Is what is taught under the term "Radical Buddhism" consistent with Buddhist values? Recently, so-called "radical Buddhists" like the monk Wirathu from the 969 Buddhist Nationalist movement in Burma, incited unrest and preached violence against minorities like Muslims. (See, for example, Special Report: Myanmar gives official blessing to anti-Muslim monks.)

Is there any part of Buddhist teaching or literature that supports these views or is it like a "wolf in sheep's clothing"?

According to my understanding (in Theravada tradition) and with the context of your question (Violence in the context of "radical Buddhism"), there is no room for any form of violence. Buddhist teaching does not encourage violence by any means even in solving human conflicts and social problems.

For example in Dhammapada there are several verses discourage the violence acts.

Verse 129:

  All are afraid of the stick, all fear death. Putting oneself in another's place, one should not beat or kill others.

Verse 130:

  All are afraid of the stick, all hold their lives dear. Putting oneself in another's place, one should not beat or kill others.

Verse 131:

  He who seeks his own happiness by oppressing others, who also desire to have happiness, will not find happiness in his next existence.

Verse 132:

  He who seeks his own happiness by not oppressing others, who also desire to have happiness, will find happiness in his next existence

In fact Buddha teach that the sensual desire is the main cause for creating dispute and violence.

Ref:
http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=129
http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethics/files/2010/12/Deegalle.pdf


Feeling intense sensations in my forehead and also my head and body is shaking a lot during meditation While doing meditation, I am feeling intense sensations on my forehead and after sometime my whole will start shaking and my hands become rigid. Why are these things happening?Whether i am doing the meditation in the wrong way?

It maybe several things.But here's something to investigate.You may or may not have this problem.If your doing anapanasati meditation with the aim of developing tranquillity your body should be relaxed.Having intense emotions on the forehead,body shaking,and rigidity could indicate excessive effort,you may be paying too much attention on the breath in a stressful way.Notice if your breathing heavily as well.Try not control the breath.Loosen the grip.If possible repeat "calm,calm,or relax,relax,let go,let go" while breathing in and out.


Did the Buddha intend for everyone to be enlightened? Was it the Buddha's intention that all beings to be free from suffering i.e. enlightened?

  As the Dalai Lama acknowledges, “Buddhism has evolved differently
  in different times and places and yet the essential Dharma remains the
  same.  The Buddha’s prime concern was that all beings should find
  peace and freedom from suffering.

Did he say whether it was possible for everyone to be enlightened, so that there was no one left unenlightened?
Would there then be no further (re)birth?

Answer to the original question:

The Buddha doesn't have wantings per se. He has uprooted craving. He simply helps beings to achieve freedom from suffering out of compassion. Beings are infinite, so any thought of making everyone enlightened is absurd. The Buddha certainly had no such ambition.

Answer to later additions:

I do not follow Dalai Lama and the use of the word 'concern' is not appropriate as enlightened beings are not 'concerned' per se. But there's a big difference between saying what everyone should do and having an ambition that everyone will do it. Ex: It's fine to say "everyone should eat healthy food at all times". Because that's just good advice to all. But having that as an ambition is not realistic.


Is it proper to teach Dhamma to someone wearing a hat? or when wearing one oneself?

(The question might be worthy to copy also in your meta-section... for possible increase of general respect toward the Gems and enviroment for providing such, since else might cause harm for many althought not aware for now.)

The following rules are part of the Sekhiya rules of the Patimokkha. The Patimokkha are rules for (Theravada) monks and nuns.

  I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing headgear who is not ill: a training to be observed.
  I will not teach Dhamma to a person whose head is covered (with a robe or scarf) and who is not ill: a training to be observed.

The explanation for these come in "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Bhikkhu Ariyesako:

  Sixteen of the Sekhiya Training rules set down how and to whom a
  bhikkhu should teach Dhamma. These rules are also concerned with the
  etiquette of showing respect, respect not only for the bhikkhu but
  more importantly for the Dhamma that he is teaching. (The Great
  Standards would imply here that modern ways of showing respect and
  disrespect would be similarly covered by these rules.) These rules
  prohibit a bhikkhu from teaching anyone he considers to be showing
  disrespect to the Dhamma. Here is a summary of these Sekhiya
  Trainings:

    "I will not teach Dhamma to someone who is not sick but who:

    — has an umbrella; a wooden stick (club); weapon in their hand.

    — is wearing (wooden-soled) sandals/shoes; is in a vehicle; is on a
    bed (or couch); is sitting clasping the knees; has a head wrapping
    (turban); whose head is covered; who is sitting on a seat while I am
    sitting on the ground; who is sitting on a high seat while I am
    sitting on a low seat; who is sitting while I am standing; who is
    walking in front of me while I am walking behind; who is walking on a
    pathway while I am walking beside the pathway." (Sekhiya 57-72; See
    BMC pp.505-508)

  How these rules are observed may diverge in different communities.
  Some will strictly follow the above while others will be more flexible
  according to modern conditions. As Venerable Brahmava"ngso remarks:

    "...These Sekhiyas ensure that one teaches Dhamma only to an audience
    which shows respect. One may not expound from a soapbox in the
    marketplace... to the indifference of passers by. However it is common
    these days in the West for a seated audience, wearing their shoes and
    maybe even a hat, to respectfully listen to a speaker standing at a
    lectern... and as the audience is considered to be behaving
    respectfully according to the prevailing norms there seems no reason
    why a monk may not teach Dhamma in such a situation." (AB)


Seeking sources on -- practicing for this life alone is not even Dharma The Gelugpa Lam Rim says that someone who practices for benefit in this life alone is not even practicing Dharma -- the minimum Dharmic motivation is to achieve better rebirth (and there are two levels above that, which I am not concerned about here). Here is Pabongka Rinpoche, Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand (Wisdom Pubs, Kindle Edition, location 2937; same spot in the 1991 paper edition from Wisdom begins on p. 154):

  The difference in our motivation makes an enormous difference to the
  sort of virtuous karmic results we will receive, and to the measure of
  strength of these results. Suppose four people are reciting together
  the Praise of the Twenty-One Tārās. One has bodhichitta as a motive.
  Another is motivated by renunciation. The third yearns for a better
  rebirth. The last only aspires to the concerns of this life: long
  life, good health, and so on. Although all four recite the same amount
  of words, there is a great difference in the sort of karmic results
  they will obtain. ... The fourth’s recitation belonged only to this
  life and so was not even Dharma. And it would even be difficult for it
  to have any of the the hoped-for effect on his life.

So, my question -- can folks point me to similar material in the Pali Canon, Visuddhimagga or other non-Tibetan sources. Likewise in Tibetan lineages other than Gelug.

Added 11/25 -- Or, is this a Mahayana teaching, and therefore not found explicitly in the Pali Canon. The distinction between bodhicitta and renunciation as motivation is certainly Mahayana -- initially taught in this "three scopes" form in Tibet by Atisha in Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment. So maybe even this pre-three-scopes teaching is not only Mahayana, but a Tibetan addition not found even in Atisha.

If so, then I'd be interested to at least find other Tibetan sources, or hear that this is strictly a Gelug teaching.

More still 11/25 -- Looks like Tsongkhapa, contra Pabongka, includes motivation for this life only in the lower scope, thus making a general motivation for better samsaric life apart from the rebirth distinction:

  Furthermore, the scriptures mention many ways of positing a least, a
  medium, and a superior person. Like Atisha's Lamp for the Path to
  Enlightenment, Vasubandhu's Abhidharma-kosa Auto-commentary
  (Abhidharma-kosa-bhasya) defines the three types of persons. Among the
  persons of small capacity, there are indeed two types — those who are
  intent on this lifetime and those who are intent on future lifetimes.
  However, here I am speaking of the latter, whom I will identify as
  those who engage in the unmistaken method for attaining high status. (The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, Volume One. The Lamrim Chenmo, Wisdom Pubs, pp. 131-132)

So maybe this teaching is actually post-Tsongkhapa Gelug.

The closest I can think of is the Dana sutta in which the Buddha explains how the purity of one's motives have an effect on the results.

"Sariputta, there is the case where a person gives a gift seeking his own profit, with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?"
"Yes, lord."
"Having given this gift seeking his own profit — with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself, [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the Four Great Kings. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
[...]
"Or, instead of thinking, 'When this gift of mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise,' he gives a gift with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?"
"Yes, lord."
"Having given this, not seeking his own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward], not seeking to store up for himself, nor [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death,'
[...]
" — but with the thought, 'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind' — on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world.
"This, Sariputta, is the cause, this is the reason, why a person gives a gift of a certain sort and it does not bear great fruit or great benefit, whereas another person gives a gift of the same sort and it bears great fruit and great benefit."

-- AN 7.49
Now, if you're asking about the possibility of practicing the Dhamma without, at the very least, assuming rebirth to be true, then in the Apannaka sutta the Buddha indeed said this was wrong view, and thus against the path.

Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view... when he says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested.

-- MN 60


Bad behavior (and therefore bad kamma?) due to physical ailments In this TEDx Talk Youtube video at timestamp 12m 36s, Dr. Daniel Amen told the story of a nine year old boy named Andrew, who attacked a girl on a field for no particular reason and he had other behavioral problems.

It turns out that he had a cyst in the left temporal lobe of his brain the size of a golf ball. Once it was removed, he returned to being a normal boy with normal behavior.

