How does Emotional Intelligence go along with Dhamma practice? Emotional intelligence is an ability to deal with one's emotions. I am wondering how does it affect and get affected by the practice of the Dhamma? Does deeper meditative absorption lead to heightened awareness and control of one's emotions and vice versa or are they completely unrelated? Also, does the 'feeling' skandha include feeling of one's emotions? Are there any wholesome emotions one feels as the practice deepens? Are the Brahmaviharas all there is to wholesome emotions?

The Abhidhamma is useful for this question. I quote from The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis.
Starting from the top:

The Abhidhamma deals with realities existing in an ultimate sense,
called in Pali paramattha dhammaa. There are four such realities:

Citta, mind or consciousness, defined as that which knows or experiences an object. Citta occurs as distinct momentary states of
consciousness.
Cetasikas, the mental factors that arise and occur along with the cittas.
Ruupa, physical phenomena, or material form.
Nibbaana.

Next we go into the cetasikas:

The second reality or paramattha dhamma is the cetasikas. The
cetasikas are the mental factors or concomitants that arise and perish
together with consciousness (citta), sharing its object and basis.
The Abhidhamma lists 52 kinds of cetasikas. One is feeling (vedanaa),
another is perception (saññaa). The remaining 50 are grouped together
under the term sa"nkhaaraa.

And then we go into sa"nkhaaraa:

Sa"nkhaaraa is a collective term for the other fifty cetasikas. These fall into four groups:

Universal mental factors (sabba citta saadhaaranaa)
Particular mental factors (paki.n.nakaa)
Unwholesome mental factors (akusalaa)
Beautiful mental factors (sobhanaa)

There are 7 universal mental factors (including feeling and perception) and 6 particular mental factors. These are neutral:

The universals and particulars are, in themselves, ethically
indeterminate but become wholesome, unwholesome, or neither, depending
on the state of consciousness in which they occur.

There are 14 unwholesome mental factors and 25 beautiful mental factors.
The four Brahmaviharas are included in the list of 25 beautiful mental factors. Others on the list include mindfulness, faith, non-attachment, shame of evil, fear of evil, right action, right speech, right livelihood, wisdom etc.
The lists are very long, so I will let you take a look at it on the website yourself.

OP: I am wondering how does it (emotional intelligence) affect and get affected by the practice of the Dhamma?

With Dhamma practice, the unwholesome mental factors should become weaker and the beautiful mental factors should become stronger or more dominant. This is the increase of emotional intelligence that comes with the practice.

OP: Does deeper meditative absorption lead to heightened awareness and control of one's emotions and vice versa or are they completely
unrelated?

Your ability to consciously identify and eliminate unwholesome mental factors, and consciously apply beautiful mental factors, increase with the Dhamma practice, including meditation. You get more control over your mind, so to speak.

OP: Also, does the 'feeling' skandha include feeling of one's emotions?

The feeling aggregate is sensing the six sensory media, which includes thought and mind. Emotions are a kind of thought. So, yes.
But unlike externally originated sights, sound and smell which you cannot control, thoughts come out of your mind in a process chain described in this answer. So, you can control it through increasing emotional intelligence.

OP: Are there any wholesome emotions one feels as the practice deepens? Are the Brahmaviharas all there is to wholesome emotions?

No. As shown above, there are 25 wholesome mental factors including the four Brahmaviharas. So, Brahmaviharas are not all there is to wholesome mental factors.


Is this a statue of a six-armed wooden Buddha? Please help me identify this statue. Thank you!

"Buddha statues generally show a particular Mudra (a Sanskrit word) or hand gesture."

~ Cited from: Buddha Statue Mudras

Bhumi Sparsha Mudra
Samadhi / Dhyana Mudra
Abhaya Mudra
Dharma Chakra Mudra
Vitarka Mudra
Vajira Mudra
Uttara Bodhi Mudra

Apart from the above listed Mudras there can be a combination of two Mudras or a variation of a Mudra depicted in a statue of Lord Buddha. For example the below statue of Lord Buddha depicts a variation of Abhaya Mudra.

~ Image source: Wikipedia

Since the statue you've shown doesn't depict any of the known Mudras, there is a high possibility of being that is not a statue of Lord Buddha.


If Rebirth is not taken literally then why seek Enlightenment? I've read that some Buddhists do not believe in the literality of rebirth. As someone who is new to the study of Buddhism, this is confusing to me. My understanding, which perhaps is incorrect, is that a Buddhist seeks enlightenment in order to obtain emancipation from Samsara. Yet Samsara is a cycle of rebirth, thus if rebirth is not taken literally it seems natural to then not take Samsara literally. If this is so, then what kind of emancipation is sought after in seeking enlightenment? Isn't the goal of seeking enlightenment to eliminate rebirth? What then are other reasons for seeking enlightenment apart from the emancipation from Samsara?

I am a Rinzai Zen Monk with a decade-long monastic background so my answer will be relevant within our school's framework.

From a Zen POV being 'reborn' exists only within Reality.
Reality is purely this one moment here and now.
With each breath, with each action we are reborn. The choices we make are fresh and new. The Enlightened being will make those choices in accordance with what they experience.
Because they are living in the here and now they are also making these choices without any reference to the past or the future because these are purely abstract concepts since neither of them is here and now.

The Enlightened person is literally reborn with each and every experience (in Japanese Zen terms these are known as 'Nen' - ie. the time it takes to register each experience). An Enlightenment experience is when you fully experience this for the first time: when a drop of water falling on your head or the call of a crow suddenly awaken you to this new awareness

There are other types of rebirth of course. Such as the delusional rebirths, when one succumbs to any of the poisons (Ignorance, Anger, Greed) and is reborn in 'hell'.

Buddhism is a very wide philosophy with a wide application of the same basic terms and concepts. What i have just said is not really valid for a Theravada Buddhist. It would be explained, understood and practiced differently by someone of a Pure land Path (JoDo ShinShu for instance) even though they are part of the Mahayana.


Losing my religion, and shikantaza I was raised in a secular family, went to CofE church a little as a young child, but only to support my mum. Actually I'm way more drawn to Nietzsche now than Christianity, though I cannot see any answers in his work.

I visited Thailand as a teenager, took a few meditation classes, and would say I had a sort of conversion experience upon reading more about Buddhism, in general. But don't feel like there's any reason to keep my faith; it hasn't I think helped my mental health or my life, only got me to where I am today. Almost spiritually exhausted.

In effect, I feel like I have nothing to look forward to and nothing to look back at. I am scared of dying, but not to the extent that I would assume a religion to cheer myself up.

For a long time I believed that I won't be annihilated when I die, but the more I think about it, and I have done so a lot, the more it seems that this is an irrelevance, something that tells me about my life now not the future.

But, I can sometimes feel good in the present moment, and wondered whether shikantaza might help me feel better about that. I can't find an exact phrase to describe that, but maybe Soto zen might help me to be how I am or want to be, in life and death, even though I am so tired with everything but this fluctuating enjoyment of now. Which incidentally, does not seem very Nietzschean: I don't place much value on happiness as a way of life hedonism etc.

I have visited a local Soto group, without meeting a teacher there, and enjoyed doing so. The people seemed cool etc., too. But I wanted to ask if Soto meditation has the answers to the rest of my post, or what the answers were. Even what I am asking.

Thank you for any encouragement or for any insight.

Shikantaza means "just sitting" or "single-minded sitting". It is a state of being where you are present here and now, no matter on what you experience, in body or mind.

About losing your religion: the Buddha said that there are three marks of existence, one of them is impermanence of all compound things (anicca). In other words, anything that once begins to exist, one day ends (changes to other thing or ceases to exist). So your opinion about what is your religion, or even yourself and what you consider your religion, will certainly change and/or cease to exist.

About your annihilation when you die: one of main questions that buddhism bring to us is this: "What is this I?"? Because most of times we get identified with things that we bring with us, like the body that we carry or the thoughts and emotions that we have. We think that these things are "me", however, these also are compound things that began one day and that will cease to exist certainly. If you strip yourself of all impermanent things in yourself, what remains? Is there something that remains? So what is this that you call "I"? Before answering to where will you go when you die, you must answer what is this that you call "I" and answer what in this "I" dies with the death of the body.

Zen buddhism have quite diverse opinions about where are one going when s/he dies. Each master say one thing, but for certainly, the most important thing (and that's what shikantaza and enlightenment is all about) is to be totally in the present moment. This does not means that it's wrong to make plans for the future: on the contrary, it means that even making plans, you are totally conscious that you are in the present moment, and any plan may not happen, and even knowing that you are fine.

Suffering (dukkha) for buddhism is also inherent in all compound things, because when they cease to exist, if one haves desire or attachment for it, s/he will suffer. Buddhism says that there is a root, a cause for desire or attachment to exist, that is a kind of ignorance, a delusion, that prevent one of experiencing the reality as it really is. And that's what about shikantaza: experiencing the reality as it is, completely, here and now.


How to find specific lessons in Zen Buddhism? As an example of what I mean, suppose I want to find Zen Buddhist teachings on diet. How should I go about finding this? Googling anything as it pertains to Buddhism (especially Buddhism) gets a tonne of results from Americanized Yoga types, which is less than authentic teaching.

