditation?

Knower dissapears when "knowing" disappears.

How to achieve this?

Complicated answer is: with stopping craving.

Simple answer is: with calming of the mind and letting go completely.


Vipassana meditation with samadhi In vipassana meditation either samadhi or insight  comes as the  vehicle .When samadhi comes as a vehicle it's called Samanthayanika vipassana .In Samanthayanika meditation how yogi see the impermanence suffering and no self?

I think it is wrong to say that either insight (panna) or concetration (samadhi) comes through Vipassana. They both come through Vipassana, they both aid each other in their "coming through" and further growth. Of course, it is relativly easier to develop samadhi as compared to panna; nonetheless samadhi is perfected only when one has panna and panna cannot be perfected without having perfected samadhi.
It is unclear what you mean when you say 'comes as a vehicle'. But if I were to take vehicle as that which carries you over the river of samsar- then 'vehicle' is vipassana. Concentration and Insight both go in hand in hand. A yogi who has perfected samadhi has more chances of perfecting panna, and therefore, is closer to Nirvana; than a yogi who is yet to perfect samadhi (for perfection of panna without perfection of samadhi is not possible).

DO note that these are not the only two things to be perfected. These are only two Paramitas. There are more.

Since the vehicle is Vipasssana only, one 'sees' the three marks of existence (anicca (impermanence), anatta (no-self), dukhha(suffering)) as anyone else would see-through insight build on a foundation of samadhi and other perfections (paramitas).


Why does one suffer because of ignorance if ignorance is unintentional? It makes no sense that a person would knowingly choose to be ignorant of what causes them suffering, yet people suffer for "their" ignorance anyway.

How is a person supposed to "freely/willingly choose" insight/knowledge if that choice is dependent upon already having some insight/knowledge? Are the persons choices before choosing insight/knowledge completely at random? Do people not have any freedom or autonomy?

I think this may be another unanswerable question.

I don't know, I'm not sure what your background is -- I think the question would make sense, if you assume that "suffering" is a punishment imposed by God for sinning, i.e. for deliberately breaking (for "deliberately choosing" to break) one of God's commandments when you should have known better -- perhaps you're arguing that if you don't know then you are innocent and therefore shouldn't suffer.

I think a better analogy is something more like cancer, or any other apparent misfortune -- e.g. people suffer and die because they don't know how to cure it -- it isn't a question of whether it's fair (nor of divine punishment), it's a question of whether you've learned the insight and skill, maybe the habits, to undo the cause or to not do it in the first place.

Do people not have any freedom or autonomy?

I think they have a little. There's a sutta -- Chiggala Sutta: The Hole (SN 56.48) -- which suggests that we are fortunate to have been born human and in a time or place, where we can learn the Buddha's Dhamma.

Some people teach not only that the opportunity (to learn to practice) is rare, and nt only that we're fortunate to have access to the Dhamma, but also that it (i.e. the opportunity and the liberating effects) is a reason in itself for us to be happy.

Perhaps that's somewhat debatable though, a matter of perspective. Some people argue against the doctrine of "free will", saying that the physical world just does what it does and continues to do that, and that "people" are just conditioned i.e. that everything they do or think is just conditioned by one thing or another. I think that "free will" probably isn't a Buddhist doctrine -- but other people say (e.g. here) that an "exercise of free will" is "what makes Buddhist practice possible".


How does one Practice Sila? There are many techniques to practice meditation but how exactly do you practice Sila?

Are there any methods or techniques mentioned in the Suttas or by Buddhist Teachers to practice Sila. Exactly what are you doing when you say you are "practicing sila"?

Sila means ethics, or morality. There are many Suttas that describe how Sila is practiced. The most basic way for a layperson to practice Sila is to keep the five precepts.

  Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
  Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
  Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.
  Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
  Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html)

After that there are the eight precepts, the ten precepts, and the monastic precepts.

One thing to bear in mind however is that these precepts shouldn't be looked on as just being rules given to us to follow. We should look on them not as restrictions put on us by our religion, but as greatly beneficial spiritual practices we take on because they benefit both ourselves and others.

