Is fortune telling allowed in temples? Is there a sutra which provides more info on the subject above?
As per wikipedia, some monks should have such abilities as those found in Wikipedia page "Miracles of Gautama Buddha":

Superparanormal powers the historic Buddha was said to have possessed
and exercised include the six higher knowledges (abhiññā): psychic
abilities (iddhi-vidhā), clairaudience (dibba-sota), telepathy
(ceto-pariya), recollection of one's own past lives
(pubbe-nivāsanussati), seeing the past lives and rebirths of others
(dibba-cakkhu), and the extinction of mental intoxicants
(āsavakkhaya). Miracles found in Mahayana sutras generally play a more
direct role in illustrating certain doctrines than miracles found in
non-Mahayana Buddhist texts.

No. Fortune telling, astrology, palmistry, divination etc. are considered to be "animal" arts by the Buddha, which is forbidden to monks in DN 2 (quoted below).
From DN 2:

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a
cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and
gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
"animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: determining lucky and unlucky gems, staffs, garments, swords,
arrows, bows, and other weapons; women, men, boys, girls, male slaves,
female slaves; elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams,
fowl, quails, lizards, rabbits, tortoises, and other animals — he
abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: there will be a lunar eclipse; there will be a solar
eclipse; there will be an occultation of [a conjunction of the moon or
a planet with] an asterism; the sun and moon will be favorable; the
sun and moon will be unfavorable; the asterisms will be favorable; the
asterisms will be unfavorable; there will be a meteor shower; there
will be a flickering light on the horizon [an aurora?]; there will be
an earthquake; there will be thunder coming from dry clouds; there
will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the sun,
moon, and asterisms; such will be the result of the lunar eclipse ...
the rising, setting, darkening, brightening of the sun, moon, and
asterisms — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such
as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
"animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
collecting debts or making investments and loans; reciting charms to
make people attractive or unattractive; curing women who have
undergone miscarriages or abortions; reciting spells to bind a man's
tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands,
or to bring on deafness; getting oracular answers to questions
addressed to a spirit in a mirror, in a young girl, or to a spirit
medium; worshipping the sun, worshipping the Great Brahmā, bringing
forth flames from the mouth, invoking the goddess of luck — he
abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
his virtue."
"A monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger anywhere from his
restraint through virtue. Just as a head-anointed noble warrior king
who has defeated his enemies sees no danger anywhere from his enemies,
in the same way the monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger
anywhere from his restraint through virtue. Endowed with this noble
aggregate of virtue, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being
blameless. This is how a monk is consummate in virtue.


What are the sets of things in SN 1.44? What are the sets of one, two, three, five and twelve things mentioned in the sutta below?
What does it mean?
From SN 1.44 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato):

“One is the root, two are the whirlpools, three are the stains, five
the spreads, twelve the ocean’s whirlpools: such is the abyss crossed
over by the hermit.”

From SN 1.44 (translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi):

“The seer has crossed over
the abyss
With its one root, two whirlpools,
Three stains, five extensions,
An ocean with twelve eddies.”

There's a really long footnote here, which starts with a paraphrase of the commentary ...

This is a riddle verse the clue to which lies in the identification of the metaphors used. According to the comm., the root is craving; the two whirlpools (ie. 'dviraava.t.tam': rendered above as 'turning-twice') are the eternalist and annihilationist views; the three stains are lust, hatred and delusion; the five arenas are the five types of sense-pleasure; the ocean is craving itself in its insatiable aspect; the twelve eddies are the internal and external spheres (of sense) and the abyss is craving in its 'bottomless' aspect. (Note that craving plays a triple role in this interpretation).

... and which then goes on to doubt the commentary by pointing out that some of these metaphors are used to refer to other things in other suttas.


very strong cravings for compelling images of moving exciting images The problem I find is that modern technology enables easy yielding to exciting moving images in a compulsive way via television, DVDs, cinema and the internet. How can I find free online Buddhist guidance to prevent and avoid online yielding to such powerful cravings which I find are so obsessive and compulsive in me.

Unwholesome cravings are extinguished by using wisdom rather than by using willpower.

This requires seeing clearly & reflecting upon the danger & harm of unwholesome phenomena.

The mind must examine & investigate cause & effect very deeply.

Examples of this method are found in the Dvedhavitakka Sutta & the Potaliya Sutta.

If pornography is a problem, this requires changing wrong views in order to understand what brings women real happiness.