From my U.S. perspective... Try using the word "Dharma" in your search terms. Most large Zen centers have web sites that list recommended reading, and other resources. Focus on translations of, or by ordained Zen Roshis (cross reference American Zen Teachers Association).  Ask a librarian.


Is the term "Everything happens for a reason" appropriate? In terms of  Buddhist thought Is this accurate? It doesn't seem to jive with cause and effect which is more often referenced.

The issue concerns the way you understand the statement "Everything happens for a reason", since 'reason' has various meanings.

'Reason' could mean motivation or intent. For instance, "Someone has his reasons to behave the way he does." If you have that meaning in mind when you read "Everything happens for a reason", you will think it means "Everything that happens was intended by someone, like a creator God." Of course, this would not be Buddhist.

'Reason' could also refer to a cause, as in "The reason for his absence is sickness." Then, "Everything happens for a reason" means "Everything that happens has causes and conditions." This is a correct statement, from a Buddhist viewpoint.

I would not be surprised if 'reason' could also mean 'purpose, aim, goal' but I can not find an example.

We do not hear "Everything happens for a reason" often in Buddhism. I myself would never even think of saying it, because it is vague. In addition, I feel that most people would misunderstand and think that it means "things were intended this way" or "things will eventually fit in a big meaningful picture."

A more common way of stating things is: "You created the causes of your suffering." This is more personal and it is aimed at taking one's responsibility.


Application of sixteen contemplations in the anapanasati sutta I've had a regular morning meditation practice (15 minutes or so, longer when I can) for about 12 months now, and I have a question about the sixteen contemplations as explained in the anapanasati sutta. The interpretation I have read is from the excellent Breath by Breath: The Liberating Practice of Insight Meditation by Larry Rosenberg.

My question is really around how (or even if) I should be applying these sixteen contemplations in my daily practice. Should I be trying to work through each of them, using each contemplation as a basis for the meditation? Or is it more of an organic process than that (i.e. I will progress through them naturally with time)?

Many thanks

As it was explained to me, we must master the coarse before we can master the subtle, and we must master the subtle before we can attain first-hand direct vision of Dharma.

In this vein, during a single meditation session we must first work with the body, then work with the feelings, then work with the mind, and only then the insight meditation can happen naturally.

So first as we sit down our body is usually disturbed and tense. The goal at this phase is to relax and calm down the body so it can sit comfortably (as opposed to forcing it to sit still).

As the body physically calms down to a sufficient degree, we should start paying attention to the breathing. The breathing can be noisy or stuck or gasping etc. Our goal at this phase is to calm down further, using the breathing as our feedback indicator.

As we work with the breathing, we may start noticing that the problem is really with the emotions. At this point we should scan the area around the body for psychosomatic projections of emotions (tense or painful feelings in chest, abdomen, veins, forehead etc.). We should identify the blockages, etc. and release them by letting go of the subconscious will to sustain them.

We proceed in this manner, as to get very comfortable. Our goal at this phase is to make ourselves feel very good, what they call "rapture". To achieve that we can employ a combination of letting go of bodily and emotional blockages, as well as intentionally generating a joyful mood.

"Rapture" is the cruder kind of good mood, while "bliss" is a deeper and more subtle variety of the same. Our goal is to generate rapture first, then let it deepen and stabilize to become bliss. At this point our attention should include physical, breathing, emotions, and subtler psychosomatic projections, all joined into one "energy map". Our job is to fabricate deliberate effort in order to purify this whole thing, and make it transparent and energized.

As we succeed in the above, we can notice that the quality of our mind is also connected with the overall energy structure. If the mind is shaky or jumpy or viscous or sleepy etc. it will affect our ability to fine-tune the system into its perfect state. So we must condition the mind to get into a perfectly open/transparent/upright state, just like we did with our body, emotions, and psychosomatic energy before.

By performing this practice again and again, first not so well, and then better and better, we can't help but get plenty of insights into the way the mind functions. As we start getting those insights, many of Buddhist theories we've read before will stop being mere theories and will become first-hand experience. This is the phase when we will find ourselves contemplating suffering, cessation, impermanence etc.

Now if you re-read the Anapanasati Sutta with the above commentary in mind, it should hopefully make more sense.


Is their any Age limit to become a Buddha? we all know Prince Siddartha, about 29 years old when he began his quest for enlightenment. His quest was accomplished about six years later, when he was in his mid-30s became Lord Buddha. so my question is, is their any Age limit to become a Buddha?

There is no such age or age limit. For example,  Kassapa Buddha, the sixth of the Seven Buddhas of Antiquity, and the third of the five Buddhas of the present kalpa practiced austerities for only seven days. Kassapa Budda attained Parinibbhana at the age of forty thousand years. At that time children would get married at the age of 500 according to legend.


How does the path according to Sheng-yen compare with scholastic Buddhism? Sheng-yen was an important Taiwanese Buddhist, with I believe Rinzai and Soto tranmission.
When describing the Buddhist path, he says that the 10 faiths are reached only after extensive success with koans, and adds that this is equivalent to stream entry. All very reasonable. However, I think it shows relative humility, compared to zen, about Theravada Buddhism.
I also believe that the formless realms are essential for advance to the 10 abodes in the Tientai model of the "complete" teaching.
So I wondered:

when, according to Sheng-yen then, does the practitioner realize
non-attachment within the formless realms?
and is the stage of dry wisdom - form the Surangama Sutra - the same as
the 5 grades in Tientai?

when, according to Sheng-yen then, does the practitioner realize
non-attachment within the formless realms?

Sheng-yen taught Chan which is a synonym for Zen meaning something like meditative mind. This is comparable to meditative absorption in Theravada.
Juxtaposing how the two traditions fragment their understanding of those states is a little tricky, because Theravada shreds the meditative absorptions into miniscule details even going as far as detailing step-by-step the precise instructions needed to attain meditative absorption. Not my forte, but the Theravadins seems to like it!
Chan on the other hand takes on a more natural and organic approach. Flexibility, suppleness and malleability come to mind. In my view, this approach is much more in-keeping with suchness. There is little to no emphasis on moving through the jhanas and the arupa ayatanas. The exertion to reach those states is generally seen as a hindrance. The aim - if we can call it an aim - is that Zen realises meditative absorption in every waking moment; it is not seen as a practice confined to a zafu cushion which is more favoured in Theravada.
I know this doesn't answer your question, but instead points out how it is difficult to level the two schools such that they meet harmoniously.


Two Truths in Mahayana There are Two Truths in Mahayana Buddhism Conventional and Ultimate. I can't understand how it works. For example: Two Mahayana Buddhists have realized the absolute truth: and one Buddhist tells the other that he has a headache. But how does another Buddhist perceive it according to absolute truth?

The first thing to resolving your confusion is to understand what Madhyamakas mean when they start talking about "absolute truth" vs regular ordinary truth. And in these contexts Madhyamakas regard "absolute truth" as that which is arrived at when you go looking for the absolute i.e., when you start analyzing with logic and reason what is the absolute nature of things. It doesn't matter if the things you are looking for are persons, chariots, chairs, headaches, etc. If you take any of these things and then ask the questions, "What is the absolute nature of these things? How do these things exist? How do they arise? How do they cease?" and try to find answers by analyzing using logic and reason, whatever conclusion you come to about these questions after thorough analysis, that is what is regarded as the absolute truth. Absolute truth and Ultimate truth here refer to the same thing.
This is the procedure that Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti and the Madhyamaka sages layout in their famous treatises and commentaries. They begin with a thing and ask how does it arise? How does it come into being? How does it cease? And then the claim is made (using logic and reason) that if these things truly arise, then they must arise in one of four ways:

They could arise from self
They could arise from other
They could arise from self+other
They could arise from neither

Those four exhaust all the possible ways in which something could truly arise. Then they look at each of these four ways and ponder if any of them are sufficient and make logical sense. When analyzing thoroughly with logic and reason it is found that NONE of those four work out. They all lead to some logical fallacy, inconsistency, circular reasoning or absurdity. The result of looking for the absolute truth in how these things truly arise is nothing. They do not arise in any of those four ways, yet those four ways exhaust the ways in which things can truly arise. When you analyze thoroughly how things arise you come up empty.
It is this very fact, that you come up empty when trying to analyze how things truly exist with logic and reason, that is then labeled: "the absolute truth."

Now, some people grow very upset with this. They look at the above and say, "if that is true then nothing exists!" which is nihilism. It simply isn't true that nothing exists. But that truth, that things exist, is a conventional one and not an absolute one. When you go looking for the absolute truth about how things exist you find nothing.

There is conventional truth. Which is not based on logic and
reason analyzing how things exist and trying to uncover the absolute
nature of things.
There is the absolute/ultimate truth. This is what you arrive at when using
logic and reason analyzing how things exist and trying to uncover
the absolute nature of things. And the result is empty. None of the
four ways in which things might truly exist can be found.

These are the two truths.
Let me know if this helps! If you wish I can provide references and citations from Sutra, Nagarjuna's treatise and the commentaries. Let me know if you want any of these things or if they would be helpful.

"Two Mahayana Buddhists have realized the "absolute truth: and one Buddhist tells the other that he has a headache. But how does another Buddhist perceive it according to absolute truth?"
Now to apply the above to your question. According to the absolute truth when one of these Mahayana Buddhists, who has realized the absolute nature of things, perceives the headache they understand that that headache does not truly exist. They realize this because they have gone looking, again and again, for a truly existing headache using logic and reason and have come up empty again and again. They have analyzed it to exhaustion looking for a truly existent headache and can not find one. It exists merely by convention and being labeled. There is no truly existing headache that can be found. Which isn't to say the headache does not exist. It exists conventionally. That is all.