Also it is important to remember that the five precepts are only a basic summary of morality. Just because something isn't technically covered by the precepts doesn't mean that it is totally ok to do. One should always consider the effects of ones actions on one's self and on others.

One of the most practical Suttas giving a description of how to discern right from wrong is the very famous Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone. It explains how one should contemplate and reflect on one's actions and character in order to develop Sila.
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html)


What are the arguments behind the relatively late dating of Khuddaka Nikaya and Abhidhamma Pitaka? It is generally told that the Khuddaka Nikaya is the latest among the five Nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka. Similary, the Abhidhamma Pitaka is also considered as the latest composition among the three Pitakas. It seems that these are universally accepted truths among the scholars of Buddhism. But what are the exact arguments behind these two assertions?

For the layer of pāli-canons timeframe, please see:
What are timeframe were pali canons, included commentaries, done, especially Mahavihara-Theravada?
The arguments began from misunderstanding of students/scholars in reading study system, especially from the western world, see  The Case of Dhammakaya (Thai: กรณีธรรมกาย) by P.A. Payutto.
Reading study system make students/scholars understand teaching discontinuous, incomplete, through the buddhist study course.
You can see through below cases that the arguments of buddhist hypothesis by the students/scholars in reading study system, began from misunderstanding.
So, there are many misunderstand appearing from the past and still going on now, below.
I have the evidences in pāli-canons for each below example, if someone request to me, I will add them to this answer as soon as I can.
for the example:
(a) The introduction of dhammasaṅgaṇī's commentary, by the tipitaka-memorizers, said:

sāriputta studied just the brief abhidhamma teaching from buddha. Then
sāriputta taught his advance literary abhidhamma to his large number
of  students.
(Sāriputta's student was included upāli because some paṭṭhāna-words appear in
Vinayapitaka Parivāra, and some abhidhammas' description appear
in vinaya, too. So, in gosiṅgasāla-sutta said many famous
bhikkhu go to listened sāriputta's teaching, and in A.N. Ekaka. buddha
announced sāripuuta is the best of teacher who can teach the listener
for enlightenment as alike as himself. But sāriputta's literary abhidhamma didn't appear directly in 4 first nikāya of suttanta because even though ānanda often went to listen sāriputta, but he was not sāriputta's close student. When the 1st saṅgāyanā began, the most of sāriputta's teaching, still kept by sāriputta's students, not by ānanda. So, the fact appeared in commentary which said that many canon in K.N. were taught by sāriputta. Another, K.N. and Abhidhamma are easier to memorize than suttanta, by technical, too. So, the very big amount of abhidhamma and K.N. in oral study sysytem are not an argument to said "abhidhamma began very late after buddha time".)

But the beginner students just read through commentary then misunderstood and distort it as "commentary said buddha taught abhidhamma".

(b) The introduction of kathāvatthu's commentary, by the tipitaka-memorizers, said:

The forth member, of sevent abhidhamma canons, were authored in 3rd saṅgāyanā.

But the beginner students just read through commentary then misunderstood and distort it as "abhidhamma authored in 3rd saṅgāyanā".

(c) In VN Pañcasatikakhandhaka, 1st saṅgāyanā saṅgha, the original commentary teachers, made the unanimous decision to keep, to modify not/to add not, all the buddha's speech rules in the Vinaya, even the lesser and the minor rules. If there are something to describe about vinaya, it must appear in the other's context, such as the upāli's sikkhāpadavibhaṅga/upāli's parivāra/commentary/etc., without any modify buddha's speech.
But the beginner students just read through some sutta, then misunderstood and distort it as "there were just 150 vinaya rules in vinaya pitaka".

(d) Commentary said in introduction of D.N.'s  commentary:

Ānanda showed to kassapa, at 1st saṅgāyanā, that he did not modify anything of every sutta which he was presenting  to 1st saṅgāyanā saṅgha.

But the beginner students just read through the english translation version of 4 nikāya, which translated only some part, then misunderstood and distort it as "some sutta in 4 nikāya maybe authored after 1st saṅgāyanā".