  And what Master Gotama, is a woman’s aim?

  A man, O brahmin, is a woman’s aim, her quest is for adornments, her mainstay is sons, her desire is to be without a co-wife and her ideal
  is domination.

  AN 6.52

The psychological problem with pornography is related to wrong view or delusion (rather than lust).

Readings: Five Mindfulness Trainings & Sexual Responsibility by Thich Nhat Hanh


Reducing the power of a bad karma As we all agree none of us have a white past, we've all have done some bad thing in our past before coming to the path and in previous lives.

So how should we use the good karma we generate today to
reduce the impact of bad karma from previous lives and from our past?

I've heard that this is possible.

The Sankha Sutta is one of the best sutta's I know of that provides instructions on how to transcend and overcome the effects of past unskillful kamma.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.008.than.html

  This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed. This
  is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed.

  ...when the awareness-release through equanimity is thus developed, thus
  pursued, any deed done to a limited extent no longer remains there, no
  longer stays there."


Should Buddhists only cultivate native plants? Reading various threads here, I know that plants are not considered to be sentient beings in Buddhism. But I still can't help wondering whether Buddhists create bad karma if they cultivate non-native plants. By 'cultivate' I mean for example planting a palm tree in a temperate climate (with large temperature changes over a year) or a giant sequoia anywhere but in the Sierra Nevada mountains in California. (I do not mean caring for plants that have been planted by others before me.)

Unwholesome actions are created when the intention/volition behind the action is unwholesome.

If one is cultivating plants with intentions of greed, anger, non-harmlessness, then one is creating unwholesome kamma, which will produce unwholesome future resultants.

If one is cultivating plants with wholesome intentions such as good-will, caring, altruism, wholesome future resultants will be produced.

What is important here, is the Mind that is behind the action. Everything starts in the Mind, with reference to the twin verses in the Dhammapada.


If I start doing Vipassana now, how long will it take me to achieve Nirvana? Call me an over-enthusiast but presently, the highest priority in my life is to achieve the object of Nirvana or moksha. By performing Vipassana, I want to achieve Nirvana and in this lifetime only. I'm prepared to do anything for it, even leave my current profession and staying as a monk if required.

Trouble is, I just don't understand how exactly to go about meditation. I've read a few suttas but I just don't understand what to do while doing Vipassana meditation. In a 10-day Vipassana course I'd undergone, I'd done Anapana (breathfulness meditation) by keeping my mind on the entry and exit of breath at the nostrils. I've done this for several hours and I still do it sometimes.

I also do mindfulness meditation sittings (by observing my thoughts impartially) for at least an hour in one sitting daily.

Now, all these practices are great and take me into a calm and tranquil state of mind. But I don't seem to be getting anywhere towards my ultimate goal of Nirvana. Is there any way to know how long is it going to take me with this speed, or how do I increase the speed? Most importantly, Is joining the sangha and practicing full-time monkhood the only way to achieve Nirvana?

There is a lovely zen saying, a dialogue between new student and master:

"Master, if I put in great effort every day to attain awakening, how long will it take?"

The master replies, "20 years."

"What if I work really really hard?"

The master replies, "40 years."

Wanting enlightenment is paradoxical, because enlightenment is the absence of defilement, not the presence of need.

It would be of great benefit to study the six perfections.  You may find this reference useful: http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Six_paramitas

Often people assume enlightenment to be the result of something. If you are happy following causes and their results, then practice the six perfections as much as possible.  You must ultimately pair them with wisdom which transcends conceptuality in order to arrive into a state which is beyond.

It will greatly depend on your attitude and your motivation.  Thus, I encourage you to study the Buddha's words and keep a superior motivation.

No one can guarantee for you how long it will take, and when you "get there" so-to-speak, there will not be any conventional sense of time to speak of, so instead of asking "how long will it take" we should all ask "what can we do to accelerate the process?"

A skillful question is one which illuminates the how.

If you come with great faith in the teachings and practice with a single-pointed mind, freedom shall dawn.  Until the gravity of our imperiled situation in samsara is seen for what it is, benefit yourself and others with study and reflection.

One aspect of enlightenment is freedom from doubt.  Clear away all your doubts with the stainfree mirror of the teachings.  The Buddha proclaimed that "in the future" [in this era] to come face-to-face with the teachings is the same as coming face-to-face with the Buddha.