Nine Purification Breaths and Channels in Genderqueer and Intersex Individuals When performing the Nine Purification Breaths (I have it from a separate source, but it is close to the one described by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche in Healing with Form, Energy, and Light) the position of the energy channels depends on whether the individual is male or female.

It is described as:

  In women the right channel is red and the left is white. In men the right channel is white and the left is red.  The central channel is blue in both men and women.

The process first removes obstacles linked with male potencies and then obstacles linked with female potencies, breathing in through the red channel first and out through the white, then in through the white and out through the red.

Several people I know identify as agendered, genderfluid, or bigendered or otherwise genderqueer. I also know several people who are various forms of intersex.

For these individuals, is there a good way to adapt the practice (along with similar practices)? Alternatively are there adaptations for other practices that might be applicable (such as alternations made for ubhatovyanjañakas and paṇḍakas) or good rules of thumb for approaching these issues?

I've heard of one Tibetan Lama who refuses to give a traditional Buddhist wedding to homosexuals. During the wedding he invokes some Buddha form in union and the bride meditates on the female Buddha while the groom - on the male Buddha. The Lama explained that he cannot tell where is the female and male element in a homosexual relationship so it is not straightforward how to carry on the ritual. He received a detailed transmission from his teacher in a certain form and he doesn't want to alter it.

Although it doesn't answer your question directly, a few things should be said. Techniques involving working with energy channels are very advanced and usually were directly transmitted from teachers to students for centuries. It is rather dangerous to practise those without a guidance and protection from the guru, especially if the female/male energies are supposedly mixed as in the cases listed in the question. It is possible that although one Lama refused to alter the ritual, another one will be able to correctly identify energy channels and will willingly perform the 'individualized' ritual. Having said that, I don't think a general advice can be given. If one wants to practise some advanced technique, a qualified teacher is essential and only he can resolve the issues concerning the practice. The advice from the teacher is individual and should not be broadcast as it can only confuse other people rather than help them.


What is the difference between learning the Buddhist way and simply learning from life? What is different about being a Buddhist than an atheist?

As far as I can tell, "western" thought is a mix of different philosophical approaches that can be applied to life with a dose of common sense: ethics, rationalization, self, society, abstraction, belief, existence, nature... there's place for everything in "western" thought, one just needs to look in the right places.

I've heard good things about Buddhism, but everything I've read about until now is just a different way of saying something that I've heard elsewhere. Different words, a different language.

Does Buddhism recommend itself as the best approach to reach enlightenment, or can this fulfillment be achieved outside of Buddhist schooling?

Or more subjectively: Why should a person follow Buddhism instead of something else?

The main difference is time. Buddha shows the way in simple instructions, so that you don't have to discover the path to enlightenment by yourself.


Buddho : The one who knows which is above the mind? A Dhammatalk by Ajahn Chah In this Dhamma Talk, Venerable Ajahn Chan expound about Buddho the one who knows which is above the mind as quoted below, what is it? is it just part of the mind?

I'm looking for further reference on this if possible from the Pali canon...

Many Thanks

  ...
  For us it's the same. Only this mind is important. That's why they say to train the mind. Now if the mind is the mind, what are we going to train it with? By having continuous sati and sampajañña we will be able to know the mind. This one who knows is a step beyond the mind, it is that which knows the state of the mind. The mind is the mind. That which knows the mind as simply mind is the one who knows. It is above the mind. The one who knows is above the mind, and that is how it is able to look after the mind, to teach the mind to know what is right and what is wrong. In the end everything comes back to this proliferating mind. If the mind is caught up in its proliferations there is no awareness and the practice is fruitless.

The key idea here is not whether there is "someone" who is above the mind. The key point is that it is possible to go beyond mind or above mind.

We are so caught up in the experience created by the mind that we are completely overwhelmed by it. We are completely absorbed in the bubble of experience it creates.

Here, "mind" is the self-constructing, self-perpetuating principle of endless proliferation of "this vs that" and the entire universe of subjective experience that emerges from iterative application of this principle.

But it is possible to cut through the bubble - through the mutually supporting combination of detachment and insight. Being outside the mind means we are not taking its drama seriously anymore. We are dispassionate, disenchanted, disillusioned, grown cold - to all its passions and games. When we see through its tricks - we can watch them from the outside of the illusion.

Watching from the outside of the illusion is "that which is above the mind".


Nirvana is the ground layer underneath them all According to this answer:

  Nirvana is the ground layer ("dhatu") underneath them all. ...

  Nirvana is this most fundamental law (the formula, the rule, the
  program) according to which the Universe develops.

This comment also seems to support that idea:

  ... the expression "the unmade is a foundation for phenomena" is
  probably an agreeable thing to say given than it occurs in the pali
  discourses "amatogadha" meaning deathless as foundation or deathless
  as ground. There is also a reasonable way to defend it, which makes it
  not a real point of controversy imo but a rather reasonable assumption
  in that the pali wording is to be taken at facevalue and read
  literally.

This sounds very similar to Advaita which describes Brahman as the substratum or foundation of all phenomena, just as different kinds of pots and plates made of clay, all have clay as their foundation.

Questions:

Does the notion "Nirvana is the ground layer" come from Mahayana? From which Mahayana subschool or text?
Does the Pali Canon support the notion that "Nirvana is the ground layer"? Does this relate to "amatogadha" some how? What's that?
The ground layer concept sounds similar to luminous mind. However, we know that Nirvana is unconditioned, while the luminous mind is conditioned. Does this "Nirvana is the ground layer" concept connect to the luminous mind in any way?

1. Does the notion "Nirvana is the ground layer" come from Mahayana? From which Mahayana subschool or text?

Yes. Well, they don't call it "Nirvana" - because they think this word got spoiled by abuse and acquired a dualistic meaning (as the opposite of Samsara). Instead, they simply call it "The Ground of All", "The Absolute", "The Unity of Relative and Absolute" etc.

This is certainly a well-known feature of Tibetan Buddhist lineages in Karma Kagyu and Nyungma schools that adhere to the so-called Shentong interpretation of Emptiness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_(Dzogchen)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangtong-Shentong

  Shentong was systematized and articulated under that name by Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (1292–1361), who identified absolute reality with the Buddha-nature.

...

  The earliest shentong views are usually asserted to have been presented in a group of treatises variously attributed jointly to Asanga and Maitreyanātha, especially in the treatise known as the Unsurpassed Continuum (Uttaratantraśāstra, also called the Ratnagotravibhāga),[22] and in a body of Mādhyamaka treatises attributed to Nāgārjuna (e.g., the Dharmadhātustava, "In praise of the Dharmadhatu").

...

  Rigpa has two aspects, namely kadag and lhun grub. Kadag means "purity" or specifically "primordial purity". Lhun grub in Tibetan normally implies automatic, self-caused or spontaneous actions or processes. As quality of rigpa it means "spontaneous presence". It may also mean "having a self-contained origin", being primordially Existent, without an origin, self-existent.

...

  Buddha-nature is immaculate. It is profound, serene, unfabricated suchness, an uncompounded expanse of luminosity; nonarising, unceasing, primordial peace, spontaneously present nirvana.

...

  The practical training of the Dzogchen path is traditionally, and most simply, described [as:] To see directly the Absolute state, the Ground of our being is the View; the way of stabilising that view, and making it an unbroken experience is Meditation; and integrating the View into our entire reality, and life, is what is meant by Action.

In Chan and Zen schools this is generally discussed under the heading of Buddha Nature and "One's True Nature":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

  ... the ultimate universal ground also has always been with the Buddha-Essence (Tathagatagarbha), and this essence in terms of the universal ground has been taught by the Tathagata. The fools who do not know it, because of their habits, see even the universal ground as (having) various happiness and suffering and actions and emotional defilements. Its nature is pure and immaculate, its qualities are as wishing-jewels; there are neither changes nor cessations. Whoever realizes it attains Liberation

...

  This "dharma of the one mind", which is the "original tathagatagarbha", is said to be "calm and motionless" [...] The tathagatagarbha is equated with the "original edge of reality" (bhutakoti) that is beyond all distinctions - the equivalent of original enlightenment, or the essence.

2. Does the Pali Canon support the notion that "Nirvana is the ground layer"? Does this relate to "amatogadha" some how? What's that?

I believe it does. There are many pointers spread around Dependent Origination teachings, and all the descriptions of Nibbana, with references like amatogadha and amata-dhatu, the Buddha's story about him getting "to the end of the world" etc.

3. The ground layer concept sounds similar to luminous mind. However, we know that Nirvana is unconditioned, while the luminous mind is conditioned. Does this "Nirvana is the ground layer" concept connect to the luminous mind in any way?

I don't know why you say "we know" that luminous mind is conditioned. In Mahayana, the fundamental luminosity of mind is considered unconditioned (see Rigpa, Clear Light).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigpa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_mind#Vajrayana

  In Tibetan Buddhist Dzogchen literature, luminosity ('od gsal) is associated with an aspect of the Ground termed "spontaneous presence" (Lhun grub), meaning a presence that is uncreated and not based on anything causally extraneous to itself. This term is often paired with 'original-purity' (ka dag), which is associated with emptiness (shunyata), and are both seen as inseparable aspects of the Ground.