(e) Vinaya pitaka and DN's commentary, the tipitaka-memorizers, said:

1st saṅgāyanā saṅgha gave each nikāya and commentary to 5
arahanta-groups at 1st saṅgāyanā meeting cave, upāli school got
vinaya-pitaka, ānanda school got dīghanikāya, etc, to recite for
the received nikāya, and there were somebodies in each school memorized more than 1 nikāya, too. Then about each 100 years later their relayed
students met each other school members again to recite them together,
2nd and 3rd saṅgāyanā, again. Each saṅgāyanā, they did it on the same
rule in (c) and (d).

But the beginner students just read through the western scholars' thesis, who never recite and memorize tipitaka, then misunderstood and distort it as "saṅgāyanā was the meeting to edit tipitaka." And "tipitaka become blurred through the time, because of oral study system".

You can see through above cases that the arguments of buddhist hypothesis by the students/scholars in reading study system, began from misunderstanding.


Is a dream object an existent? How about the face in the mirror? The context for this question is contemporary Tibetan Buddhist Monastic debate and associated definitions as practiced at Sera Je Monastic University. I'm looking for answers according to the specific definitions and system of jargon used in that context.

In Tibetan Buddhist monastic debate according to The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate an existent is defined as, "that which is realized by a valid cognizer."

I'm asking whether under such a definition a dream object - such as a snake - is considered an existent or a non-existent such as the son of a barren woman.

I believe that it must be considered an existent as it is known by a directly perceiving mental consciousness given the above context. The same can be said of a face in the mirror although in this case it is directly perceived by the eye consciousness. Is this true from viewpoint of above context? Is it true from the Prasangika viewpoint?

I posit that a dream snake and a snake I perceive in waking life are both conventionally existent. Further, that neither are ultimately existent. And that neither are real except from the perspective of a worldly consciousness. That is, they are both equally unreal. Is this true from the Prasangika viewpoint?

If not, please give reasons according to the context mentioned above.

A dream object is an existent, since it is apprehended by a conventional valid cognizer, that is a conventional cognizer that is not subject to any of the four superficial causes of error.

A dream object is a phenomena source. It is apprehended by mental consciousnesses (except in the continuum of a buddha).

According to Geshe Tenzin Tenphel, a dream consciousness is necessarily a non-conceptual perceiver, while Geshe Lobsang Jamphel says that a dream consciousness can be either non-conceptual or conceptual. Either way, a dream consciousness apprehending a dream car as a dream car is valid with regard to the entity of the object it apprehends.

The reflection of a face in the mirror is also an existent. Unlike the dream object, it is not a phenomena source but form.  While it is empty of being an actual face, it is not empty of being a reflection. It is in the entity of a reflection. A consciousness apprehending it as a reflection is valid with regard to the entity of the thing. On the other hand, a consciousness apprehending a mirage as actual water is wrong with regard to the entity of the thing, but that does not make the mirage a non-existent.

According to Prasangika-Madhyamika, conventional truths are not real. However, they are real in relation to the world in that, in the perspective of an ordinary being, they exist the way they appear. That is also why we say: of both truths (conventional and ultimate), only ultimate truths are actually truths. Conventional truths are only truths in relation to a consciousness that is wrong with regard to the mode of existence of phenomena.


Why is an emaciated Buddha rarely represented in art? Surely The Buddha appeared quite emaciated when he realized full enlightenment. Why is an emaciated Buddha rarely represented in art?

As @ChrisW linked above, there are many representations of the Buddha in his emaciated state, such as  and .

From the book Buddhist Art and Architecture by Robert E. Fisher, a brief mention of this style of portraying the Buddha is found on page 47 when discussing contrast between Roman and Indian styles of portraying the Buddha in art in the Gandhara region where Alexander the Great had just ended his campaign.

  The Roman love of portraiture and dramatic realism appeared in the form of images of the emaciated Buddha, a favorite subject of the region but one seldom found in Indian art.

So while the Romans liked this style, it certainly wasn't as popular then (or now) as depictions of the Buddha while not in an emaciated state. As mentioned, the Buddha taught the middle way, so neither his period of luxury nor his period of austerity seem as important or as inspiring as the period of his enlightenment, most popularly depicted with the Buddha looking healthy and serene.