At any rate, even if someone told you that it will take 3 long aeons to come to awakening practicing diligently every day all day, what is that in comparison to an unending cycle of dying and being born?  What is 3 long aeons in comparison to the nonceasing spin of the wheel of life?


Buddhism in ancient Arabic regions In the age of king "Asoka", the expansion of Buddhism reached Arabic countries. Does anybody know what those countries are called now?

Can anyone provide details about what happened to those places / Temples ?

Wikipedia's Ashoka article includes this map:

Its western border is the Seleucid empire which appears to be where modern-day Iran is (note that Iran I think might be ethnically Persian rather than Arabian).

It also includes modern-day countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan (which are Islamic but not exactly Arabic).

This map is labelled "Buddhist proselytism at the time of king Ashoka (260–218 BCE)":

It shows Buddhist proselytism reaching (beyond the Maurya empire) to Alexandria (which is in modern-day Egypt), and Antioch (modern Turkey).

This may not be "expansion of Buddhism" though, it's more like "envoys from the Buddhist empire".


Should we encourage children to find their interest? In western societies specially, children are encouraged to try their hand at different things so that they can find their interest, practice it, be good at it. In the process build character like learn how to be disciplined, punctual, diligent, organized, productive, learn from mistakes etc.
Then the very act of finding an interest seems similar to how 'attachments' are described in Buddhism. Am I missing something?

First, I believe the simple answer is: Yes, it can be proper.
One of the teachings of the Noble Eightfold Path is “Right Livelyhood”. In this teaching the Buddha laid out the requirements for a job to be helpful to moving forward toward enlightenment – even for non-monks.
As long as the encouragement to follow their interests includes teachings on how to recognize a Right Livelyhood I would say such encouragement would be quite proper.
As to the specific issue of ‘Attachment’ in this:
Most lay persons need to have a job / livelyhood to live. To my way of thinking, just because one finds a job one enjoys and has an affinity for, does not imply they must also have an exaggerated or unhealthy attachment to that job which would hinder their spiritual development.
Again, if the parent or teacher imparts teachings of how to recognize symptoms of unhealthy attachment to things of this world and of the proper perspective as to what a job is, in the wholeness of a person’s spiritual existence; again, I would say such encouragement would be proper.
Best, Jim


Looking for a book that covers the biography of the Buddha's life Which biography of the Buddha is written in (or translated into) English, and is the most widely read (from a Theravada perspective)?

You may see these two books:

Buddha by Karen Armstrong,
The Life of Buddha according to the Pali Canon by Bhikkhu Nanamoli.


Developing a intense focus on materialistic things Can we make our daily activities as a meditation practise ?

I'm not asking about being aware on what we are doing. When we do samatha meditation, we focused on the breath only. I'm asking, When we do day to day activities, focusing only what we supposed to do.

This practise will give good materialstic achivements for sure. But, is this help to be enilightened ? Did Lord Buddha advice us to do something like this ?

I lost interest to do day to day things. Because, the results gives from those are impermanant, useless in the long run (samsara). I'm looking for a way that help me to maintain the life while help me to be enlightened.

Edit: We all have a certain level of focus when we do something. Is building a intense focus on something (materialstic things) a good practise ? Will it help me learn dhamma ?

For day to day activities the ideal is:

  SN35.95:10.1: “In that case, when it comes to things that are to be seen, heard, thought, and known: in the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.

But this is also quite difficult, since day to day activities bring experiences that capture, repel or deceive us. For example, watching a favorite TV show while ignoring the baby's diaper is foolish.

The Buddha therefore qualifies his advice with a very tough prerequisite:

  SN35.95:5.1: “Do you have any desire or greed or affection for sounds known by the ear …  smells known by the nose …  tastes known by the tongue …  touches known by the body … thoughts known by the mind that you haven’t known, you’ve never known before, you don’t know, and you don’t think would be known?”

Meditation firmly grounds our practice in the prerequisites. It provides a basis for the restraint needed to go about our day to day activities unentangled. Not only do we have to disentangle ourselves from what is desirable, but we also have to disentangle ourselves from what is repulsive. We have to clean the dishes, scrub the toilet, and more. Chores are endless and impermanent. Yet they are also important. Fortunately, because others shun such activities, one can earn a living doing the necessary things which others avoid. Indeed one can maintain one's life with Right Livelihood doing necessary things which others avoid.

Such a practice of day to day activities requires a measure of equanimity. And with equanimity, we might answer the Buddha's question:

  SN35.95:9.2: “No, sir.”