Can somebody remove their bad karma by believing that it doesn't exist? If somebody does sin or bad karma, harms other living beings, but that person doesn't believe in karma and believes that karma is just an illusion. then how does his bad actions will harm him? For example, if I kill a mouse but I totally believe that nothing will happen, karma or religion is just people's belief, then will I ever be punished for that karma and such believe? Because there is also one saying that everything is just our belief?

And also if I later ask for forgiveness to god for my bad karmas then will my bad karmas be forgiven?

You are expressing the stock definition of 'wrong view':

And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong
view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what
is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing
sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There
is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no
spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring
rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after
having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong
view... MN117

More graphically, it is described as:

There are some contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold
this view: 'In acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or
getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture,
in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in
tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting
others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given,
breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary,
ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood — one does
no evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living
beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of
flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even
if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and
getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate,
torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from
that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left
bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making
sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no
merit from that cause, no coming of merit. Through generosity,
self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from
that cause, no coming of merit. MN60

You may choose not to believe in cosmic Karma, as in Hinduism, but kamma in Buddhism is only accrued due to intentional actions. Denying intention is denying agency, in one way or another. AN 3.61 deals with that issue, and with respect to God and kamma's place if God is to be believed in.
The Buddha did say:

Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his
transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully
pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are
fools.
These two are wise people. Which two? The one who sees his
transgression as a transgression, and the one who rightfully pardons
another who has confessed his transgression. These two are wise
people. AN 2.21

So confession is understood as wise, and acceptance of such is also, but this confession is to a human being.


Did the Buddha ever talk about his family? When Siddhārtha Gautama left his home to become an ascetic, he left a wife, son, father and step mother. His achievement of enlightenment and subsequent teachings of the 4 Noble Truths and 8 Fold Noble Path has brought obvious benefit to the world for the potential of the cessation of suffering. But what is known about the suffering of the Buddha's personal family due to his leaving? As the Buddha, did he ever speak of this matter?

The Buddha praised princess Yashodara's virtue by dispensing the Channakinnara Jataka when he visited her at Kapilavatthu. Yashodara has never been a wife to another man since the life when Bodhisatva received the confirmation from Deepankara Buddha to become a Buddha in the future. The Bodhisatva was always her husband.

So the Bodhisatva and his family have spent plenty of time together as family in many a previous life. If that didn't take away their suffering, what's the point of doing more of the same?

Lets take an analogy. If your family is suffering from a mortal illness and if you alone have the capability to go find the cure, wouldn't you leave them behind to get the cure instead of lingering there to give them false comfort?


Are there any sila / vinaya for mind? There are five precepts.

I don't kill living species.
I don't do sexual miaconduct.
........

Similary, Are there any for mind ? Like,

I don't think ......
....

We can think according to the five precepts , Not thinking about killing or harming others etc. However, are there any especially for mind ?

Is "indriya samvara" some thing like that ? If it is, how to practise it ?

There are three types of Sankhara. Mano,Vaci and Kaya.
Avoiding Vaci Sankhara and Kaya Sankhara considered Sila. They are also called "Papa"
Suppressing Mano Sankhara considered as Samadhi. These are also termed Kusala when practice in conjunction with Sila.

http://buddhismpathtowellbeing.blogspot.com/2017/11/18-avoid-ten-immoral-actions-dasa.html

There is another set of precepts called eight and ten precepts. They are considered higher Sila as it contained Sila required to contain wholesome mental activities.
To answer your question I would say that Samadhi is the Sila for the mind. Even the term is not used in that way.


Can super Buddhists eat bread? Bread has flour and yeast. Therefore, a scientist can say that it is both an animal and a vegetable grain. Is there anything wrong with eating bread?

To be honest, my ego is completely confused. Still, for the sake of satisfying it.

Can super Buddhists eat bread?

If by super buddhists, you mean as someone of so high calibur that s/he will be aware of the presence of any tiniest living organism whether it's yeast or something else-- No, that venerable one won't eat cause it's killing.

Is there anything wrong with eating bread?

Sorry, I don't know.

But atleast, I can give metta to self and others. :)

With Metta.
May all the tiny living beings that I ate unintentionally till now be free from their suffering. May I reach to the level of venerable one to identify any living microorganism with mind. May I be free from my remorse of eaten yeast. May they pardon me.


Is samsara without end? I read the following in the PTS Pali dictionary:

  Saṃsāra "whose beginning and end are alike unthinkable", i. e., without beginning or end.

Are there any Pali suttas that support this view of endless samsara without an end?

Well, from Mahayana perspective it's both. Samsara is endless, just like Dukkha is an invariant principle of sentient existence. Accepting Dukkha (here, inherent unreliability) of phenomena makes it Tathata, suchness. Accepting Samsara makes it Nirvana. Does not mean Samsara has ended or Dukkha ended - not at all. We just make an end to it (nirodha, 3rd N.T.). Endlessness of Samsara is one thing you can truly rely on, which makes it unconditional Nirvana.

Now, if I forget all that and just reason from the original sources, here is what I get:

Looking at your PTS dictionary quote, they are talking about Anamatagga (without beginning / without end) being an epithet of Samsara. When I search Sutta Central for "anamatagga" I find for example this verse from Therigatha:

  "...Long are the foolish in Samsara,
  again and again cry
  without beginning, without end, over the father's death,
  the slaughter of the brother and the murder of the self.

  Oh tears, breast milk and blood:
  without beginning, without end you run in Samsara!
  Remember the wanderings of the creatures
  and the way the bones pile up!

  Remember the four oceans,
  filled with tears, mother's milk and blood!
  Remember in one epoch
  bones heap up like mount Vepulla!

  Without beginning, without end have you flowed (lit. samsara’ed),
  endless like the seeds of jujube fruit. ..."

This, combined with the literal meaning of the word "samsara" - "running by itself", "drifting" can point us in the right direction. Samsara is endless unless we put an end to it (nirodha). And how do we put an end to it? By applying the principle of this/that-conditionality and undoing the 2nd noble truth, i.e. by accepting what is and arriving at tathata. Now technically, what we accept is not really Samsara as it is, that would be surrendering. Instead, we learn to see Shunyata and that's what we accept, Samsara-as-Shunyata. Does not mean that Samsara has gone anywhere though, it is still endless as it always were. In fact, if we want to help other sentiment beings, we have to deal with Samsara every day.


How does one explain consistency within phenomena if the mind generates phenomena? I'm having trouble framing this question right so please let me know if it needs clarification. I'll first describe the issues surrounding the question and then ask the question itself.

I've been reading "A Buddhist Bible" compiled by Dwight Goddard. In one of the sutras the Buddha says that all perceived reality is like a dream. Essentially that all we touch, see, taste, hear, and feel is no more real than a dream. It's hard for me to see this because dreams don't seem to follow consistent rules as does the reality we seem to perceive. It seems that in our reality there really do exist laws of physics and mathematical truths and consistency amongst these things. From my understanding, the Buddha said that all phenomena is generated by the mind, but then why is there so much consistency within the laws of physics if it is the case that the mind generates it? I can easily imagine so many inconsistent things, not only that but I can dream them as well, so what distinction exists between activities of the mind such as those that "generate reality" and those that "generate dreams" such that one produces consistent laws of mathematical truths and the other does not?

Before I labor on and generate a confusing sequence of unrelated questions let me please clarify the question I wish to be answered: If it is the case that the reality that we perceive is no more real than the dreams that we have, what is the Buddhist explanation for what accounts for the consistency in the laws of physics and mathematical truths which we do observe? Secondly, since so many minds are generating this reality, how is it possible that everyone agrees upon laws of physics and mathematical truths? Doesn't consistency among observers imply an external reality independent of the mind? If consistency does exist then is there really only one mind? Or are there many? If there are many then how can consistency be satisfied?

I too had this question for a long time. Then I read Gil Fronsdal's translation of the Dhammapada, which begins (emphasis mine):

  All experience is preceded by mind,
  Led by mind,
  Made by mind.

This use of the word experience, where phenomena is often used, is much more accessible. Remember, the Buddha did not say "all phenomena is made by mind"; he said "manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā". To say that much can be lost in translation would be an understatement.

I prefer Gil's translation of experience because it fits with what makes sense. It's not everything that exists in our mind, but how we experience everything.

Consider a simple example. If you and I stand beside one another and together look at a houseplant in front of us, we will both see the houseplant. It's not that our minds are simultaneously (and coincidentally!) creating a houseplant that isn't really there; the plant is a real thing that exists in the world. But our minds will experience it differently: we'll interpret different shades of green, we'll consider the scent of the soil uniquely, and we may even have different emotional responses based on any memories associated with this particular kind of plant. The plant wasn't created by our minds, but every aspect of how we experience the plant was.

And remember the broader point that the Buddha was was making in that opening chapter, which continues:

  Speak or act with a corrupted mind,
  And suffering follows
  As the wagon wheel follows the hoof of the ox.