Would a wise and compassionate person advice one to figue things out by oneself? If actually knowing the way to liberation, would one with ability to teach or knowing where to get taught, send another out to find out for one self?

If someone is doing so, send you into the dessert, what can be the reason for such?

Why would, if, a wise and compassionate person, possible avoid to send you out, relaying just on your own?

And why would a unwise and attached person desire to guide or bind others?

(This question(s) arose while reading this answer, and note, it's a question, not a judgement of a certain case at fist place, since preoccupations could distract proper attention easy and fail to, reflect and answer.)

[Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purposes and other low wordily gains by trade and exchange.]

If actually knowing the way to liberation, would one with ability to teach or knowing where to get taught, send another out to find out for one self?
If someone is doing so, send you into the dessert, what can be the reason for such?

"It's one thing when I tell you the answer, and it's a totally different thing when you figure it out by yourself." - a quote from my Zen Master. Indeed, liberation only comes from first-hand experience. The truth must be reinvented by every student. So a good teacher gives just enough instruction to set the student in the right direction, but never tries to give the final answer, because it would be meaningless. Just like a good father does not try to live his son's life but allows him to make mistakes and learn.
So good teacher does a lot of work: motivates, shows the nature of the mind, helps see obstacles, gives confirmation when things go well, says "no this is wrong" when they don't and so on.
There are some students that receive all explanations and instructions, and even understand all the logic, but still can't make the final jump. In this case the teacher sends the student away forever, to live, meditate, and recreate the teaching in one's life - until the truth is found.


What is the relation between Pratītyasamutpāda and Four Noble truths? First two truths are relate to "samsara". But how 3rd and 4th truths relate to Pratītyasamutpāda?

If we divide Pratītyasamutpāda to three existences it's much easier to explain. (this can be explained for each moment as well)

  First existence
   1. Ignorance
   2. Formations
  Second existence
   3. Consciousness  4. Nāma-rūpa   5. The six senses   6. Touch    7. Sensation
   8. Craving
   9. Clinging
  10. Becoming
  Third existence
   11. Birth
   12. Old age and death

If we take second existence as the current life, points 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (consciousness,  nāma-rūpa,  the six senses,  touch and sensation) are another form or representation of the five aggregates which is same as suffering or the first noble truth.
If you crave for the sensations (nourished by ignorance) in this existence, then this will form your next life. Although craving, clinging, becoming, ignorance and formations in this life are all causes for the next life, craving is the main culprit, hence craving becomes the second noble truth.
If craving is ceased in this very life, there won't be another existence,that means you've overcome the suffering, this can be achieved and has been achieved, hence this becomes the third noble truth.
To realise this, you have to follow the eightfold path, which is the fourth noble truth. However, Pratītyasamutpāda doesn't straight away relate to the fourth noble truth as the other three here.


How should I spend my day, according to Lord Buddha teachings? According to Lord Buddha teachings, How should a normal employee spend his/her day ?

How much time should one meditate? (annapanna or vipassana) ?

While sitting in office, how should i sit (sometimes i try to sit as straight as possible, but after 10 minutes i am back to ordinary state)

I want to know how to spend all my 24 hours in order to remain all time conscious (what exactly means conscious, suppose i am walking, should i remain aware about my hand and legs moving or my breath) ?

Kindly help

How much time should one meditate? (annapanna or vipassana) ?

2 session of 1 hour each sitting meditation generally works well for many, but this is not the true meditative practice.

  According to Lord Buddha teachings, How should a normal employee spend his/her day ?

Real meditation is from awakening to sleep. Be aware of sensation arising and passing either due to posture, bodily sensations, mental activity and thoughts, sensory experiences, etc.

As an employee you should earn your living in the right way and ethically. Meditating or other activity in office which might interfere with your duties might not be ethical.

  While sitting in office, how should i sit (sometimes i try to sit as straight as possible, but after 10 minutes i am back to ordinary state)

What every posture that works for you is fine. Over rigid postures may give undue attention of colleagues which might not help.