Questions:

If his cyst was caused by past kamma, and if his bad behavior is caused by the presence of the cyst, then this implies that his present behavior is caused by his past kamma and he has no control of it. Is that true?
If his bad behavior was caused by the presence of the cyst, then would Andrew be creating bad kamma (by attacking the girl) due to bad intention, or would he not be creating bad kamma (by attacking the girl), because it was due to the cyst and not due to his own intention?
What did the Buddha teach about the physical body (including brain) and its ailments or conditions, affecting the mind and kamma?
How do we avoid bad kamma, due to mind-influencing effects caused by physical conditioning?
How could Buddhist teachings help a person like Andrew (before his cyst was removed)?

In abhidhamma.-

There are 4 type of minds:

wholesome-root functional mind, good kamma.
unwholesome-root functional mind, bad kamma.
root's effect functional mind, kamma's fruit.
rootless functional mind, neither kamma nor fruit.

In one's life process:

human born just by wholesome kamma, but some organ, i.e. cyst, can arise
by unwholesome kamma after born.
kamma has making body-sense for touching touch.

each mind's full process at body-sense:

contact of 3  dhātu: 1) touch arise & 2) body-sense arise & 3) 4th mind arise for to decide the kind of 3th mind, wholesome-effect/unwholesome-effect, that compatible with that touch (same time).
then 3rd mind knows that touch at body-sense, both are arose by
kamma-cause.
then another 3rd minds know that touch by kamma-cause 2 times.
then touch is reached by 4th mind again for to decide the kind of
1st, 2nd, or 4th minds should arise to do new kamma in body.
then 7 times arising of 1st or 2nd mind and do new kamma.
then 2 times arising of 3rd minds.
then body vanished.
Above mind process, at body sense, can loop moreover trillion times per second, uncountable. There are more types of mind process than I show in this answer, this is just the example.

You can see that we receive fruit of old kamma and make new kamma in the same process and the same body.

His bad behavior is 1st, 2nd, and 4th mind. Just 3rd mind and a cyst organ are kamma's fruit.

So, the cyst organ is not a main cause of bad behavior. But previous bad behavior is the main cause of present bad behavior.

The cyst organ is just a fruit of the past bad behavior. It maybe one of side cause, but it is not the main cause. A human maybe feel very hurt and hard to decide to make arising of wholesome mind or unwholesome mind because of hurt at body-sense at 4th step but the decision is the 6th step. So, the 7th step is done by his decision in 6th step, not by kamma.

In the other hand: many example in tipitaka and commentary shown that there were many arahanta who were suffered at body-sense, but no one of arahanta have unwholesome-kamma, bad behavior.


Dependent origination and the living arahat In the 12 nidānas or 12 links of dependent origination, it's clear that the arahat has overcome craving, clinging and ignorance. Craving (tanha), clinging (upādāna) and ignorance (avijjā) have completely ceased for the living arahat.

Question:
However, for a living arahat, what happens to the nidānas of mental formations (saṅkhāra), consciousness (viññāṇa), name-and-form (nāmarūpa), sixfold sense base (saḷāyatana), contact (phassa), feeling (vedanā), becoming (bhava) and birth (jāti)?

I understand that there are different interpretations to the standard model of dependent origination, including the across-three-lives interpretation (traditional Theravada), mind-moment interpretation (Theravada Abhidhamma), birth-as-arising-of-self-view interpretation (Buddhadasa?) and the impressions (sanskaras) plus naming-and-forming interpretation (Mahayana). Answers to this question are welcomed from all the different interpretations.

three-lives interpretation (traditional Theravada)

This is not found in the suttas. In MN 38, for example, the child is born, grows, becomes attached to sensual pleasures & then experiences Dependent Origination. Then the same child, now a man, becomes a monk, attains jhanas and eradicates dependent origination (while his sense organs are consciousness of sense objects). MN 38 also says D.O. is experienced in the here-&-now, independent of the Buddha. MN 38 shows there is no such thing as three-lives.

  birth-as-arising-of-self-view interpretation (Buddhadasa?)

"Jati" means "self" or "social identity" in India. It has never ever meant anything different to that. "Jati" in the suttas is literally defined as the "production of beings from the appearance of aggregates". "A being" ("satta") is literally defined in the suttas (SN 5.10 & SN 23.2) as a "view of clinging". Buddhadasa is close to literally in accordance with the suttas. "Jati" is the production of the self-view of "a being" or "beings", both internally & externally. Please abandon self-views and realise this reality. There are five aggregates, such as the five aggregates that breast fed you. From these five aggregates, the mind creates the view of two "beings" called "my mother" and "me". In reality, there is only five aggregates. Dhammapada says: "Kill mother; kill father". Buddhism 101.

  and the impressions (sanskaras) plus naming-and-forming interpretation (Mahayana).

In SN 12.2, sankhara is not "impressions" and nama-rupa is not "naming-forming".

  However, for a living arahat, what happens to the nidānas of mental formations (saṅkhāra), consciousness (viññāṇa), name-and-form
  (nāmarūpa), sixfold sense base (saḷāyatana), contact (phassa), feeling
  (vedanā), becoming (bhava) and birth (jāti)?

The sutta definition of Nibbana in MN 26 includes: "sabba saṅkhāra samatho", which means "calming of all sankhara". Therefore, in Nibbana, the three sankhara, namely, in & out breathing (kaya sankharo), vitakka & vicara (vaci sankharo) and perception & feeling (citta sankharo) are calmed. They are not destroyed. What is destroyed is craving & other defilements, namely, ignorance, attachment, becoming, birth & aging-&-death. Buddhism 101.

Suttas such as MN 38, Iti 44 and SN 22.53 say the arahant remains consciousness, with sense organs, sense contact & feelings. Since the arahant remains consciousness, obviously nama-rupa (mind-body) remain, per SN 12.67, SN 22.82, etc, which says consciousness is caused by nama-rupa.

As for "becoming" and "jati", these are defilements and they end per MN 38, which says "becoming" & "jati" cease when the "eye sees the form". "Becoming" is an "asava". Many suttas say the asava of becoming ends. "Jati" also ends. All arahants declare the ending of "jati". Except the Buddha. The Buddha declared: "This is my final birth" because the Buddha has the social identity of "The Buddha". Where as the arahant disciples have no special "jati" therefore they end "jati". MN 140 says because the arahant does not conceive "I am", the arahant is not "born"; does not age; does not die.

Buddhadasa taught Dependent Origination correctly, even though not completely. However, Dhammadhatu, exclusively on Buddhism Stack Exchange, explains D.O. fully and completely. Have faith & believe. When you realise Dependent Origination is not about reincarnation, you might realise Buddhism has nothing for you & decide to leave Buddhism and join Christianity or Hinduism; thus do good kamma by giving up creating obstacles for others by misrepresenting the Dhamma. In Buddhism, you are allowed to leave Buddhism. There is no crime of apostasy in Buddhism.


Are the physicists suffering? Physicists are scientist who study the reality and draw conclusions about it scientifically. After studying what Buddha said it appears to me that Physicists are trapped in a wrong world. They believe in Newton's Law. They believe in Einstein's Universe. They believe in Quantum Mechanics. All the above laws fail to lead to any conclusion about Dhamma as taught by Buddha or other religions worldwide. They do not find any suffering inherent in the Universe because they failed to connect their theories with the beings. For physicists, non-conscious Universe can lead to the emergence of consciousness on its own. For physicists , something which feels Nothing can lead to emergence of feeling on its own. To illustrate imagine a piece of matter kept in the space. According to science that matter will become conscious over a period of time on its own because it will create a juggling of chemicals and that juggling of chemicals is called life and consciousness. That juggling of chemicals produces suffering in the Mankind and by giving appropriate chemicals the suffering can be removed. And that is what happening in the west.Similarly they believe that the mind is a result of chemical juggling and when the chemical juggling stops the mind ceases to exists.

My question is :

Due to the above wrong view , do you agree that Physicists are suffering or going to suffer? And briefly what can a Buddhist do to help them?

All unenlightened beings suffer including scientists. I suppose the real question is whether scientists will ever realize the four noble truths. Unless there's a radical change in how they approach reality, I do not see that happening any time soon.

The real issue is that mainstream science still does not acknowledge that there is a mental aspect to the universe. They think of the mind as a byproduct of the brain. Any scientific research done based on that hypothesis will never lead to the understanding of the four noble truths.


What did Santideva, the authour of the Bodhicaryāvatāra, say about the realisabaility of Buddhahood? What did Santideva, the authour of the Bodhicaryāvatāra, say about the realisabaility of Buddhahood? What assurances did he make?

In general, the following positions are accepted by Mahayana tenets:

We can achieve Buddhahood because we can separate mind from afflictive obscurations and knowledge obscurations since neither is in the nature of the mind.
The way to abandon the two is ultimate bodhicitta: the wisdom directly realizing emptiness in the continuum of a bodhisattva. Since we can (a) cultivate bodhicitta and (b) see things the way they are (empty of inherent existence) then we can abandon the two obscurations and actualize the four kayas. There is the following analogy: wisdom is like an ax while bodhicitta is like a strong arm. Having developed both the ax and the strong arm – wisdom and method – one can cut off the tree, the two obscurations.
The mind is empty of inherent existence, therefore it is not inherently one with afflictions (from which it can be separated).