The point wasn't that everything we experience comes from our minds, but that because the mind plays a critical role in how we experience everything, the state of our mind set the stage for how (or whether) we will experience any suffering.


do you know consciousness? Language can be a confuser here so feel free to switch consciousness with knowing or awareness. I just ask because many of the texts I read speak early on the path to realization that knowing the Self means knowing what the Self is NOT.
so i know I am not my name. my body, my memories etc...

Essentially they seem to say if can know a 'thing' then you are not that thing. Recently I wondered if I was consciousness since it seems to be the one thing I do not know.

The 2 basic truths that we can all accept seem to be:
truth of being:   I am
truth of knowing: I know I am
So some may say 'I know I am conscious' or 'I know I am in a state of consciousness'. But I am not sure if statements like that are simply another statement of the basic truth of being.
Or I suppose another might say "I know that I know" or "I am aware that I am aware" but to me this seems like semantics and at the base level is simply saying "I know" or "I am aware"......not the actual EXPERIENCE of "knowing of knowing/conscsiousness/awareness". So I wonder if I could be my consiousness?

Are being and knowing of being inextricably bound together and dependent OR is it possible, in a non-referential void reality for example, to be and not know being? I will post that as a separate question if I must.

'Being' ('selfing') and knowing ('consciousness') are not inextricably bound together.

In Buddhism, consciousness is delineated into six types, such can be summarised as:

(i) seeing;

(ii) hearing;

(iii) smelling;

(iv) tasting;

(v) touching; &

(vi) mental cognition (knowing the mind's thoughts, feeling, moods, etc).

Imagine a mosquito suddenly bites. First, there is consciousness of the touch sensation then, a moment later, the mind thinks: "A mosquito has bitten me".

The touch consciousness arises 1st, by surprise, without any willfulness. Later the mind creates the idea of "me" or "I".

Therefore, 'knowing' & 'selfing' are not inextricably bound together because knowing occurs before & independent of the thought of "me" or "I".

This is why consciousness experiences many things the 'self' does not want to experience. If 'self' & 'consciousness' were bound together, the self could decide where to direct consciousness and thus avoid ugly sights, unpleasant sounds, bad smells, etc.

This is why you define or identify yourself as nothing apart from what the mind is consciousness of.

You were not born with pre-existing ideas of "my mother", "my father", "my house", "my body", etc. Instead, what happened is the mind first sees, hears, smells, tastes or touches its mother and eventually, later, the idea is formed: "my mother". Similarly, one first day, a small child looks into a mirror and develops for the first time, the idea of "me" or "my body".

In MN 64, the Buddha taught a new born child has no idea of 'self', 'me' or 'I'.

In SN 12.12, the Buddha described 'becoming', 'being' or 'selfing' only happens after consciousness, feeling, craving & attachment have occurred.


There is a text where Buddha says that the Dharma he teaches is not a secret doctrine so why are there sects which maintain secrecy? These three things are conducted in secret, not openly. What three? Illicit affairs, sorcery, and wrong views - says Buddha. So does this mean that secret teachings of many monks like Yogis I believe are doing one of these three things?

Buddha said that the Dhamma he teaches is not a secret doctrine...By this he meant that the Dhamma is out in the open for everybody to know...It was there even before the times of Siddhartha Gautama. The only difference is Buddha stated it explicitly so that even lay people could understand it. Although the language of the priestly class during the times of Buddha was Sanskrit, Buddha taught in Prakrit/Pali the language of lay people so that everyone could practice it. Buddha's Dhamma is 'Svakkhato' i.e. it is well propounded and well explained by the Buddha. So in that sense it is not a secret doctrine.

And regarding secret teachings, I don't know what exactly you mean by that. But to check if something is Buddha's Dhamma or not, one yardstick would be to check if the teaching helps us to

Refrain from evil doings
Engage in good works
Purify our mind

Also the suttas from the Pali canon are freely available these days on various sites. So the best way to capture these posers is to keep an open, rational and analytical mind and develop our own wisdom through the practice.


Is there a kind of consulting service in Buddhism? Similarly to psychotherapy counselling/consulting service, is there an equivalent form in Buddhism, in that the counselor is trained in Buddhism instead of clinical psychology? I haven't heard of such a professional service, but I guess this doesn't go against Buddhist teachings? There are short meditation courses, which can be seen as equivalent forms of short training courses in therapy I think. Or does Buddhism not advocate for this, because in its nature it doesn't advocate conceptualization?

I think if it exists, then the customers will have the mindset of psychotherapy service anyway, so it's just psychotherapy in Buddhism form. This is not a mean to be disrespectful – there are psychologists who have very solid knowledge in Buddhism, such as Jung. But I'm talking about those who once or still practice Buddhism as "professional" monks.

Related: Is there a kind of "pop Buddhism"?

First a bit of background or context -- just in case you didn't know.
So apparently, as well as the suttas, there's something called the vinaya i.e. the code of Monastic discipline. These are (or include) many of dozens of rules which the Buddha established for monks -- and "following the vinaya" is one of the things that a monk is supposed to do (and affects or defines whether someone is considered to be a monk).
The (codified) vinaya defines the letter-of-the-law of what monks must or mustn't do. I only know some details and vague outlines but I think it amounts to something including this (and more) ...

No handling money
No secular "job"
Maybe a limited acceptance of secular authorities (e.g. perhaps no secular "boss")
No selling the Dhamma (no secular "clients")
Limited interaction with lay-folk

... so "psychotherapy service" doesn't quite sound like what a monk should do -- e.g. I wouldn't expect to look up "psychotherapy" in the Yellow Pages and find a Buddhist monk advertising there.
People also have an ideal (perhaps idiosyncratic or judgemental) of what a monk should do, I think it's something like ...

If you're interested in Buddhism you go to a  monastery for training
Monks teach Buddhism to novices (i.e. monk-candidates), to lay people who are taking "retreats", and the occasional Dhamma-talk (like an academic "lecture" on a subject) to a group of people when invited
Monks take their bowl e.g. to the local village or onto the public street once a day, where people may put food in the bowl, but that's a silent transaction (or not transactional)

... so limited opportunity for any one-on-one -- and, "providing a service" to lay-people isn't entirely what being a monk is about. To the contrary, it's lay people who should provide some service to the sangha, doing or providing things which monks may need but aren't allowed to do themselves (including storing food, buying any goods and services, and so on).
Incidentally some people observe that the present actuality isn't as ideal as the outline above, in many Buddhist countries -- e.g. that some monasteries (or temples) do collect money, that monks live luxuriously, that there are "superstitions" or "folk religions" mixed in, that monks seem to make a living by showing up at lay funerals, and so on.
But anyway the content of the Vinaya -- the letter of the law if not the spirit -- varies quite little I think, over the centuries and over continents. Monks are expected to memorise it and recite it regularly.
Still there are deviations, in particular I think it's difficult to practice ...

When there's no support or cooperation from lay society (e.g. where the lay society isn't Buddhist and isn't prepared to support a monastic society)
When there's hostility from the secular powers (e.g. when the emperor thinks that Buddhist monks have become a drain on the empire's or the provinces' ability to raise taxes and/or armies)

For these reasons the existence of the sangha is a bit precarious, and without the sangha i.e. without monks being able to live, Buddhism might not be viable. Other traditions develop e.g. monks work in the fields to help support themselves, etc.
There also "competition" from other religions -- Hinduism, Islam, Daoism, Folk religions (e.g. animism), not to mention Christianity (and, perhaps most recently, western Rationalism and/or Science) -- but that's not on-topic here.
Anyway I think that Japan -- Japanese Buddhism -- might be one of the more extreme examples of the Vinaya being modified by secular edict. So, for example, I think that Japanese senior abbots might even marry and so on. I can't comment on countries where Buddhism itself has become a secular power.
As a gross approximation I'd guess that the "ideal" I outlined above (e.g. keeping separate from lay society) is a "Theravada" (the "Way of the Elder monks") ideal, whereas mixing more with lay society might be more "Mahayana" (the "Great vehicle") -- though Andrei points out that in practice this is a great oversimplification (and perhaps or arguably not a genuine distinction at all).

Anyway, to get round to your question -- yes, I think there are: in some places.
You asked about "in Buddhism" -- and I'm not sure what that means ... e.g. "in traditional Buddhism", or "in modern Buddhism", "in what we know of original or early Buddhism".
But for example, there's Welcome to Kusala.org ...

Kusala Bhikshu - is a volunteer Buddhist chaplain for -- The UCLA Medical Center Spiritual Care Committee, the University Religious Conference at UCLA, and the Garden Grove Police Department. Rev. Kusala is active in the interreligious communities of both Los Angeles and Orange County. He lives/works at the IBMC teaching Buddhism and meditation.

Perhaps what you're looking for is a Buddhist "chaplain"?
If you're dying in hospital then the staff might ask you if you want a visit from a chaplain, and some people might want a Buddhist chaplain.
Another possibility is that what you're asking about is a "teacher" -- i.e. a teacher might talk with you one-on-one and so on.
Another possibility is that you are asking for a (e.g. clinical) psychotherapist, but a Buddhist one.

It's this which ties the first bit of this answer to the second, by the way:

Kusala Bhikshu
Ven. Kusala Bhikshu (Thich Tam-Thien) is an American born Bhikshu (monk) ordained in the Zen Tradition of Vietnam.