If you are referring to "crookedness of body" in (Pacetana) Ratha,kara Sutta, this is a figure of speech referring to lax morality.

  I want to know how to spend all my 24 hours in order to remain all time conscious (what exactly means conscious, suppose i am walking, should i remain aware about my hand and legs moving or my breath) ?

In short the breath and arising and passing of sensations. Generally when you are waking moving parts have more sensations, but as you progress it is good to look throughout the body.

If the sensations are pleasant you get attached if not averse. This is one thing you have to understand and be aware of. Staying in a particular posure may be present for a little while but becomes painful and the urge to more arises. When you move the new posture becomes pleasant and cycle continues. Similarly for thoughts, memories, and other sensory experiences. Regarding sensory experiences and perceive it as positive or negative or neutral, if positive you experience a pleasant sensation and you get attached to the pleasant sensation triggered by the evaluation and similarly when the experience is negative.


How can I as a layperson approach the discourses given to monks? Most discourses that I've read have been given to monks or nuns (and not laypeople), so I'm wondering what the practical application is of these many discourses for a layperson like myself. Are the practices presented in these discourses something to strive for? Is it better (as laypeople) to focus our effort on deepening our understanding and practice of for example the five precepts?

Grateful for help and with kind regards,
Tord

The four noble truths & dependent origination simply explain how suffering comes to be & how this suffering can be ended.

As a layperson, it is inevitable you suffer (for example, when your motor car is damaged in car accident). Therefore, you  can use these teachings to understand & overcome your suffering.

For example, your motor car is damaged in an accident. You reflect:

I am suffering because I am attached to the car & do not want the car to be damaged.
However, this wanting & suffering is ignorant because the Buddha taught all material & conditioned things are subject to damage & impermanence. Therefore it is ignorant of me to suffer over things that are inevitably prone to damage & impermanence.
Also, the motor car is not-self. It is not really 'mine'. It is only something I use temporarily.

The above is an example of how to use the four noble truths & dependent origination to understand & end the everyday suffering of a lay person.

If you do not clearly understand the four noble truths, it is:

All suffering is summarised as attachment to the five aggregates.
This suffering arises when there is craving that leads to new self-becoming.
This suffering ends when craving ends.
The noble eightfold path is the way to end suffering, which is summarised as using mindfulness to bring wisdom (right view) to sense experience.

If you do not clearly understand dependent origination, it is simply the same as the four noble truths but more detailed, in that it traces the arising of suffering back to ignorance. It states:

Ignorance conditions ignorant mental formations.
Ignorant mental formations condition an ignorant consciousness.
Ignorant consciousness conditions an ignorant mind & body.
An ignorant mind & body condition ignorant sense organs.
Ignorant sense organs condition ignorant sense experience.
Ignorant sense experience conditions ignorant feelings.
Ignorance feelings condition craving.
Craving conditions attachment.
Attachment conditions self-ego-becoming.
Becoming conditions the birth of self-identity. (eg. 'My motor car').
Birth conditions aging-&-death (eg. 'My motor car is destroyed & dead).
Aging-&-death conditions sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, despair & all sufferings.

Therefore, if ignorance is ended by reflecting: "material & conditioned things are impermanent", the craving, attachment, becoming, birth & death that cause suffering will not arise. The mind will be free from suffering about motor cars.


How do I become a Buddha, the stages of the path? I'm interested to see the process broken down into steps preferably using Theravada theory, all in the context of a summarized "how to".

This would range from trying meditation, through all the stages of insight, enlightenment, into and through any other stages, and into Buddhahood, assumably hundreds or more lifetimes from now. What are the stages?

The Buddhist path is the Noble 8 Fold Path which is divided into

Morality
Mastery over the mind
Wisdom

(Three fold training.)

You should start by leading a moral life, develop mastery over out mind without being a slave to it, then practice Vipassana gain Wisdom. This intern helps you strengthen you morality and so on and so forth.

In addition you have to practice the Perfections to become Enlightened.

Practicing the Perfections and walk on the Noble 8 Fold Path you will slowly but surely progress towards enlightenment. If you want to be a Buddha the Perfections you have to full fill are greater. Also in practicing Wisdom you have to stop before you reach the 1st stage of sainthood.