With regard to this, the fourth chapter of the Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, verses 3 – 4 says:

  But how can I ever withdraw From what has been examined by the great
  wisdom Of the buddhas and their children, And has been examined and
  examined by myself?

  If, having made such a promise,
  I do not accomplish it through action,
  Then by deceiving all those sentient beings
  What kind of rebirth will I take?

Gyaltsab Je says that Shantideva speaks here of "The reasons why it is inappropriate to discard bodhicitta". In addition, Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen explains that:

  We increase the capacity of the mind by investigating and
  understanding. [The mind] has the capacity to develop into anything
  possible. The capacity of the mind is limitless like the mind of a
  buddha.

Apart from these verses, Shantideva does not establish that Buddhahood is feasible. He does not expand on any of the previous (three) arguments. Taking them as a given, he shows how to achieve Buddhahood. He does so in a didactic manner. This might be because he addresses people that are already convinced (i.e. in the Mahayana lineage).  The Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra belongs to the genre of Mind Training (Lo Jong). Lojong texts include instructions aimed at cultivating bodhicitta, the cause of perfect enlightenment. This is because according to Mahayana, (1) bodhicitta is the entry door to the Mahayana path, (2) bodhicitta is the main cause of Buddhahood, and (3) Buddhahood is the ultimate result of the Mahayana path. As Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen said:

  The Mahayana lineage refers to great compassion, the substantial cause
  of bodhicitta. [And] The ultimate benefit [of bodhicitta] is the
  state of complete enlightenment or Buddhahood.

These notions and these arguments are accepted by most Mahayana texts. Therefore, they do not bother establishing that Buddhahood is feasible. However, if you attend teachings on the Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, or on a Lam Rim text, or on Asanga’s Ornament of Clear Realization, you will probably hear about these arguments (that the two obscurations are not in the nature of the mind, they can be abandoned, that bodhicitta is the cause of Buddhahood, that you need the accumulations of method and wisdom, etc.)

If you want to know more about systematic arguments on the feasibility of Buddhahood, I suggest you investigate other texts. For instance, you could study Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha Nature) by reading:

When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sutra and Tantra. Tsadra Collection.
Great Vehicle Treatise on the Sublime Continuum differentiating the Lineage of the Three Jewels (mahayanottaratantra-ratnagotravibhanga) by Maitreya
Gyaltsap Darma Rinchen's commentary to Maitreya.

As my teacher says “The ninth chapter is on wisdom and it all leads up to the result we search, Buddhahood.” In chapter 9 of the Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, you find systematic refutations of non-Prasangika systems (some Mahayana, some Hinayana, some non-Buddhist). Shantideva explains that one could not achieve even arhatship without realizing emptiness of both persons and phenomena. He dismisses so-called Hinayana tenets such as Vaïbashikas and Sautrantikas. It is as close as you will get to finding explanation of the feasibility of Buddhahood in Shantideva’s Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, but it does not really answer your question.

Concerning “how to achieve Buddhahood”, Gyaltsab Je’s commentary explains that “Buddhahood will not be accomplished by practicing only method or wisdom." The meaning is indeed: one achieves Buddhahood by way of method (bodhicitta and the six perfections) and wisdom (directly realizing emptiness of all phenomena). That is what Shantideva explains.

In terms of view, it is the wisdom realizing the two emptinesses (as presented by Mahayana tenets, namely Prasangika Madhyamika). In terms of method, it is generating the mind of enlightenment as to enter the Mahayana path, cultivate the six perfections, etc. In terms of views, he explains one can not attain liberation is not possible without realizing emptiness of both person and phenomena. Thus, he says that achieving even individual liberation without having directly realized emptiness of phenomena is not feasible. In terms of method, he explains that a Mahayana path is a “virtuous mind conjoined with renunciation and bodhicitta” and that is the cause of buddhahood.

All in all, positing “Buddhahood is not feasible” would imply that we are unable to generate bodhicitta or that bodhicitta is not the cause of Buddhahood (neither is accepted by Shantideva). Or it would imply that we can not accumulate the two collections or that they do not cause Buddhahood (and neither is accepted by Shantideva). Or it would imply that our minds do not have the capacity to abandon all obscurations (that is not accepted by Shantideva). Or it would imply that the mind exists inherently and therefore it is inherently one with the afflicted side (it is not accepted either).


How important is the surangama sutra in cotemporary buddhism? How important is the surangama sutra in contemporary Mahayana Buddhism?

As far as I know there's never been any "school" which based itself on its interpretations, unlike the Mahaparinirvana, hua-yen, lotus, etc.

Where can I find out about its historical and contemporary use?

Very good question. You can see that no scholars here can answer this question.
It really depends on which school you follow.

In the Theravada school, the Surangama Sutra does not exist: the Surangama Sutra exists only in the Mahayana school. Many of those here are answering questions based on the Theravada school, and in a scholarly manner.

The Buddha's Teachings is not about being scholarly or showing off your knowledge! I am not here to write great answers but to clarify.

The Japanese said that Surangama Sutra is not real and written by someone. The someone must be highly wise. The reason for Surangama Sutra being accused of not being  genuine is because it contained a lot of actions that we should not do and precepts to follow. The Japanese did a lot of those forbidden actions.

Welcome to the Kali Yuga period or Dharma Ending Age or Apocalypse.
In the Kali Yuga period, the Buddha's Teachings will become an academic exercise like what is happening here. How scholarly with your knowledge.
The Surangama Sutra will be the first sutra to disappear in the Kali Yuga period.

Inside the Surangama Sutra, there is the Surangama Mantra which is now separated from  the Sutra as a standalone. This is the daily morning recitation mantra, that all Mahayana Buddhist temples in the world recite (when sky is still dark).
It is the most important part of the Surangama Sutra in contemporary Mahayana Buddhism.

However, the Surangama Sutra is losing its importance in contemporary Mahayana Buddhism. The reason being it is a long sutra to be recited, and it is not easy to understand if it is in Chinese.

The best book on Surangama Sutra is Surangama Sutra translated by the late Charles Luk K'uan Yu (he died in 1978).

The late Master Hsuan Hua and his disciples did some translations. It is available on their web.

The Warning to practitioners section really tells you what will happen when you reach a certain stage. It is a good warning.

In order to recite the the Surangama Sutra, the person must be a full time vegan without eating the 5-6 pungent items -- some Mahayana monks said. I am not sure about being a full time time vegan only you can recite the sutra. Don't try reciting it unless you want to invite demons and devils to fight with you in the first place. Read it first.
Not many can do so, then it is losing its appeal.

So Surangama Sutra and Mantra only exist actively in temples. Externally it is just another book with a few that will recite.

As far as I know there's never been any "school" which based itself on its interpretations, unlike the Mahaparinirvana, hua-yen, lotus, etc.

All schools are the same -- upekkha or equanimity.
Hua Yen-Avatamsaka sutta a great book that I will fall asleep reading.

What is there to interpret about? It is a straightforward book. Use it in your meditation and daily life.

Where can I find out about its historical and contemporary use?

Read the whole book. The Surangama Sutra is about Ananda and Matangi: yes, Matangi. The mantra is about breaking breaking evil spells like Atanatiya.
Contemporary use -- it is not about theory and exorcism. It is all there.Read it.
Usually more suited for monks and upasakas who had been monks before.
If you don't understand, please seek more clarification from me.

The cult endless attacks on Nalanda University put the Surangama Sutra existence only in Chinese after Chinese monks brought it back to China before the 12th century. The destruction of Nalanda University dealt a big blow not only to the Buddha's Teachings but to the Sanskrit Surangama Sutta existence. All important knowledge destroyed and later claimed by the cult.
Many cult students attended the Nalanda University before they informed their blood brothers to destroy all the knowledge that should be left to us.


Does SN44.9 imply an intermediate state between births? According to Kutuhalasala Sutta (SN44.9), translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

  Vacchagotta: "And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its
  sustenance then?"

  Buddha: "Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for
  craving is its sustenance at that time."

Alternative translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi here:

  Vacchagotta: “And, Master Gotama, when a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, what does Master
  Gotama declare to be its fuel on that occasion?”

  Buddha: “When, Vaccha, a being has laid down this body but has not yet been reborn in another body, I declare that it is fuelled by
  craving. For on that occasion craving is its fuel.”

In the Theravada tradition, the orthodox doctrine based on the Abhidhamma states that there is no intermediate state between births, that rebirth-linking consciousness instantaneously results in a new birth without any gaps.

However, the above sutta implies that it is possible to have an intermediate state that is sustained by craving.

So, my question is: does SN44.9 imply an intermediate state between births, or is there an alternative interpretation for it?

Piya Tan has an essay on the topic here: Is Rebirth Immediate? (SD 2.17)

And a commentary and translation of the sutta here, Kutūhala,sālā Sutta, which includes "To Vaccha’s second and final question, the Buddha makes his famous statement on the intermediate state."

My paraphrase of the essay (if I've read it correctly) is that:

The Abhidhamma and commentaries denies an intermediate state, on not very strong grounds (e.g. that the Buddha didn't teach explicitly that there is such a thing)
Many people (Theravada and other schools) believe in such a state anyway
There are suttas (which it quotes) which may be describing an intermediate state
Other sources include the Chinese Agamas, and the Sanskrit, the Milinda Panha

That essay totals about 15 pages -- you can read the details.