Another (more famous) example of Vietnamese Zen in the west is Plum Village and Thich Nhat Hanh (I don't know whether that has anything to do with psychotherapeutic consulting though).
I don't know much more -- this suggests that the Vietnamese Zen tradition might be inclusive rather than exclusive, maybe not very dogmatic.
Also I hope the first bit of this answer might help to explain, amplify or give some context to the answers from Samana Johann and user12901.

This, I don't know, might be another example, it's a publisher's blurb about an author:

Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula
Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula, PhD, was born in Sri Lanka and became a Buddhist monk in childhood. He holds a Master's Degree in literature, and a doctorate in English. He serves the congregation at the Houston Buddhist Vihara, and teaches English at the University of Houston. He lives in Texas.

I don't know what "serving the congregation" there might mean exactly, but that might include something of what you're asking about (see also that book).

I think I've also seen it argued or imp[lied, though, that a monk who serves the community which supports them is therefore not a true monk.

My personal opinion is that, broadly, lay people will want you to function well or to improve your functioning within samsara -- conversely Buddhism might be about stopping samsara altogether -- consequently there may be some disconnect between the aims of lay society and "Buddhism".
I also think that anyone who wants to "stop" might be seen as dysfunctional, by "puthujjanas" and so on (people who aren't disinterested in what you do for them).
Wanting to stop might therefore be stigmatised as some symptom of mental illness -- ironic that stopping, if it's meant as a cure or therapy, should be mistaken for the disease.
I can only hope that any psychotherapist worth their salt, Buddhist or not, might have some patience for their client's best interest, advocate for their client/patient rather than only for society.
People tend to be pushed, not just by their society but by their family, to perform. I happened to read an extreme example of that recently, here:

In my country if I will become a homeless guy who don't want any money even à cents who looking for illumination I will send to psychiatrict hospital.
Asking for food when you made de choice to live without money is ok in bouddhisme and Indian for yogi. Not in my country.
And the weather...

That's actually a bit contrary to my limited experience (or at least, "in my country") of homelessness and psychiatric hospitals, it might help[ to illustrate a dichotomy though (possibly a false dichotomy).


Should a Buddhist pay homage/bend to his parents? I once heard we should pay homage (bending, prostrating or some similar) to our parents on their birthday. If that is correct, for who else should we pay homage/bend to? Monks and parents only?

From a Therevada perspective, in the Sigalovada Sutta (Pali Canon) the Buddha says to Silaga that parents should be worshiped. He doesn't actually specify monks in this sutra as at this point the Buddhist monastic community wouldn't have taken shape. However he does specify teachers and also ascetics and brahmans so we can maybe take this as the nearest equivalent.

In total he advocates the worship of 6 groups of people corresponding to the 6 directions so

Parents as the East
Teachers as the South
Wife and children as the West
Friends and associates as the North
Servants and employees as the Nadir
Ascetics and brahmans as the Zenith

I have to say though he doesn't restrict the homage to their birthdays only. Sigala is portrayed as doing a daily practice of homage in the six directions to which the Buddha is responding.

From a Mahayana perpective, the Ullambana sutra the Buddha advocates paying homage to parents

  Every year, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month

so this would be at least annual homage which is nearer to your question. In addition there is also the Sutra of Filial Piety which goes on at length about the trouble your parents have gone to to raise you (which is fair I guess - they have gone to a lot of effort). This is probably as influenced by Confucianism as much as Buddhism.

There are more of these type of sutras in Mahayana traditions but I'm already past my level of expertise so I'll leave those for other people to detail.


Conciousness in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta I would be happy if someone could clear up a doubt for me.

When Advaita talk about consciousness without boundaries it is said to be the "Self". It is described as combining being and knowing in one thing. This being and knowing divides itself in two, and becomes the knower (subject) and the known (object), which creates the duality. Now when the knower-and-the-known duality has been eradicated, it is said that what remains is this knowing-being self.

Now I am confused because I heard that somewhere in the Canon the Buddha talked about the conciousness vinjana without boundaries that the Arahat have.

Is he talking about the knowing-being self that the Advaita is talking about? And what exactly is this consciousness that the Buddha talks about: is it the same as knowing-being that Advaita talks about, when the duality of self and not-self has been removed?

I read somewhere that Buddhism says that knowing-being is not true: because consciousness always consciousness-of-something, in other words it cannot be conscious-of-itself, and therefore consciousness-of-itself or knowing-being as one thing is not possible. Please clarify this for me so that I understand, thanks.

In (Mahayana) Buddhism we say something similar, but a Buddhist description tries to be a little more careful and nuanced.

We say that vijnana ("consciousness", "experience") is always dualistic, always split into subject/object and object/background. And, we also say that vijnana is not a "something", it's a process, not an entity, so to say that "it" can or cannot be conscious of "itself" is silly. The process of cognizing can only cognize memories or thoughts about the process of cognizing.

We say that this dualistic or "tainted" process of vijnana develops from tendencies for liking and disliking, according to process known as Dependent Origination. And that before this development occurs, there's a state of great nondifferentiation. This nondifferentiation is not necessarily good or bad, after all it carries potential for developing into confusion of Samsara, but it also carries potential for developing into the Buddha. What this nondifferentiation tells us is that all boundaries and all dualities are mind-made, and that therefore all our troubles lie within those mind-made frameworks, the troubles only have their existence within those conceptual frameworks.

Finally, we recognize that someone may attain a first-hand realization of how all of this works and see these mind-making processes directly as they happen in real-time. Someone like that would see both, all mind-made boundaries and frameworks, all dualities of "this" vs "that" - but also at the same time see "the ground" of all of these, the reality underlying differentiation. We call such vision "enlightenment" and such person "a buddha".

When this enlightenment is attained, it involves seeing beyond all dualities, including duality of "me" vs "world". It becomes clear that mind has no boundaries. This mind (rigpa) is not the same as the process of dualistic cognition that we call consciousness or vijnana, but something much more fundamental, it is the fundamental principle of information exchange. Mind is inherently luminous because it is the very capability of representation. Mind is everywhere and flows everywhere because everything carries some representation, so in some sense everything is mind.

This is very similar to what they say in Advaita Vedanta, however there is an important difference. We don't say that mind is "I" or "self". It seems silly to equate the (ever-dualistic) subject with the fundamental principle beyond subject-object duality. Calling it "I" makes it seem like it is the same as our own self-awareness, and that therefore our individual self-awareness will somehow last forever, which is not true. Mind is not the subject, it's not the universe, it is the fundamental principle, the fundamental law giving the rise to both the subject and the universe. In Buddhism we don't say "I am the law" :))

Instead, we study this Law in all its aspects - as mind, as Depenent Origination, as self-perpetuating accumulation of tendencies, as Being-Time (see Dogen), as the source of Samsara and Nirvana, as Emptiness, as karma, as Three Marks of Existence  - and we take comfort in knowing that this Law is one thing that is not subject to impermanence and is therefore something we can finally rely on.

We also don't say that mind is something special or fundamentally different from everything else. So it's not like this mind is One Aware Entity watching everything in the universe, no - mind is just an aspect of how everything works, part of everyday things.

To summarize, in Mahayana we agree with idea of nonduality of Being and Mind, but we are careful to not confuse it with such dualistic concepts as "I", "consciousness", and "the universe".


Anapanasati with Dhatu Manasikara In Maha-Rahulovada Sutta monk Rahula asks the Buddha for instructions on developing Anapanasati. The Buddha didn't directly give instructions to him of Anapanasaati but instead, gives instructions on developing Anatta on the earth property, the water property, the fire property, the wind property, & the space property.

"Rahula, {any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' There are these five properties, Rahula. Which five? The earth property, the water property, the fire property, the wind property, & the space property."

It also states developing the four Brahma Viharas, the perception of Unattractiveness and Impermanence.
After that only the Buddha gives instructions on Anapanasati.
I also have heard that for the people who are untrained in Anapanasati, they may meditate on the elements and then go to Anapanasati. (Some say it is better to do this way since not doing Anapanasati properly can lead to difficulties in the mind)
PS - I tried the above approach and it was somewhat smoother than directly going into Anapanasati.
Q1. Is doing Dhatu manasikara first and doing Anapanasati afterward a smoother and an effective way of doing Anapanasati?
Q2. Also, can I know the simple explanation of what these actually mean

I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.
I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.
I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.
I will breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication
I will breathe in calming mental fabrication.
I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.
I will breathe in satisfying the mind
I will breathe in steadying the mind
I will breathe in releasing the mind
I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.
I will breathe in focusing on dispassion.
I will breathe in focusing on cessation.
I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.

What do these mean and how to achieve this is Anapanasati?

Q2. Also, can I know the simple explanation of what these actually mean

  I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.

This is a mistranslation. It should be 'body fabricator'. The body fabricator is defined in MN 44 as the in & out breathing.

The breathing is the body fabricator because when the breathing is calm, the body is calm; if the breathing is agitated, the body is stressed.; if the breathing is unhealthy, the body is unhealthy. If the breathing ends, the body dies. If the breathing starts, the body lives.

This calming the breathing is achieved by having a quiet non-attached mind, which unifies itself with the breathing.

  I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.

When the breathing & body calm sufficiently, rapture will arise to be the predominant object of meditation. It generally takes at least 60 to 75 minutes of calming the breathing constantly for rapture to arise.

Remember, the mind must be non-attached & in the present moment rather than craving for results & thinking about the future.