In addition you have to be ware of the Dependent Origination, Three Marks of Existence, 4 Noble Truths, Factors of Awakening, in order to make you pratice of developing wisdom fruitful and well directed.

The following book might be also useful as further reading:

A Manual of the Excellent Man
Requisites for Enlightenment also book by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on the Subject: Wings to Awakening


What Buddhist materials describe how to increase the number of people with good Karma in a geographic area? In some of his books Lama Ole Nydahl claims that the prosperity of certain region is determined (among other things) by the Karma of people living there. That is, people in Switzerland (or Silicon Valley) have, on average, a better Karma than inhabitants of poor, war-torn countries.

Imagine that the latter want to improve the situation: Gradually (over several decades or even centuries) build up good Karma so that the life in those regions becomes better (turn Sierra Leone into an African Silicon Valley, for example). Also, there is plenty of evidence that economic measures alone often don't fight poverty effectively, so why not trying out a Buddhist approach to economic development?

I assume that there are some publicly available teachings on how the average Karma of a region can be improved.

What are they and where can I find them?

Though not directly affecting karma, there is a variation of Metta Meditation mentioned in the Visuddhi Magga that increases universal love and brotherhood. Though the object is universal, its obvious that nearer vicinities would be felt more profound an effect.

If there is one thing in this world that can influence peoples' Karma, it is meditation. Karma is nothing but the result of aeons of conditioning of the five aggregates, and only with insight (pradnya) can they be positively affected.

As a practical experiment, just arrange a series of group meditation sittings among the people of the geographic area you want to improvise. After each sitting, just feel the metta vibrations in the air!


Would making a video game be considered "business in intoxicants" or "business in poisons"? Right Livelihood, as stated in the :Vanijja Sutta

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

Could I argue that video games are intoxicants that allow players to escape from reality? Could one also say the video game maker is an adrenaline seller?(genre dependent)

If I make a game with simulated weapon usage against other humans, is that business in weapons? Or is it harmless fun?

Maybe it's more like entertainment: analogous to being an actor or a musician; or telling stories or making pictures.

There are vinaya rules about what constitutes killing: a condition is that there must be "intention to kill". For example if you carelessly knock something off a cliff, which falls on someone underneath and kills them, doesn't count as "killing" because that's an accident, i.e. there's no intention to kill. I'd argue that similarly, when people play a video game there's no "intention to kill".

You could instead argue that playing is intoxicating; but I think there's a more direct analogy, i.e. it's like playing a game. I think there's a sutta which warns that too much game-playing (especially with disreputable companions, perhaps gambling, perhaps spending too much time at it, perhaps becoming 'addicted' to the activity) isn't profitable for a lay-person.

Another direct description of the activity is that it's pursuing sense-impressions: so maybe it's samsaric. I think it's more like the seventh of the eight precepts:

  I undertake to abstain from singing, dancing, playing music, attending entertainment performances, wearing perfume, and using cosmetics and garlands (decorative accessories).

It's not the first ("killing") nor the fifth ("intoxicating drinks and drugs, which lead to carelessness").

You could perhaps, possibly, argue that it's the fourth:

  I undertake to abstain from wrong speech: telling lies, deceiving others, manipulating others, using hurtful words.


What does "ease" mean in the phrase "dharma gate of ease and joy"? What is the "ease" of the "dharma gate of ease and joy"? Can an unelightened person achieve it outside seated meditation?

Ought I imagine everything is difficult, or everything is easy? How can we be effortful in our everyday lay tasks?

Dogen means that when you practise zazen you let go of troublesome thoughts. When you do this your state is one of ease (in the sense of 'being eased' rather than 'easy').

I think Dogen would have agreed with Hui Neng on the subject of enlightened and unenlightened people : One foolish notion is enough to shut off Prajna, while one wise thought will bring it forth again.

When not doing zazen, we should still be practising awareness (some sanghas refer to work in the temple as 'working meditation'). Although sometimes we need to think about difficult stuff. Zazen is just a time when we don't have to and can let go of everything.