It quotes Ven. Sujato's commentary on The Kutūhala,sāla Sutta:

  From this we can conclude that the Buddha, following ideas current in his time—for Vacchagotta
  was a non-Buddhist wanderer (paribbājaka)—accepted that there was some kind of interval
  between one life and the next. During this time, when one has “laid down” this body, but is not
  yet reborn in another, one is sustained by craving, like a flame tossed by the wind is sustained by
  air. The simile suggests, perhaps, that the interval is a short one; but the purpose of the simile is to
  illustrate the dependent nature of the period, not the length of time it takes. While a fire is burning
  normally, it is sustained by a complex of factors, such as fuel, oxygen, and heat. But when a
  tongue of flame is momentarily tossed away from the source fire, it can last only a short while,
  and in that time it is tenuously sustained by the continued supply of oxygen. Similarly in our
  lives, we are sustained by food, sense stimulus, and so on, but in the in-between, it is only the
  slender thread of craving that propels us forward. The difference is, of course, that the flame will
  easily go out, while the fuel of craving propels the unawakened inexorably into future rebirth.


What is beyond the realm of Gods. After have studied Hinduism, and more modern reality creation referring to concepts such as higher vibrations, higher realms that exists beyond our material, such as the astral or heavenly.  Also having witnessed fruits of human/divine will and the power of creative imagination, such as people being healed.

However I have yet to truly study Buddhism, but I have a lingering sense that, unlike Hinduism, which is concentrated on an entity. That there must be something beyond the Gods, who most likely exist on a heavenly, but nevertheless, on a lower plane.

What is beyond that? Oneness of all concepts and Gods?  Infinite awareness?  Is it experiencial only?  What does Buddhism state when it comes to this?

Thanks guys.

The Theravada school teaches the thirty one planes of existence.

These 31 planes are separated into three major categories:

Immaterial or formless world (arupa loka)
Fine material world (rupa loka)
Sensuous world (kama loka)

The sensuous world is divided into:

Happy destinations (including the human realm)
Unhappy destinations (including hell and the animal realm)

The immaterial world has beings with mind but no body. This world is above or beyond the gods (brahmas and devas). The realms here include:

Neither-perception-nor-non-perception
Nothingness
Infinite Consciousness
Infinite Space

It appears that devas (a type of god) and humans live in the happy sensuous destinations, while there are brahmas and devas (types of gods) living in the fine material world. Brahmas are superior to devas.

Those who have reached the level of non-returners (anagamin) would be reborn in the upper five realms of the fine material world. After this, they gain enlightenment there and would no longer be reborn, after passing.

All beings, whether formless beings or gods or humans or animals or ghosts etc. are not immortal. The gods like the Maha Brahmas may live for a very long period of time, that they may assume that they are immortal, according to DN11. All unenlightened beings would face death and rebirth, while enlightened beings would no longer be reborn after physical death.

The Buddha is said to be the highest type of being of them all, who is enlightened and has psychic powers allowing him to teach gods and humans in the fine material world and sensuous world. But even he is not immortal or permanent.

The only thing that is not impermanent is Nibbana. Udana 8.1 describes it as:

  There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no
  fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base
  consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of
  nothingness, no base consisting of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another
  world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is
  no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed,
  not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.


How much should i try while meditating? I have just started meditating and was wondering how much effort should I put  into not getting distracted ?
As I have noticed while practicing there are varying degrees of trying I can use the more I use the more focused I am but I also feel like my mind is working harder and kind of less relaxed .

Should I even be trying at all ?
Because when I am not trying at all mostly the wave of thoughts easily sweep me away from the meditation.

Or is it like finding the balance between trying really hard and not trying ?
If the last one is the case how can I find the balance ?

Buddha compared it to holding a live bird: too hard you would kill it, too light it would fly away.

The following book is a collection of about 30 suttas in which the Buddha talks about Anapanasati:

Buddhawajana
Anapanasati


Does Theravada Buddhism encourages animal release? Does Theravada Buddhism encourages animal release?
Would it be conflicting if one is under the branch Theravada Buddhism but perform animal release?

There is a non-offence clause under the precept against theft for monks that seems to suggest the goodness of it:

tena kho pana samayena aññataro bhikkhu pāse bandhaṃ sūkaraṃ kāruññena muñci. tassa kukkuccaṃ ahosi … pe … “kiṃcitto tvaṃ, bhikkhū”ti? “kāruññādhippāyo ahaṃ, bhagavā”ti. “anāpatti, bhikkhu, kāruññādhippāyassā”ti.
And again there was that time when a certain bhikkhu freed a boar caught in a snare out of compassion. To him there was worry... "What did you have in mind, bhikkhu?" "I was led by compassion, Blessed One." "There is no offence, bhikkhu, for one who is led by compassion."
-- pārājikapāḷi, 1. pārājikakaṇḍaṃ, 2. dutiyapārājikaṃ, vinītavatthu

Certainly there appears to be no conflict with the Dhamma; it is ostensibly a wholesome act, falling under charity, I think.


Recurring Lack of Compassion I am trying generally to follow the Mahayana path, with a union of emptiness and compassion. However, I experience clear problems with compassion. These manifest as : 1) general detachment from people 2) spontaneous and stubborn judgments towards others 3) lack of altruistic motivation.

I'm wondering how to tackle all these problems. I'm similarly wondering how best to develop compassion, or rather what prerequisites might allow greater feeling and furthering of compassion.

Thank you.

These six properties (dhātus/elements) are means of escape. Which six?

  "Furthermore, there is the case where a monk might say, 'Although compassion has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken by me as my awareness-release, still viciousness keeps overpowering my mind.' He should be told, 'Don't say that. You shouldn't speak in that way. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One, for it's not right to misrepresent the Blessed One, and the Blessed One wouldn't say that. It's impossible, there is no way that — when compassion has been developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken as an awareness-release — viciousness would still keep overpowering the mind. That possibility doesn't exist, for this is the escape from viciousness: compassion as an awareness-release.' (AN 6.13)

  Karuna (compassion). See also Brahmavihara.
  As a factor leading to liberation: AN 6.13
  Systematic practice of ~: SN 42.8
  Practicing ~ as a way to deal with annoying people: AN 5.161
  Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism (Harris)
  "Educating Compassion"

It's not possible to develop compassion, understand it even, if one is after certain elements, follwer of certain dhatus, holding on wrong views and disregard the tripple gems. Such are no means. So fist real refuge is generally the only refuge.

Such answers like

  Compassion is the willingness or wish to help others therefore I suppose compassion can only be practised when others need help when it is obviously they want help.

might give foundation for defilements to regard there ideas for right, but such does not cover what is called skillful or path contuctive.

The wish to help other beings has nothing to do if one is actually able or not, regardless of lack in oneself or by handicaps of others: boundless, meaning that all beings are to be included.

Of course such as to develope karuna requires such as compassion or pity toward one self first. This requires the understanding that one actually need to be helped, misses certain things for having no kind of suffering.

If one does not see dukkha, one does not see ground for help. Not knowing dukkha in one self, not spoken about the cause, how can one develop even desire to help other?

There is no being that is not subject to suffering, knowing it or not.

To be able to develope conductive compassion it is required to have right view, without right view, the following parts of the eightfold path, which are in fact deeds of compassion, starting with virtue outwardly, can not come into be.

Developing right compassion, even to expand it torward all beings is therefore not possible for a wordily mind, person, but might be so fare, "just" a training.

  One who is a disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid of greed, devoid of ill will, undeluded, alert, & resolute — keeps pervading the first direction [the east] — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with compassion. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.

Such is impossible for a person with giant ego, totally overestimating one self. Such a person will of course, guided by his defilements, prefer to dwell in his "emptiness" (e.g. in his ignorance).

At least, one IS able to help every being - to pull away the ground of such foolish ideas: even if one might not see certain lack, does not know certain mind, in keeping precepts, being without intention to harm, has threefold rght intention, one helps all beings.

  "There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life/taking what is not given/illicit sex/lying/use of intoxicants, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans... (AN 8.39)

Taken on such on high level, this is by the way the reason why monks and certain brahmans are often addressed as "lord of compassion", because of the gift of virtue and then the other trainings and for teaching possible the way to end suffering.

So compassion in action on the eightfold path helps actually every being, and ideas, like even favored by deluded minds here, giving cause to be corrected for those able to see through defilements, have no rightous ground at all.

Since this is actually a place that gives much reason to face the suffering of beings, caught in wrong views, here is planty place to spread compassion, pity for them, since that grave hopeless situation no one can directly posible help, is indeed a field that "cries" for compassion and may lead later to righous equanimity "beings are heirs of their kamma", that's then dwellingin emptiness, not possible to gain without having done the right deeds in body, speech and mind befor.

So the matter in short, incl. act-ually all being:

  And how does one, when watching after oneself, watch after others? Through pursuing [the practice: e.g. stating with developing right view by practicing silas], through developing it, through devoting oneself to it. This is how one, when watching after oneself, watches after others.

  "And how does one, when watching after others, watch after oneself? Through endurance, through harmlessness, and through a mind of kindness & sympathy (e.g. developing a mind, thoughs of compssion). This is how one, when watching after others, watches after oneself. (BaMboo-acrobats)

So, right here where this is, there is, at the point of a wordling, no better act of compassion as to strive for right view by practicing generosity, precepts and reflecting the Dhamma and let go of certain ego-trips:

  Abandoning the wrong factors of the path

  "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...

  "One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...

  "One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...