  I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.

If the mind remains non-attached & concentrated, the rapture will calm and pleasure or happiness will appear, which is a more refined pleasant feeling than rapture. Rapture (piti) is very vibrant, bubbly, agitating & seductive where as happiness (sukha) is more subtle, calm & soothing.

  I will breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication

This again is a mistranslation. It should be 'mind fabricator'. Rapture & happiness are the mind fabricator (citta sankhara) because they seduce the mind and, if the mind is not mindful, rapture & happiness will fabricate craving, greed, love, attachment in the mind. This is why they are called the mind fabricator because they fabricate or condition defilment in the mind.

  I will breathe in calming mental fabrication.

Just like when the breathing is calmed, by remaining non-attached & equanimous towards rapture & happiness, they will calm.

  I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.

When rapture & happiness cease, the mind-heart (citta) itself becomes the object of meditation. Here, the mind has concentration. The mind is not thinking.

However, there will be some residual defilements in the mind such as greed, anger & confusion that subtly arose in response to the rapture. For example, sometimes the mind does not like rapture because the rapture disturbed the mind when it was peacefully watching breathing.

At stage 9, any residual defilements (kilesa) of the mind are observed & calmed.

  I will breathe in satisfying the mind

When the defilements are calmed, the mind feels joy due to the cleansing of the defilements. This joy are more refined & subtle than rapture & happiness because the mind is now much more pure.

  I will breathe in steadying the mind

When the joy calms, the mind concentrates deeply, in a one-pointed manner because it is pure.

  I will breathe in releasing the mind

The mind (automatically) purifies itself of the one-pointedness of concentration & becomes open, bright & perfectly non-attached.

  I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.

At the previous stage the mind became liberated, open & non-attached.

Now, the impermanence of whatever subtle sense objects come to the mind is seen very clearly.

Here, the impermanence is so predominant that the mind sees mostly impermanence (rather than specific objects of impermanence). It is like watching a movie at very fast speed.

  I will breathe in focusing on dispassion.

In seeing the crazy impermanence, craving is destroyed more because the impermanence makes sense objects look ugly, unattractive & undesirable.

  I will breathe in focusing on cessation.

As craving is crushed or suspended, a taste of nirodha/Nibbana/no suffering/perfect peace occurs.

  I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.

The mind now fully knows all the experiences & things are not-self. It gives up holding anything as self.

The above is the fulfillment of stream-entry on the level of neighbourhood concentration. It is not jhana. It might take a few continuous meditation retreats to achieve this if the mind has no hindrances because reaching stage 9 in a very clear way can be difficult. However, one meditation retreat should be enough to reach stage 8 (if there are no hindrances).

Reading here: Buddhadasa: Mindfulness With Breathing Secrets of Life


Can / how do we know what death is? This question may read a little philosophical, Buddhist, and personal.

I've been a little obsessed with death for a very long time, and feel like I have zen answer. Less interested in "the path" (I would like to practice zazen) than whether my conclusion is sound, though to an extent, if it is, I can go on my way. As well as whether it conflicts with any zazen practice. A Buddhist friend keeps telling me I'm afraid and trying to outsmart death, and they say nobody really knows, which I definitely sympathise with, but equally I believe I'm right.

So how can we know what will happen to us at death? Do we ask a teacher, ourselves, not ask about it, not worry about it, or something else entirely?

'Death' happens to a 'person', 'self-entity' or 'self'.

When the mind is free from thoughts of 'self', it will know 'death' only happens to a 'self'.

It will also know when the mind is free from 'self', there is no 'death'.

The 'termination of life' is not the same as 'death'.

These things the mind can know when entering into 'emptiness' (śūnyatā - 空).


Pali Linguistic Algorithm? Some Buddhist writers seem to imply that they can apply a screen or test, linguistic or otherwise, to the Pali Canon and thus separate the original teachings of the Buddha from its "later" degenerations, and are thus able to describe "original Buddhism."

However, any application of this "method" seems to degenerate almost immediately into an ideological argument based on implicit assumptions of what the Buddha's teaching was like or naive inferences that because a text appears to be later, that automatically disqualifies it from consideration (in fact, later texts can incorporate or revise older traditions, elaborate older doctrines, consist of valid inferences, or even consist of valid original insights based on the original set of insights and thus be valid in their own right).

Yet despite these claims one finds only vague generalizations (e.g., Pande) or outright ideology. If such an algorithm existed, it should be possible to create a revised textus receptus and I have not seen this. A.K. Warder, a Pali scholar and a linguist, says nothing about this in Indian Buddhism, although he does imply that the Digha Nikaya is the oldest and therefore most authentic part of the Pali Canon.

Does anybody know of an in depth and articulate description of such a linguistic algorithm or method that is free of ideological bias?

A.K. Warder, a Pali scholar and a linguist ... does imply that the Digha Nikaya is the oldest and therefore most authentic part of the
  Pali Canon

beneath is some gleaned info on the relative chronology of the canonical Buddhist texts

From T.W. Rhys Davids, Appendix to Chapter 10 of 'Buddhist India' Putnam, 1903.
http://fsnow.com/text/buddhist-india/chapter10.htm

[The list] represents the probable order in which the extant Buddhist documents of this period were composed. They were not yet written, and a great deal has no doubt been lost.

  The simple statements of Buddhist doctrine now found, in identical words, in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.
  Episodes found, in identical words, in two or more of the existing books.
  The Sīlas, the Pārāyana, the Octades, the pātimokkha.
  The Dīgha, Majjhima, Aṅguttara, and Saṁyutta Nikāyas.
  The Sutta Nipāta, the Thera- and Therī-Gāthās, the Udānas, and the Khuddaka Pāṭha.
  The Sutta Vibhaṅga and the Khandhakas.
  The Jātakas and the Dhammapadas.
  The Niddesa, the Itivuttakas, and the Paṭisambhidā.
  The Peta- and Vimāna-Vatthus, the Apadānas, the Cariyā Piṭaka, and the Buddha Vaṁsa.
  The Abhidhamma books; the last of which is the Kathā Vatthu, and the earliest probably the Puggala Paññatti.

Alternative chronological order
from Bimala Law: A History of Pali Literature, Ch 1, pp. 29-66

Chronological placement of the Octades (Atthakavagga) and Patimokkha,
whole Nikayas, regarding their strata, is questionable, same for Sutta Nipata

  The simple statements of Buddhist doctrine now found in identical works in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.
  Episodes found in identical works in two or more of the existing books.
  The Silas, the Parayana group of sixteen poems without the prologue, the Atthaka group of four or sixteen poems, the Sikkhapadas.
  Dlgha, Vol. I, the Majjhima, the Samyutta, the Anguttara, and earlier Patimokkha code of 152 rules.
  The Digha, Vols. II and III, the Thera-Theri-gatha, the collection of 500 Jatakas, Suttavibhanga, Patisambhidamagga, Puggalapaññatti and
  Vibhanga.
  The Mahavagga and the Cullavagga, the Patimokkha code completing 227 rules, the Vimanavatthu and Petavatthu, the Dhammapada and the
  Kathavatthu.
  The Cullaniddesa, the Mahaniddesa, the Udana, the Itivuttaka, the Sutta Nipata, the Dhatukatha, the Yamaka, and the Patthana.
  The Buddhavamsa, the Cariyapitaka, and the Apadana.
  The Parivarapatha.
  The Khuddakapāṭha.


Questions About Pleasure in Visual Senses I'm wondering if Buddhism has any notion of visual defilement. What I mean is that in Christianity, there are notions of one's purity or person corrupted by pornography, lustful gazing, etc.

Is there an equivalent in Buddhism? Also, if a person perceives pornography or gazes lustfully, is this sufficient to be a kind of attachment if there is no action or consequence?

I.e. What is the consequence of visual pleasure without further action? What is the consequence of perceiving a pleasurable sight without intention, e.g. mindfully?

Thank you.

PS: What is the scope of such pleasure compared to say orgasm or eating? Is there a pleasure specific to vision, e.g. one becomes accustomed and insensitive to visual pleasure specifically with overuse? (But not, say, other sensory pleasures)

In Buddhism, there are three types of kamma (action), namely: (i) bodily; (ii) verbal; and (iii) mental; each of which have results. Therefore, habitually merely visually observing pleasurable objects will making craving, addiction & the resultant restlessness grow. Thus, the Jesus teaching is similar to Buddhism; because viewing a woman with sexual objectification both grows craving, enslavement & is an error of moral-view (lacking of compassion & not considering harmful consequences).


Can I plan for future while doing meditation on death? Buddha said about meditation on death : "Even if a person aware about his death can be happen within that day is late. If someone thinks, his death can be happen within current breath is not late". According to that, Can we think about future at all? How can we manage neccessery things without thinking about future ? (I know that, for a  buddhist, there can only be one dream or goal. But what about food, money for living ?)

Why meditation on death is a good karma ?

Isn't it a good karma to meditate on other things ? (thinking about failure of an ongoing project, end of a relationship etc.) (However thinking on death covers all)

Sorry for bad english.

King regards.

Not sure where the quote is from, but the instant death that buddha talks about seems to regard the death of the self. He is talking about anicca and anatta, in other words.

One can of course plan for the future - or ones livelyhood - for instance, but there is a difference whether one plans with attachment or whether one plans with reminiscence of impermanence.