And having asserted this to the Buddha, we might then also say this about our day to day activities:

  SN35.95:25.1: Even as you see a sight and get familiar with how it feels you wear away, you don’t heap up:  that’s how to live mindfully. Eroding suffering like this, you’re said to be in the presence of extinguishment.

To which the Buddha answered long ago:

  SN35.95:36.2: “Good, good, Māluṅkyaputta!

Regarding focus of meditation, notice that the Buddha says "you don't heap up". The Buddha also says "wear away". Heaping strain upon strain grasping at intense focus is therefore unskillful. It is more skillful to ease and wear away the strain so that clarity and insight emerge in our meditation. Materialism can be confused with focus. However, we can wear away that attachment by practicing contentment whether the cushion is coarse or fine. For support in this day to day practice, good spiritual friends will become important.


How often to meditate and how far apart I am able to sit in floor in half lotus pose and meditate 30 minutes at s time.

Originally I did once in morning and once at night but I have been looking to also do once before lunch and once after lunch (at least when I'm home from work) making it 4 times, total two hours.

At this point I am trying to determine how to do the two mid-day meditations on the days I go to work. I am thinking perhaps once in morning, once after breakfast before I get train, once when I come home from work and once at night.

Do meditations need to be spread out? And what happens if I am too sleepy to do meditation that I must skip else I will fall asleep during meditation?

Thanks !

How often should you meditate? The short answer is every day, and don't overdo it.

The long answer: If, like me, you want a lasting improvement in your day-to-day affairs, you should prioritize application and regularity, while evaluating your practice critically, and if possible, taking a course in meditation.

Application

After you finish sitting, can you keep on applying what you've learned for the next 5 minutes? For the next 10 minutes? For the next 10 hours, even? This is something that comes with practice, and moreso if your practice is regular.

R.Barzell's comment about going about your day mindfully is important, because meditation is worth more if you take it as a training on how to handle daily life. When someone says something that used to offend you, if you can look at that the same way you look at your breath, that's a huge  benefit. On the other hand you might make many beginner's mistakes, such as thinking "Meditation is an escape from reality that will make me feel good" or being overconfident and smug about your supposed progress. Both are mistakes I have made in the past.

Regularity

Regularity will make or break your practice. Even if you only sit 10 minutes, you'll get huge benefits from practicing every day, regardless of which tradition you practice (assuming that you stick to a tradition and don't make a random fruit basket of traditions). So if you're sitting for 30 minutes a day every day, you should ideally make more progress than someone who only sits 10 minutes a day every day. But all of this probably doesn't matter if you can't evaluate your practice critically.

Right Reflection

This means asking the right questions about your practice.

What was gained from this practice? What was lost?
Does this teacher have good qualities? Bad qualities?
Is there more or less suffering as a result of the practice?
Am I more prone to distraction or more focused?

To be clear, I don't mean you should to overly analyze this in the mind as our logical abilities can only take us so far. What I mean is to keep an eye out. Try things and see how it goes. As some say, check yourself before you wreck yourself (I really like that expression, hah).

Sleepiness

This one probably varies depending on what tradition you practice. In the Mahasi Sayadaw school, any experience that arises should be the main object of meditation. This goes for sleepiness, so if you're sleepy, focus on that. Either you'll fall asleep or the sleepiness will go away. We shouldn't worry about falling asleep, but, in the case that we start worrying, then we should meditate on the worrying itself.

Take a Course

Finally, there's great value in taking a course under an accomplished teacher. A teacher can correct your practice when it goes astray—I know my practice went astray plenty of times, so I'm grateful to my teacher for helping with that. On a course you will probably meditate during every waking hour for many days consecutively. While this may seem to oppose the idea of meditating 10 minutes a day every day, think how much more you can gain from a consistent practice, when you have under your belt lessons learned from 50 or so hours of nearly continuous meditation under the guidance of a teacher.

Beware the Lotus

I forgot to add, be careful about sitting with one leg on top of the other, or even worse, both legs on top of each other. If you don't have the requisite flexibility in your hip sockets, you will do long-term damage to your knees as they bend in ways they are not built to handle. Much less strenuous is Burmese position, where one leg is in front of the other.


Are the majority of humans reincarnated from the lower worlds? I read the following on the internet:

  Birth as a human is extremely rare the majority of humans most likely
  came from hellish worlds, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts
  prior to this human existence.....

Is it true or false according to the Pali suttas?