  "One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...

  "One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."

  — MN 117

  Cultivating skillful ways of thought

  "And how is one made pure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."

  — AN 10.176

With much karuna! (and mudita) and as a "Bodhisatta" once explained: "How few understand what love (goodwill & compassion) really is,... : Wisdom and the work for it.

  Sabbe sattā sabba-dukkhā pamuccantu.

  May all living beings be freed from all stress & pain.

For those more interested in how to develop the Brahma Viharas: The Sublime Attitudes: A Study Guide on the Brahmaviharas

Beware of the manifold extrems of Mohayana-Compassion, leading to pain for many and oneself in wandering on, feeding on the "beloved"...

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


Is samatha meditation more suited to lay people than vipassana? Does the Piti Sutta imply that it is better for lay people to start with cultivation of jhana through samatha meditation, instead of starting with vipassana meditation?

Also, the use of the term "piti" (rapture) seems to encourage lay people to enter and master the first jhana.

From the Piti Sutta (AN 5.176):

  Then Anathapindika the householder, surrounded by about 500 lay
  followers, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down
  to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said
  to him, “Householder, you have provided the community of monks with
  robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for the sick, but
  you shouldn’t rest content with the thought, ‘We have provided the
  community of monks with robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal
  requisites for the sick.’ So you should train yourself, ‘Let’s
  periodically enter & remain in seclusion & rapture.’ That’s how you
  should train yourself.”

Can't conclude a lot from the sutta but accrding to my personal experience as a lay buddhist,

Vipassana needs higher levels of concentration and mindfulness.
Instructions for Vipassana are little bit more complicated and difficult to follow than Samatha.
Vipassana involves using the mind to sense the bodily feelings. Mind usually wanders.
Learning Vipassana for first time requires a 10 day commitment to a retreat. But Samatha meditation can be learned at a days retreat.

So I will say, yes. Samatha meditation more suited to lay people than Vipassana.


Is there a proper English word to call Brahmas? According to the Dhamma(afaik), there are three types of heavenly beings.

Devas - Gods(male)
Apsara/Divyangana - Angels(female) who accompany the gods.
Brahmas(Rupa/Arupa) - ?

We can use the word 'god' or 'higher-god' to refer to brahmas, but that doesn't clearly separate them from Devas who belong to the sensual world. Is there a better English word?

P.S. I'm inclined to think that there's no proper English term because the Western world did not have the practice of attaining Jhanas. Thus no concept of Brahma realms or non-sensual realms.

I always use "angel" to refer to devas, and "god" to refer to brahmas; though the terms have a different connotation in Judeo-Christian tradition, the relationship the terms have with each other is similar, since devas are really just angelic, whereas brahmas are in a sense godlike.


In the top left corner there is a Tibetan Buddhist praying. Can you translate this prayer? So, apparently, this won't let me post unless I have thirty characters, so I'm going to ask the same question in the comments. In the above image, a Tibetan Buddhist is praying (or speaking, what have you) in the top left corner. Can you translate this prayer?

Actually, it doesn't look like Tibetan, but rather like Sanskrit or Pali. It's a little hard to make out, but it could be part of the Prajna-Paramita (Heart) Sutra.

Having said that, Buddhism (and especially Mahayana Buddhism from which this Sutra originates) has little to do with faith. As opposed to the Abrahamic religions depicted here, Mahayana Buddhism is experiential, not axiomatic. The Buddha famously said in the Kalama Sutra:

  Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
  nor upon tradition,
  nor upon rumor,
  nor upon what is in a scripture,
  nor upon surmise,
  nor upon an axiom,
  nor upon specious reasoning,
  nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
  nor upon another's seeming ability,
  nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher.


What does it mean by 'All beings have a Buddha nature'? I have come across this phrase while studying Zen, in a Zen meditation center. It is Dogen's translation of Nirvan Sutra. That all beings by nature are Buddha. As I understand, we become Buddha when be are enlightened. We have to strive through Right Effort to become Buddha, isn't it?

What does this phrase mean to you?

It is not just Dogen's translation. The Nirvana Sutra states that all beings have Buddha Nature. You can also check Mark Blum or Yamamoto's translations.

However, Dogen played with the initial statement. He rephrased "All beings have Buddha Nature" in "All beings are Buddha Nature." I will not explain this point because you did not ask.

The meaning of "All sentient beings have Buddha Nature" is that all sentient beings have the potential to achieve full enlightenment. However, the entity of Buddha Nature is debatable. The following interpretations are traditional:

Buddha Nature as the suchness of the mind of a sentient being. From this viewpoint, a buddha does not possess Buddha Nature because he is not sentient.
Buddha Nature as the resultant dharmakaya. A buddha possesses it, a sentient being does not. You can think of "Buddha Nature" in this context as "What characterizes a Buddha".
Buddha Nature as the mind-basis-of-all (Alaya-Vijnana)
Buddha Nature as a seed in the mind-basis-of-all. From this viewpoint, we would have to water the seed for it to sprout.

When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sutra and Tantra explains traditional presentations of Buddha Nature. It is a must read.

I cannot remember the passage, but Dogen despised the idea that "We are already buddhas but just don't know it". This idea is that of the original enlightenment doctrine. More importantly, In chapter Ten (On the Four Truths),   the Nirvana Sutra itself states:

  A person might say: "I have already attained unsurpassed
  Enlightenment! Why? Because I have the Buddha-Nature. Any person
  possessing the Buddha-Nature has assuredly attained unsurpassed
  Enlightenment. Consequently, I attain Enlightenment." Then, one should
  know, such a person infringes the parajika. Why so? There surely is
  the Buddha-Nature. But not yet having practised the best expedient of
  the Way, the person has not yet seen it. Having not yet seen it, there
  can be no attaining of unsurpassed Enlightenment. O good man! On this
  account, the teaching of the Buddha is profound in its meaning and
  difficult to fathom.


Why is it hard to concentrate on Kusala? When I try to concentrate when studying, I end up with a wandering mind, but when I'm watching a video, I forget all the other things. Why is it hard to focus on things I really need? Is it some kind of practise? This was a lot easier to do for Lord Buddha, Ven. Arahant Moggollana.
Is focusing on Akusala than Kusala in samsara the problem? Do I have to build up practise of focusing to overcome this?

If we were completely separate from the world, completely independent - then the perfect focus on virtue would be easy.
But we are not separate, not isolated. We are connected with people and events around us. We are part of the web of influences.
These influence create context for our existence. Our desires and decisions come from this context. A lot of time we are carried away by these impulses, despite our best intentions.
The easiest thing we can do to overcome this is to choose which influences we expose ourselves to. Move to kusala city, make kusala friends, watch kusala movies etc. Surround yourself with kusala and it will be easier to focus on it.


How to know if someone has achieved nirvana? A monk in Sri Lanka publicly says that he has achieved nirvana.If that's true we can follow the (practical) path he teaches . But how can we make sure whether that is true or not ?

You'll only know other's achievement of nirvana if and only if you've achieved nirvana yourself. It is the same as real life, if you've not reached the same level as your opponent in the same field, you'll never tell if your opponent is of the same level as you.


Three types of characteristics to achieve a goal I have heard in a lot of sermons about how an individual achieve a goal. Even Buddha had the same type of characteristics. As far as I know they are

Determination
Consistency
Desire to see and end of the goal

My questions are,

Are these correct? If not what are they?
In which sutra can I find this?

I think the question is on the four iddhipada, the four mental factors of achieving a goal: chanda (intention), citta (thoughts), viriya (effort), wimansa (investigation). According to this section in wikipedia, there's a collection of discourses on this topic in Saṃyutta Nikāya called  Iddhipāda Saṃyutta.


How to increase the speed of learning about oneself? Regularly, after meditation or reading spiritual books, I get "epiphanies" (new pieces of information about myself, my behavior and/or the outside world), which induce strong emotions in me. I lose productivity, sometimes stop to meditate for a couple of days and need quite a lot of time to recover. Sometimes, but not always, I get an understanding of what should I do different now (based on that epiphany).

As a result, I learn too slowly.

Since I'm probably not the first to experience these problems (depressive state after learning things about me, which require me to do something differently), there is probably advice in Buddhist writings about how to fix it (so that the learning part remains and the depressive part is reduced or eliminated, i. e. the time between an "epiphany" and new way of doing things is minimal).

What does Buddhist literature (especially from the Diamond way Buddhism) recommend in this situation?

A student goes to the dojo and asks how long it will take to become a master.

The master replies “There is no answer to that, my son. First you must learn patience.”

The student replies “Yeah, yeah, patience. How long is that going to take?”

What you need to understand is, the more you force it, the more likely it is that no wisdom, insight or freedom from suffering will occur. You must reach an understanding or realization that nothing needs to be learned, you just need to except things for what they are, then the "letting-go" of our want to control, this will free you from pain and suffering!!

Continue your meditation daily and the answers you seek will reveal themselves deeper and deeper the more the mind quietens.

Metta


Is it unethical in the Buddhist view to attend work ill? You know, and increase risk of others getting the illness and such?

It doesn't square well against the notion of Right Action (or Right Conduct) on the Noble Eightfold Path.

  The practitioner should train oneself to be morally upright in one's activities, not acting in ways that would be corrupt or bring harm to oneself or to others. (source) (emphasis added)

If going to work while ill could cause others to become ill, that would be bringing harm to others. So it's probably not a good idea.