What is Lo Jong mind training? A friend of mine recently mentioned Lo Jong mind training to me, when I asked my teacher he told me not to worry about it.

Would anyone be willing to explain what it is and what it is used for?

lo= mind, and jong=learn, train, purify. It is a combination of pithy instructions for training the mind on the Buddhist path, particularly for those who have taken bodhisattva vows, but can be used by any practitioner. It trains the mind to awaken compassion for self and others. Rather than dwelling on obstacles, crying mea culpa, one uses them to learn by taking on the suffering of self and others as a training exercise to improve the depth of ones compassion. The steps to mind training together with explanation are too extensive for this forum, however, Jamgon Kontrul's "The Great Path to Awakening" is a good place to find more in depth answers.


Avoiding Triggers that can generate negative karma I have a problem that I am currently facing. There is a certain person in the family that triggers me and due to their actions I feel very angry and generate negative mind-states. The strategy I have adopted is to avoid this person all together , to the point of not even seeing them. I find that this helps me to keep calm and avoid negative mind states. Is this a good way to go about this situation? Can we avoid all triggers that generate negative mind states. Does that help in spiritual development?

From the Zen perspective and referring to the first comment of user5954246 below your question, it is absolutely ok how you deal with this situation. There is no real right or wrong here (if they exist at all). Remember… if you're not able to adopt a state of peacefulness and calmness for your own, you won't be able to share this with other people around you. So for the moment everything is fine.

Let's assume this Status quo will last for the next period of time, may be you will notice how this distance to the mentioned person will relax you and your thoughts and in one or two months you'll become much more laid-back during the next encounter with him or her.

In my opinion it is very good invested time to ask yourself the same questions, you mentioned above, on a regularly interval. Give yourself and the other one a new try when the right time has come.

Hongzhi Zhengjue, which had great influence especially on the Sôtô Zen wrote in his "Cultivating the empty field"

  Senses and objects merge; principle and wisdom are united. When self and other are the same, mind and dharmas are one.

Yeah, I admit, it is hard to allow the own mind to play with the me-and-the-other-one-dualism in such mind states, but it helped me more than once in similar situations to remember, that I share more similarities with all other beings around me, than differences that separate me from them.


Buddhism, Reincarnation, and Doubt Is it possible to maintain certain skeptical doubts about literal reincarnation and continue to work towards stream-entry, assuming one's practice is sincere and vigilant?

Is it possible to maintain certain skeptical doubts about literal reincarnation and continue to work towards stream-entry, assuming one's practice is sincere and vigilant?*

Yes it's possible.

Skeptical doubt about the (whole) Dharma, about Buddhism (in general), is a hindrance (I think it would hinder "continuing to work").

The fact that you do continue, sincerely, suggests  a certain absence of doubt.

I'm not sure what you mean by "maintaining" a doubt. "Reincarnation" might be a topic where you'd find it more useful to be agnostic (i.e. "I don't know, I'm not sure, I don't understand, let's put that topic aside for now") rather than either believing or disbelieving. It's apparently a topic on which different people disagree (though you'll often find people try to emphasize that the dharma is "birth" or "rebirth" and not "reincarnation"); leaving that aside, perhaps there are other (perhaps, even, more important) topics that it's good to ascertain.

The topic (of rebirth) might become clearer as you understand other aspects of dharma.

There's even the Kalama Sutta, which suggests that "doubt", at least initially, about doctrines you find doubtful, is proper:

  It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; etc.

To be honest I fear that "reincarnation" is a topic which puts many Westerners off Buddhism. All they know about it is, "Oh, Buddhism: that's something to do with reincarnation, isn't it? Well I don't believe in reincarnation, so I'm not interested in Buddhism." I think that's a mistake, though. Obviously a disbelief in reincarnation does prevent (some) people learning more/anything about Buddhism, but I think that isn't necessary so.

To "cross the stream" I suggest it makes sense to concentrate not (or not only) on what you doubt (e.g. "reincarnation").


Justifiable violence in Buddhism? Does Buddhism preach absolute non-violence? Or is there any instance where Buddha had thought that violence can become a necessity under certain situations?

No, householder Somanna, the Buddha and all wise approve that one thing should be killed, and only that:

Having killed what
    do you sleep in ease?
Having killed what
    do you not grieve?
Of the slaying
of what one thing
    does Gotama approve?

[The Buddha:]
Having killed anger
    you sleep in ease.
Having killed anger
    you do not grieve.
The noble ones praise
the slaying of anger
    — with its honeyed crest
    & poison root —
for having killed it
    you do not grieve.

Ghatva Sutta

Without need to have any doubt, if hearing or seeing that someone approves harming, encourages to such by signs and words or even performing such, that such person is not even near related to the Buddha, wise and their following, but harmful thieves in this world.

Those who have doubts, regard them as not having found refuge in the tripple Gems jet, how much ever they use the Gems, even tell that they are Buddhist, knowing, and follower.

May one be careful and blessed to never assosiate with fools and bad friend.

As already quoted, not all are capable in getting the message.

The Simile of the Saw, is possible the most famous collection on it.

Not for any purpose:

  "What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his mother & father...for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, ...There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of refreshing & nourishing his body,..., does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of my mother & father. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would his mother & father gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

  "No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."...

Harmlessness is one of the three factors of right effort,following right view.

What ever might appear as harmfull, like rebuking fools, there by the words, right speech,  of compassion ends what ever conductive support can be given for one who acts (by thought, words and speech) for his longtime disadvantage.

(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment, but only as means to escape this binding wheel)


What is non-duality in Buddhism? I noticed some questioners on this site using the term "non-duality".

What is non-duality in Buddhism?

This is a well-known idea in Hinduism i.e. advaita. But does it exist in Buddhism?

Is it an official term in Buddhism, or just a convenient Western philosophy terminology to describe a concept just like the terms "ontology" or "epistemology"?

How is it used in Theravada and Mahayana? What are the Pali and Sanskrit terms for it?

AN 10.29 seems to have the word "advayam" which Bhikkhu Sujato translates as "non-dual" but Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as "undivided". Not sure if this is related.

There's a post here on that subject, which isn't long but difficult to summarise: The Dharma of Non-Duality

In the first (main) part the author says:

The word for "non-duality" is advaita
The Buddha didn't use that term (because it was already used then to mean "union of soul with God")
The Buddha did teach "non-duality" is many ways -- e.g. "neither self nor no-self", "middle way", "form and emptiness" (in the Heart Sutra), and "dependent origination implies neither self nor other"
Nagarjuna "used non-duality" in his Mulakarika
Etc.

In a second part (posted as a long comment on the first part), Hans Gruber argues that neither Nargajuna nor the Buddha teach non-duality:

Non-clinging isn't non-duality
Emptiness isn't non-duality, and different things are different even if they are dependently originated
Moving towards liberation (by reducing ignorance etc.) isn't non-duality
The Buddha didn't teach non-dualism as a metaphysical principle, instead he taught dependent origination (also didn't teach anatta as a metaphysical principle or abstract terms, but only as a "predicate" or "practice instruction" applicable to concrete terms i.e. any and all dhammas).

AN 10.29 seems to have the word "advayam" which Bhikkhu Sujato translates as "non-dual" but Bhikkhu Bodhi translates as "undivided". Not sure if this is related.

Yes I expect it's the same root: a+dvaya ("not a pair").

Looking at advaita compared with advaya reminds me of, I wonder if it's similar to, tatha versus tathata -- where one is the adjective (e.g. "true" or "non-dual, single") and the other is an abstract noun ("truth, suchness" or "non-duality") -- or Suñña versus Suññata i.e. "empty" versus "emptiness".

That might fit with Hans Gruber's saying that the Buddha didn't non-duality as a principle (e.g. as an abstract noun).


What is karma vipaka and its contents? What are the results of various sins done. I heard that it has various kinds of results we get for sins done.

For a puthujjana (ordinary unenlightened person), the results of sinful kamma is rebirth in hell.

These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions
under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body,
after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
destination, the lower realms, in hell.
MN 4

For a Noble One, the results of past sinful kamma is merely feelings (vedana) felt (vedaniyaṃ).

Bhikkhus, this group [of aggregates] is not yours, nor does it belong
to others. It is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by
volition, as something to be felt (vedaniyaṃ).
SN 12.37

AN 3.99 says:

Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life,
there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress.
But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt (vedanīyaṃ) in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is
the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right
ending of stress.


Three types of Raaga In the Cakkavatti Sihanaada Sutra it is mentioned about three types of raaga or unwholesome acts that people did at the lifespan of 500 years. It is named

Adharma Raaga
Visama Lobha
Michcha Dharma

What does these 3 mean? The meaning is not specially mentioned in the pali canon.

Page 19 of the Dharmafarer PDF says they're explained in the commentary:

  The Commentary here explains them as follows:

  “abnormal lust” (adhamma,raga) as incest, that is, “lust between mother and mother’s sister and
  father’s sister and maternal uncle’s wife and other such improper situations” ;
  “excessive greed” (visama,lobha) or “neurotic desire,” as excessive greed by way of consuming
  things (in other words, unbridled materialism and
  consumerism); and
  “deviant conduct” (miccha,dhamma) as homosexuality, ie, sex “between men and men, women
  with women.”

I haven't quoted the whole page here: see page 19 of the PDF for more.