A pigeon settled on my balcony. What should I do? A pigeon is going to build a nest on my balcony. I tried to make it fly away but it comes back. I rent this flat and not sure if I'll stay there till winter. I mean if another person rents the flat he'll definitely get rid of it. In my country people have no respect for animals. Besides the hostess doesn't like that. Should I insist in chasing the bird from my balcony or let him stay there?

You cannot predict the future of the bird or take responsibility for it. Also, the bird may nest on your balcony temporary (for breeding) rather than permanently. If the bird does not harm you, then you should let it nest.

If the hostess (landlord) disapproves of the bird, they should remove it. It is not your responsibility to make modifications to the property of the landlord or hinder the landlord in the maintenance of their property. Instead, if you think the bird will damage the property, it is your duty (as a tenant) to report this to the landlord.

In summary, the bird is not your responsibility (karma) and the external structural problems of the apartment is not your responsibility (karma).

The problem is the bird's karma & you should not interfere with the bird's karma.


Is there any AI that teach the Dhamma? Are there any Artificial Intelligence applications that can teach the Dhamma that are already out there or are still being developed?
What can these AI apps do with Buddhism?
How can they facilitate practice?
What will AI in development possibly be able to do in relation to Buddhism in the future?

Here are some examples of what I mean.
Could AI:

...have a conversation with the Tipitaka as it's database?

...understand all the arguments and controversies and debate certain topics?

...help guide someone in their meditation.

Metta.

This Wired article shows how AI has been used to enhance Google Search.

You can search the Tripitaka and other Buddhist articles, on Google Search by adding site:accesstoinsight.org or site:suttacentral.net/en.

For e.g. I Google-searched for:

did the buddha feel pain? site:accesstoinsight.org

And I got the first result below:

  Nibbana as Living Experience / The Buddha and The Arahant: Two ...
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html
  There is plenty of evidence to show that an arahant does feel
  sensations caused by physical changes. For instance, the Buddha felt
  acute pain when he was wounded by a stone splinter[19] and when he
  suffered from indigestion.[20] But he was able to withstand the
  painful sensations with mindfulness and clear ...

There are more tips on this page on refining Google web searches.


What does the term 'Sammasambuddha' mean? Buddhists, from children to monks, chant the following homage to the Buddha:

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa

What does the term 'sammasambuddhasa' mean?

We pay homage to the Buddha by saying ”Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa” three times. The widely practiced translations of it take the following forms:

“Homage to the Blessed One, the Worthy (Exalted) One, the supremely (fully) Enlightened One!”

“Homage to the fully Enlightened One who found the truth about the existence and became free of all defilements!”

“Veneration to Him, the Most Exalted, the Purified, the Supremely Enlightened Buddha (the Rightly Self-awakened One.)”

Here the term Sammâ-sambuddho means  that Buddha understood the Four Noble Truths without anyone’s help. Buddha is really the one and only Teacher who first taught the Four Noble Truths. These Truths explain the realities of life. Buddha understood the realities of life, without anyone’s help. By knowing this, we can establish an unshakeable confidence based on this quality.

There can be only one Samma Sambuddha, in the entire universe, at any given period. During most aeons (Kalpa), there are no Samma Sambuddhas. Hence they are very rare. A Samma Sambuddha is called ‘Asama Sama’, i.e. incomparable with any other being but can be compared only to other Samma Sambuddhas who had lived in the distant past. Hence it is not feasible for all to aspire to be a Buddha.

The Buddha himself said that the best way to pay homage to him is to learn Dhamma and to follow the Path. This is the more deeper meaning of the Namaskaraya, “Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa”.

Once Buddha said, “Attä hi attano nätho, kö hi näthö paro siyä”, meaning, ”One indeed is one’s own refuge; how can others be a refuge to one?”. Each one has one’s own mind. And that is what is needed to be purified in order to attain a peaceful life now, a better life in the next, or even Nibbana. But it all starts with going for refuge in the Buddha Dhamma & the Sangha. When we say the Namaskaraya with understanding and resolve, we develop citta pasada or calmness and joy of mind.