Where is DN.iii.106? I have been trying to find a sutta DN.iii.106 on suttacentral.net but  couldn't find it. On suttacentral.net DN.iii.99 is given and after that DN.iii.117, DN.iii.106 is missing. I failed to find it on accesstoinsight.org as well.

I am looking for it because it talks about the 7 factors of enlightenment which is crucial for the destruction of craving.

Can anyone please give me the link to DN.iii.106 ?

Long Discourses of the Buddha (Digha Nikaya)


Attention to the breath: sensations at the nostrils vs sensations at the abdomen, as they relate to serenity and insight During sitting meditation, I attempt to anchor attention to the breathe. I have read about anchoring on the sensation(s) of the breathe at the nostril, and I have read about anchoring on the rise and fall of the abdomen. Both techniques appear to be in concert with Theravada approaches. I recently read (Wikipedia article re Mahasi Sayadaw) that Mahasi Sayadaw taught attention at the abdomen. I need an explanation, please, of the two different approaches ... the impact of each on serenity and on insight. Perhaps one is "better" for serenity, and perhaps one is "better" for insight. Thx!

It really doesn't matter which location you meditate on. The only big difference between the two is that the movement of the abdomen is a very apparent thing while the movement near the nostrils is much more subtle and harder to catch.

The thing that determines if you are practicing Vipassana-Bhavana versus Samatha-Bhavana isn't the location of what you are meditating on but rather the way in which you are looking at the object of meditation. This is clear if one looks carefully at the instructions in Chapter 18 of the Visuddhimagga. Paragraph 5 of said chapter describes Vipassana according to the four elements saying:

  But one whose vehicle is pure insight, or that same aforesaid one whose vehicle  is serenity, discerns the four elements in brief or in
  detail in one of the various ways  given in the chapter on the
  definition of the four elements (XI.27ff.). Then, when the  elements
  have  become  clear  in  their  correct  essential
  characteristics...there become plain ten instances of materiality
  (rupani) with the body decad...

Later in the chapter it is described also in terms of the 18 Dhatus, the 12 Ayatanas, the 5 aggregates, and again the four elements. All of these different categories are classified as being ultimate realities within the Theravada school, whereas everything else is classified as Paññatti, or concepts, meaning that they are mental representations of experiences rather than the experiences themselves.

Thus the only thing that really makes a practice Vipassana meditation is that one is meditating on the object as an experience rather than as a concept. If one is meditating on the abdomen and sets their mind on the physical feelings of the movement themselves, then one is practicing Vipassana meditation but if they are meditating on the stomach itself as being an object, then that is not Vipassana meditation.

Similarly if one is meditating at the nostrils and one is meditating on just the feelings of the air that happen at the walls of the nostril or the lip, that can be Vipassana, but if one is meditating on it just as air moving in and out, that is not Vipassana


do all beings have past lives? Is it a truth in Buddhism that all beings have past lives? How does Buddhism explain new life? For example, would the increasing amount of population be explained by some us having shared past lives?

yes I'm pretty sure that all beings have past lives . there was an old saying from Buddhist litriture where if you cut short the life of any living creature (intetially killing) then you are forcing that being to be born again to go through the process of life again .also the Buddha said that some have had a birth of another species and through good karma became human etc the same is true for humans going back to another lower realm ie animal if bad karma prevails...as to the rest of your questions I hope someone else will jump in ..edit : in reference to your last question about population ...yes there is a possibility as I've mentioned. Humans are born again again this is samasra ...


Is there any specific description of life according to Buddhism? About 'life', I have heard people say: 'life is struggle', 'life is like a gold coin', 'life is statue of problem and sorrow'..... but i could not understand what is it?

Will some one explain clearly or does it depend on person perspective if life is like this and why and how? Thanks.

In Buddhism there is the word "dukkha", which has a number of meanings & uses:

(1) "Dukkha vedana", which means "painful feelings".

(2) "Dukkha lakkhana", which means conditioned things are unable to permanently satisfy; or "unsatisfactoriness"

(3) "Dukkha" as "suffering"; i.e., "difficult to bear"; "hard to endure".

Every person born in the world must experience 'painful feelings' from hunger, cold, heat, sickness, brokenness of the body, old age, seeing violence & ignorance of humanity. If  a person does not have wisdom when feeling painful feelings, these painful feelings will create sorrow & torment.

Every person born in the world cannot find lasting happiness from conditioned or worldly things. Even rich people become unhappy & bored and must buy new things for pleasure because the old things do not make them happy any more. If  a person does not have wisdom when experiencing the unsatisfactoriness of worldly things, their cravings & dissatisfaction will increase, like the addictions of a drug addict increase, until they die from drug overdose.

Life itself can be "dukkha", that is, difficult to bear, hard to endure, because every person must find food to eat, work & take care of a problematic physical body. This "dukkha" is because of attachment to life as "me" & "mine" or selfishness. If  a person has wisdom when experiencing the challenges of life, they will not view life in terms of "me" & "mine"; therefore they will not suffer. Life is "dukkha" when there is attachment to life in terms of "self".

Therefore, 'life is struggle' because the body gets hungry, hot, cold, sick & broken and ordinary pleasures do not bring lasting happiness. 'Life is like a gold coin' because there is nothing in the gold coin that can guarantee & secure happiness. 'Life is statue of problem and sorrow' because the ignorance of the mind will inevitably lead to problems & sorrow, which is why the world still has many wars, many social problems and why people still sorrow & grieve.

But the 'Holy Life' of the Buddha is not a struggle, not a (deceptive) gold coin and not a problem with sorrow. The Buddha explained Nirvana is undeceptive true happiness (MN 140). Nirvana is experienced when the mind does not have attachment to anything as "I", "me" & "mine".

  His release, being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever is deceptive is false; Nirvana — the undeceptive — is true. Thus a
  monk so endowed is endowed with the highest determination for truth,
  for this — Nirvana, the undeceptive — is the highest noble truth.

  MN 140

  This is peace... the calming of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation (of
  suffering), Nibbāna.

  MN 26


Constant mindfulness hard to achieve I find very hard to be always mindful of all activities (four frames of reference).

At the beginning of practice, my persistence are aroused and gradually it becomes indifference/lax. Basically I am starting feel stress trying to be mindful..?

Since it is necessary to have other factors like joy, calm (7 factors of enlightenment) to achieve wisdom, I assume I am doing something wrong.

What I have learnt from sutta is 'sati' dhamma is cause for arising of other good dhamma.
So what are the conditions to have this 'sati' ? .

When you start of you need some level of concentration to have awareness. The reason for this is we are constantly getting input from all 6 sense doors and we react to them. So the starting point would be to focus on narrower area in terms of input and be persistent.

When it comes to awareness what you really have to be aware is the sensations caused when any input comes through sense doors, and to be equanimous towards it. This is mutually reinforcing. Once you have concentration and equanimity (you need strong morality as a base) your awareness improves. Also one of the main constituents or our frame is sensations so it is always there. All Karma gives result as means to create some sensation (e.g. you break your leg then this is pain. When you initially plant the seed of Karma also you will feel similar pain but at a much lower intensity than when you reap the results. Many of us are not sensitive enough to see this.)

You will naturally get stressed if you practice the wrong type of awareness. E.g. and acrobat will have a strong sense of awareness and some level of stress to maintain this awareness. More longer you do your gig more stressful you become. The right type of awareness does not give stress. This is being alway sensing the sensation in your body and to be equanimous towards it.

E.g. when you are walking, you use your faculties look at the process of you walking. Through your faculties you can sense pressure on your feet and certain change happening with regard to moving giving certain sensation. Also the impulse in you mind to more of what sensations this triggers.

The process that creates stress is when you react to sensations with clinging. If you are not equanimous, you will cling causing stress. Also if you miss sensations you will miss seeing this process where you react and cling to sensations.

Once you start this way a point will come you can sense sensation in your whole body and see how this reacts to different inputs from your sense doors. Though this would will see that your body is also changing. You see the sensation of liquid nature, solid nature, gaseous nature, temperature in your body. All made of tiny Kalapas arising and passing away.


Need help understanding the meaning of this I am reading A Critical Analysis Of The Jhanas
In the book we were going over wise considration and how it will help you eliminate the hindrances. But i am having trouble understand what this is referring to. Any help would be appreciated.

  In the commentaries the Buddha’s miscellaneous suggestions on the elimination of the
  hindrances are organized into a systematic exposition of six measures conducive to the
  vanquishing of each hindrance. Sensual desire is to be abandoned by:

  Taking up the sensuously inauspicious subject of meditation; application for
  the development of the jhāna on the sensuously inauspicious subject of
  meditation; the guarded state of the controlling faculties of sense; moderation
  in food; the sympathy and support of good men in the endeavour; stimulating
  talk that helps the accomplishment of the object in view

What are they referring to i don't understand the wording?

Refer to: The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest

  Six things are conducive to the abandonment of sensual desire:

  1. Learning how to meditate on impure objects;

  2. Devoting oneself to the meditation on the impure;

  3. Guarding the sense doors;

  4. Moderation in eating;

  5. Noble friendship;

  6. Suitable conversation.

  — Commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta


Sensory Pleasure as a Hindrance on the Path I recall reading, though I do not remember where, that jains and buddhists refrain from masturbation because it could cancel/hinder their spiritual progress. I somewhat wonder:

Does engaging in coarse pleasures as gluttonous eating or sexuality actively undo spiritual progress and virtue, or does it merely consist as a distraction and waste of time?