Teacher of the Devas:

  In the round of samsara it is extremely rare to rise above the realms
  of woe, where the way out of suffering cannot be followed, and a human
  birth is even more favorable to awakening than birth in the realm of
  the gods.

Given that human life, because of its possibility for awakening, is even higher in terms of value to that of the devas, it would seem surprising in my opinion that the majority of humans come from lower realms where virtuous karma is very difficult to generate.

The majority of humans, from a relative viewpoint, have had greater karma than the majority of sentient beings:
The Nakhasikha Sutta says:

  "In the same way, monks, few are the beings reborn among human beings. Far more are those reborn elsewhere [...]"

Hence, even seemingly unfortunate individuals of the human realm have had a very fortunate rebirth, wherever they came from.

Also, there is a certain futility in speculating about karma, I believe, and the Buddha has somewhat suggested this in the Acintita Sutta:

  "There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four? [...] The [precise working out of the] results of kamma [...]"

Because rebirths may take different paths, and an individual may be reborn in the lower realms from lifetimes in the heavenly realms, or vice versa, there seems to be little meaning as to what realms human beings come from: they come from samsara. If a human being comes from the lower realm when they have spent infinite eons in every other realms, only a minute perspective would make their last rebirth significant; seeing the vastness of samsaric life, any specific rebirth is meaningless in the whole. My take is that such a minute analysis was what was reprimanded by the Buddha. Only a vast perspective gives a right impression.

I mean, is there a meaning to a person reincarnating from heavenly realms to the hellish realms to a human birth, different from the hellish realms to the heavenly realms to a human birth? I don't see any.

Now, relative to your exact question, 'Is the majority of humans from lower realms', there is the notion of different periods of time such as anatarakalpas, where different levels of fortune and virtue appears among human beings. If fortunate karma is different across time periods for humans, how could the same phenomenon of rebirth explain this? Do low points of human civilization and high points with the presence of Dhamma involve the same process of rebirth? Difficult to say. I think that Maitraya's time involving eighty-thousand years of life and the subsequent period where humans live ten much worse years may not have the same level of karmic fortune.

All this to say that these considerations -- even without including the perspective of selflessness of phenomena -- suggest that the question is a difficult one.

Hope this helps!


Where is the suttas is 'sati' defined as present moment awareness? I read the following on the internet:

  About this unusual understanding of sati ("Sati is never present moment awareness") I hope the reader of this answer put some time
  reading the suttas to come to his/her own conclusion about what sati
  can refer to.

Where is the Palis suttas is 'sati' defined as 'present moment awareness'?

Sutta does not define that 'sati' as present moment awareness.
Mindfulness in Buddhist teaching is much more than the english meaning of mindfulness and the the general mindfulness taught in the west.
To understand the meaning of 'Sati' we should have a good understanding of the following two Suttas.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html


How to practice “In the seen will be merely what is seen” "In the seen will be merely what is seen”
I’ve red this http://theeyeofdhamma.blogspot.com/2013/10/ditte-ditta-mattan-bhavissathi.html?m=1
I’m  still not sure how I should apply & practice this in real life?
For an example, if I see some delicious food, instantly, craving naturally occurs and think “that looks yum”.
After that, with a tiny force, I think that, this is how my mind is trying to objectify the feeling and remind the example given on above post:
“An example given is the image (or shadow) falling on water when one looks into a pond. We cannot interact with this image by touching or smelling and it appears when we look into the water and disappears when we move away. If we try to touch it we can feel the water but not the image.”
I’m really confused how to put this in daily life. Really appreciate if anyone could guide me..

This topic is famously developed in Vajrayana's highest tantras such as Mahamudra and Dzogchen.
The point is to shift the focus of experience from the samsaric mind with its constant judgement of things in relation to ego and the values ego identifies with, e.g. "is this useful to me or worthless", "is this cool enough for me or too basic", "will this make me dirty in any sense", "is this spiritual or lowly material", "is this democratic", "is this stylish" and so infinitely on -- and towards experiencing the authentic quality of things on their terms, as they are.
So instead of "look at this beautiful sunset" - you just look, you truly look and see it all, without bringing your preconceived ideas and simplistic concepts such as "beautiful". Instead of judging a person as primitive or advanced (substitute any other category) you take them as a little mystery they are just like each of us.
You get the point, to see things as they are is to stop overgeneralizing our experience by limiting it to projection of what we know. It means to look with our eyes, not with our brains. It means to see the new and unknown, the unspoken, the inexpressible - instead of only seeing our own thoughts.
Samsara is a subjective realm made of our thinking. We feed and maintain it by dwelling on samsaric thought patterns, which can all be summarized as instances of generalization, stereotyping, and reification. We feed these by replaying them over and over in our thoughts. The practice of seeing things as they are is unmaking this cyclic feeding/sustenance and breaking through to the actual reality beyond our bubble.
When we do this we discover that reality has an extra dimension we never saw. Seeing this extra dimension requires allowing ourselves ambiguity of interpretation. Going beyond the stable ground of habitual interpretation allows us to walk that extra dimension. This is the freedom the Buddha has taught.