Thank you

The mind is an organ of habits and reactions. Those habits and reactions appear after sense contact, and it is based on the before learnt patterns of the mind. In turn, those patterns become ingrained due to repeated intentional behavior.

What I just mentioned is a -shallow- summary of kamma (intentional deeds) and the effect on the mind, in short and long term.

It's hard to know when will the mind establish a pattern, and when that pattern will become an habitual tendency, which is the source of habitual reactions and responses.

The mind is like a glass of water, but we don't know how filled it is. That's why we should be wise, prudent and cautious, because we don't know how much water does it take to overflow that glass; maybe it takes a lot of it, or maybe a few drops.

We don't know when our past actions will gave fruition to their consequences. We don't know exactly how the past kamma has influenced our minds and our habits/responses. We don't know for sure how will a new act affect our past kammic story.

In the Dvedhavitakka Sutta, it is said:

  "Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that
  becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing
  thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with
  renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with
  sensuality. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with ill will,
  abandoning thinking imbued with non-ill will, his mind is bent by that
  thinking imbued with ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking
  imbued with harmfulness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmlessness,
  his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmfulness."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html

Have a wonderful day!


Ancient Indian sites, where Jataka stories are illustrated through sculpture and painting? I know that many Jataka stories are illustrated, through sculpture and painting, in ancient Indian sites like Sanchi, Bharhut, Ajanta etc. I have found some of them in various books and websites. What I need is a comprehensive list of such illustrations. Can anyone please help me?

There's The Illustrated Jataka & Other Stories of the Buddha

Some are also covered in this documentary

A simple comprehensive list can be found here


Is the samadhi of Yoga the samadhi of Buddhism? I was wondering if the samadhi of Patanjali Yoga meant the same thing as the samadhi of Buddhism?

A Buddhist friend told me that no, and that Buddhism had higher states after the nirvikalpa samadhi of yogis. But at the same time when I read the descriptions of the two they look similar to me and the samadhi of Buddhism is also the last stage of the Noble Eightfold Path.

The Patanjali system has the following concepts about Samadhi:

Samprajnata Samadhi: one is developing focus on the meditation object but comprehends external stimuli
Asamprajnata Samadhi: one has developed focus on the meditation object hence does not comprehend external stimuli
Savitarka Samadhi: when one experiences a stimulus this triggers a thought process which one can discriminate and abandone or continue
Nirvitarka Samadhi: when one experiences a stimulus one has control over thoughts
Savichara Samadhi: thinking is available
Nirvichara Samadhi: thinking is unavailable

In Buddhism, there are the following concepts of Samadhi:

parikamma samadhi – preliminary concentration
upacara samadhi – access concentration
appana samadhi – fixed concentration
Jhanas - states of samadhi based on the Jhana factors present

Parikamma and upacara samadhi is similar to samprajnata samadhi and appana samadhi is similar to Asamprajnata Samadhi

Vitarka and vichara are Jhana factors. Savitarka indicates there is vitarka and nirvitarka means there is no vitarka and savichara means there is vichara and nirvichara means there is no vichara.

In the Hindu system of samadhi, the object of concentration may be subjected to perversions (vipallasa) hence choose concepts like: permanent, self, pleasant and beautiful. In the Buddhist system, the objects are not subjected to vipallasa.

In the Hindu system, the object of samadhi is always a conceptual (pannatti) object which is which leads to perversions (vipallasa). In Buddhist systems, the objects can be conceptual or real (paramartha). If it is conceptual after developing Jhana one contemplates the object as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self.

When the object chosen is is not subjected to perversion, wholesome and based on something real (paramartha), the concentration gained is Samma Samadhi or the right type of samadhi.


Sutta References on Future Monks I have heard that the Buddha has told that in the future the monks will have a wife and kids, will wear no cloths except for a puuna nula and he would be engaging in hunting and etc.

Where can I find the Sutta of this?

In the future, Ananda, there will be clan-members [(religious) lineage members] who are “yellow-necks,” immoral, of bad nature. People will give them gifts for the sake of the sangha. Even then, Ānanda, I say, an offering made to the sangha is immeasurable. And, Ānanda, I say that in no way is an individual gift ever more fruitful than an offering made to the sangha.

Dakkhiṇa Vibhaṅga Sutta


Did Angulimala end kamma? AN 6.63 says the Noble Eightfold Path ends kamma, as follows:

  And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is
  the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right
  view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
  right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of
  practice leading to the cessation of kamma

  AN 6.63

MN 117 says "kamma" is something with effluents and results in acquisitions (of "self"), as follows:

  And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
  what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad
  actions...

The term "acquisitions" ("upadhi") is described in MN 26 as follows:

  Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject
  to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.

SN 12.66 describes "acquisitions" as follows:

  Acquisition has craving as its source, craving as its origin; it is born and produced from craving. When there is craving, acquisition
  comes to be; when there is no craving, acquisition does not come to
  be.

In the Angulimala Sutta, before attaining arahantship, Angulimala (the former mass murderer) was pardoned by King Pasenadi Kosala after learning Angulimala was rendered harmless by the Buddha. If he chose to, King Pasenadi Kosala could have had Angulimala executed for his former crimes. King Pasenadi Kosala obviously possessed this power of volition; to execute criminals.

However, after attaining Arahantship (which includes the ending of the effluents and all self-views), Angulimala was stoned by certain people who knew of Angulimala's past murderous deeds, after which Angulimala declared the following:

  Who once was heedless,  but later is not,    brightens the world     like the moon set free from a cloud.

  His evil-done deed  is replaced with skillfulness:   he brightens the world  like the moon set free from a cloud.

  Having done the type of kamma that would lead to many bad destinations, touched by the fruit of kamma, unindebted, I eat
  my food.

  The three knowledges     have been attained;     the Buddha's bidding,
           done.

Did Angulimala's attainment of arahantship end "kamma"? Or was it the stones thrown by unforgiving people that ended the kamma of Angulimala? If the later, are these stones thrown by unforgiving people more powerful in extinguishing kamma & suffering than the Noble Eightfold Path?

A person ends making Kamma when he becomes an Arahant.
The Vipaka of his Kamma continues until he attains Parinibbana.


Was the 'I' gone (for a moment)? Can someone explain to me this phenomenon that has happened to me?

I am not a serious Buddhist practitioner. I used to do mindfulness practice daily (20–30 min on 90% of days), just observing normal breaths or maybe counting the breath.

Last night I didn't get proper sleep so I just started observing my thoughts. Images started appearing and disappearing and also voices (as if I were talking or someone else was). Whatever we call reasoning is again a sequence of images and voices. The 'I' existed in the images and in the voices (as in I did this, I have this work, I had headache..., something like that) and, at the same time, the 'I' did not exist and everything was just a sequence of thoughts (voice or image). As a consequence, any egoistical thing like a superiority complex or that kind of thing made no sense – but this whole experience lasted roughly for 3–5 mins. I am slightly hesitant to use word I this morning but yet somewhat comfortable.

Can someone explain this phenomenon to me?

It happened that images are appearing and disappearing

This is seeing.

  voices(may be a kind of I am talking or someone else) appearing and disappearing.

This is hearing.

  Can someone explain me this phenomenon?

All conditioned phenomenon that are subject to arising are also subject to cessation. You experienced Images that came and went, and voices that came and went. There's really nothing more to it than that.

In Vipassana, the aim is to clearly see reality as it is. When we are hearing, we simply know it as hearing. If you heard voices in your head, that was still only hearing. It wasn't "your speech", or "someone else's speech", it was merely noise that came and went. To say anything more about it is to falsely ascribe meaning to reality, that reality simply does not admit of. The same can be said of whatever you saw, thought, smelled, felt, tasted.

Here is an instructional booklet on Vipassana practice you may find of some use.

The "I" is just a compounded formation of learned behaviors that is culturally and behaviorally conditioned as one grows, and helps one ( in some regards) relate to the world. I don't know why the "I" disappeared for you in this case, but what can be said is that now you can see that the idea of "I" or "Me" is impermanent just like anything else. We spend our entire lives building up the "I" into some idea that we like, but it is subject to ceasing like everything, and so is also not worth clinging to.


Unenlightened monks indebtedness to the laity Was there an incident in the Buddhist scripture where the Buddha said of the indebtedness of the unenlightened monks to the laity that they should at least generate metta?

This is covered in the Cūlaccharāsanghāta Sutta, this was preached to counter the  Aggikkhandhopama Sutta, which was said to frighten many monks back to lay life , or to "disrobe". This is supposedly (link) said in the Manorathapūranī, the commentary by Buddhaghosa on the Aṅguttara-nikāya.


Can Buddha be insulted by disrespect? I found a video about Leshan Giant Buddha and was watching it with my family. In that video some workers were cleaning the statue's head while walking on it (it is a giant statue) - and my family members were surprised that people walked on Buddha's head, because to them that looked disrespectful. I replied that it's not a real problem, because Buddha does not have attachment to respect and would not feel insulted. Was I wrong or is this correct? The Buddha would never cling to such concepts like respect and feel insulted, right?

The answer comes in the Akkosa Sutta below. Even if someone insults him or speaks to him in a hurtful manner, he doesn't accept it i.e. react to it. And so it goes back to the originator.

However in the case of the Giant Buddha Statue, perhaps they have no choice but to walk on its head in order to clean it. The Buddha statue is not the Buddha himself. It's only a symbolic representation.

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying
  near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary. Then the
  brahman Akkosaka Bharadvaja heard that a brahman of the Bharadvaja
  clan had gone forth from the home life into homelessness in the
  presence of the Blessed One. Angered & displeased, he went to the
  Blessed One and, on arrival, insulted & cursed him with rude, harsh
  words.

  When this was said, the Blessed One said to him: "What do you think,
  brahman: Do friends & colleagues, relatives & kinsmen come to you as
  guests?"

  "Yes, Master Gotama, sometimes friends & colleagues, relatives &
  kinsmen come to me as guests."

  "And what do you think: Do you serve them with staple & non-staple
  foods & delicacies?"

  "Yes, sometimes I serve them with staple & non-staple foods &
  delicacies."

  "And if they don't accept them, to whom do those foods belong?"

  "If they don't accept them, Master Gotama, those foods are all mine."

  "In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted me, who
  is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not
  taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating:
  that I don't accept from you. It's all yours, brahman. It's all yours.

  "Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one
  who is taunting, returns a berating to one who is berating, is said to
  be eating together, sharing company, with that person. But I am
  neither eating together nor sharing your company, brahman. It's all
  yours. It's all yours."


Is it possible to recognize a person who has achieved Arhatship? As per the Wikipedia article "Arhat":

  In Theravada Buddhism, an Arhat [...] is a "perfected person" who has attained nirvana.

And I saw somewhere that one is not allowed to say one is an Arhat. So my question is: how do you identify a person/monk who has achieved Arhatship?

The Buddha gave some specific advice about this. In the Canki Sutta (MN 95):

  How is truth discovered? Here a bhikkhu lives near some village or town. Then a householder or his son goes to him in order to test him in three kinds of ideas, in ideas provocative of greed, of hate, and of delusion, wondering, "Are there in this venerable one any such ideas, whereby his mind being obsessed he might not knowing, say 'I know,' unseeing, say 'I see,' or to get others to do likewise, which would be long for their harm and suffering?" While thus testing him he comes to find that there are no such ideas in him, and he finds that, "The bodily and verbal behavior of that venerable one are not those of one affected by lust or hate or delusion. But the True Idea that this venerable one teaches is profound, hard to see and discover; yet it is the most peaceful and superior of all, out of reach of logical ratiocination, subtle, for the wise to experience; such a True Idea cannot be taught by one affected by lust or hate or delusion."

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.nymo.html

In the Vimamsaka Sutta (MN 47) he even provides means of testing a Buddha:

  Bhikkhus, by the bhikkhu who could examine the thought processes of another the Thus Gone One should be examined on two things. On things cognisable by eye consciousness and ear consciousness. Are defiled things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness evident in the Thus Gone One or are they not? When examining he knows. These defiled things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness (*1) are not evident in the Thus Gone One. Then he should make a further examination: Are mixed things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness evident in the Thus Gone One or are they not? When examining he knows. These mixed things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness (*2) are not evident in the Thus Gone One. Then he should make a further examination: Are pure things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness evident in the Thus Gone One or are they not? When examining he knows. The pure things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness (*3) are evident in the Thus Gone One.

  http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=81

Finally, in the Thana Sutta (AN 4.192):

  "It's through living together that a person's virtue may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

  "It's through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

  "It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

  "It's through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.192.than.html

There's a story Mahasi Sayadaw told about how when asked by his attendant whether he was enlightened, an arahant himself said, "It's difficult to know whether one is enlightened. Even a monk attending on an arahant wouldn't know it." Or something like that; it was an oblique means of telling his student that he was enlightened. Can't find the story, sorry.

The point is, it is difficult to tell whether someone else is enlightened. It is much easier to tell whether someone is unenlightened, because if they get angry, greedy or deluded, you can be sure they are not enlightened.


How to deal with suffering and losing faith? I came across this section by chance, and read another question by a person with misanthropic feelings. I read all the answers because I feel the same as her.
I've always been spiritual with an interest in Buddhism and Taoism, but it seems to slip away. I too suffered a lot because of others, but what really got me into this misanthropic state is the suffering of so many animals at the hands of humans. It saddens me so much and I begin hating people because of it. Not all people, just a lot. It also saddens me a lot to see children suffering but because they turn possibly into cruel people themselves. The plight of animals gets me more. I find them more special and innocent than people yet they have to suffer so much. A lot anyway. Now, the responses to that other persons question helped me realize some things, but I'm still struggling with the suffering of animals. Why can't they be spared if suffering is a tool to evolve?
Studying psychology, biology, anthropology and neuroscience I can't help thinking that humans are acting based on chemical, biological or psychological reactions of the brain. There is no enlightenment, just another religious promise - like heaven, enlightenment or the 11 virgins - depending on the belief.
I feel like I have no more answers, only confusion and questions, and i also feel like I've reached a point where I'm so fed up with the suffering of animals, children or good people. I'm so tired of it all. Not in a sense that i want to hurt those cruel people, but in a sense of wanting to leave it all behind. But if i did, then I wouldn't be around anymore to help loved ones or some of the animals.
Emotionally I suffer because I can't make even a dent and physically because I work hard to help out as many as I can.

I've always been spiritual with an interest in Buddhism and Taoism,
but it seems to slip away. I too suffered a lot because of others, but
what really got me into this misanthropic state is the suffering of so
many animals at the hands of humans. It saddens me so much and I begin
hating people because of it. Not all people, just a lot. It also
saddens me a lot to see children suffering but because they turn
possibly into cruel people themselves. The plight of animals gets me
more. I find them more special and innocent than people yet they have
to suffer so much. A lot anyway. Now, the responses to that other
persons question helped me realize some things, but I'm still
struggling with the suffering of animals. Why can't they be spared if
suffering is a tool to evolve?

Buddhism can be rather harsh in the way it describes suffering. Bottom line is that no one is free from suffering until one reaches enlightenment. Until then, we can try to make things easier for others and not least ourselves by following the noble eightfold path.
Regarding ourselves, buddhism reminds us that people are acting cruel due to their own pain. As such, cruelty is the evidence of suffering of the person committing cruel things.
The idea is that if we can develop compassion - even for the ones committing cruelties - we are in fact going easier on ourselves for preventing the development of even more aversion towards other peoples cruelty. Everyone benefits from this, but it takes a lot of effort.

Studying psychology, biology, anthropology and neuroscience I can't
help thinking that humans are acting based on chemical, biological or
psychological reactions of the brain. There is no enlightenment, just
another religious promise - like heaven, enlightenment or the 11
virgins - depending on the belief.

Maybe enlightenment is possible in conjunction with the fact that we are chemical, biological and psychological beings? I'm not sure i see the opposition.

I feel like I have no more answers, only confusion and questions, and
i also feel like I've reached a point where I'm so fed up with the
suffering of animals, children or good people. I'm so tired of it all.
Not in a sense that i want to hurt those cruel people, but in a sense
of wanting to leave it all behind. But if i did, then I wouldn't be
around anymore to help loved ones or some of the animals.

This is true. Committing to helping others may be the least bad option for everyone.

Emotionally I suffer because I can't make even a dent and physically
because I work hard to help out as many as I can.

Just don't forget to take a break every now and then.


Venting and Right Speech I'm wondering whether to lament or complain bitterly about some situation contradicts right speech. Also, I'm wondering from the Buddhist view what the effect of venting is. Personally, I noticed venting from a low mood / discouraged mood seems to reinforce and worsen this low mood.

Thank you

"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech."
— SN 45.8

Right Speech
Venting may fall under abusive speech. So be mindful of that. Otherwise complaining strongly would be OK.


Is intercessionary prayer prohibited in Jodo Shinshu (Japanese Pureland?) So I just read "Waking the Buddha" by Strand and he had a comment:

"It is unlikely that those who attended them would have felt within their rights, to demand that the Jodo Shinshu teachings showed practical application in daily life. In fact, the prohibition against intercessionary prayer in Rennyo's tradition would have argued against it."

In Jodo Shinshu, can one efficaciously pray to the Amida Buddha for some result in this world?

Taitetsu Unno is a modern day Shin master. In his book "River of Fire, River of Water" he explains the concept of the Japanese equivilent of the concept of "suchness" which is called sono-mama or kono mama simply meaning life "as is" or "just right as it is" through a popular Shin poem:

  You, as you are, you're just right,
  Your face, body, name, surname, For you, they are  just right.

  Whether poor or rich, Your parents, your children, your daughter-in-law; your grandchildren, They are, all for you, just right.

  Happiness, unhappiness, joy and even sorrow, For you, they are just right.

  The life that you have tread is neither good nor bad, For you, it is just right.

  Whether you go to hell or to the Pure Land, Wherever you go is just right.

  Nothing to boast about, nothing to feel bad about, Nothing above, nothing below.

  Even the day and month that you die, Even they are just right.

  Life in which you walk together with Amida, There's no way that it can't be just right.

  When you receive your life as just right, Then a deep and profound trust begins to open up.

I think it's clear that the acceptance of things "as they are" is very important in Jodo Shinshu. You are not trying to pray for things to be other than what they are. This sense of acceptance is a concept which is understood in other Buddhist traditions as well. But it is beautifully expressed in this poem, I think. :)