Did the Buddha make any reference to Krishna and Gita? As Hinduism was a prominent religion of the Buddha's time (though not in today's unified form ), Buddha must have learnt about the Gita and krishna's philosophy. In fact, the Buddha's karma philosophy and the notion of 'skillful karma' ( performing actions as duty without getting attached to it) seem to be too close to Krishna's karma yoga philosophy to find any difference.

Is there any reference to the Gita or Krishna in Buddhist texts?

The dates given in Wikipedia's Bhagavad Gita article, for example,

Professor Jeaneane Fowler, in her commentary on the Gita, considers second century BCE to be the likely date of composition.

... and,

The so-called "Hindu Synthesis" emerged during the early Classical period (200 BCE - 300 CE) of Hinduism.[21][7][22] According to Alf Hiltebeitel, a period of consolidation in the development of Hinduism took place between the time of the late Vedic Upanishad (ca. 500 BCE) and the period of the rise of the Guptas (ca. 320–467 CE) which he calls the "Hindu Synthesis", "Brahmanic Synthesis", or "Orthodox Synthesis".[21] It developed in interaction with other religions and peoples:

The emerging self-definitions of Hinduism were forged in the context of continuous interaction with heterodox religions (Buddhists, Jains, Ajivikas) throughout this whole period, and with foreign people (Yavanas, or Greeks; Sakas, or Scythians; Pahlavas, or Parthians; and Kusanas, or Kushans) from the third phase on [between the Mauryan empire and the rise of the Guptas].

... and in Wikipedia's Krishna article,

Worship of the deity Krishna, either in the form of deity Krishna or in the form of Vasudeva, Bala Krishna or Gopala can be traced to as early as the 4th century BC.

... compared with the dates in the Gautama Buddha article,

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE.

... suggest to me it's possible that maybe the Buddha lived a little bit earlier (e.g. 100 years or more) than when Krishna became famous and when the Gita was composed.
If it's true that the Gita was written during a "synthesis" which occurred as a reaction to competition from Buddhism and Jainism and so on, that could explain why there's no commentary from the Buddha (i.e. that he lived slightly before then, and so any commentary would be anachronistic).
There are Buddhist suttas which recount the Buddha's talking with brahmins.
In summary the first sentence of the OP (i.e. "As Hinduism was a prominent religion of the Buddha's time (though not in today's unified form), Buddha must have learnt about the Gita and krishna's philosophy.") might be a slightly incorrect assumption.


Can straight samatha ever lead to enlightenment? Can you just do so much samatha meditation that you achieve enlightenment?

If you are asking about whether Samatha meditation alone can lead to enlightenment the answer is no.

Why is that?

In Vipassana meditation you have ultimate reality as your object of meditation. By having reality as your object you achieve insight into how reality functions i.e. the 3 signs of existence; anicca, dukkha, anatta. When penetrating into reality one can attain enlightenment through realizising one of these signs.

When one is doing Samatha meditation alone one can only gain tranquility i.e. a strong concentration and the jhanas. One cannot any achieve insights into reality and therefore not become enlightened. That is because in samatha meditation one does not have ultimate reality as an object. Instead one has a concept as an object e.g. one of the 10 kasinas. One is trying to keep that object static by keeping attention on the object through the means of applied and sustained thought.

You can think about it in another way. Lets say you had a big stone in front you and you want to carve out a figure from that stone. To do that you need an instrument, a tool. Concentration is your tool and the stone is reality.

In order for you to be able to carve into the stone you need the tool to be sharp. In other words you need to sharpen your tool. That is where samatha meditation is used. You use samatha meditation to train and sharpen your concentration so that you can use concentration as a tool to carve/penetrate into reality and then gain insights into how reality functions.

So back to the stone. If you only sharpen your tool will that ever lead you to enlightenment?

No its not possible. Samatha meditation is like that sharpening. By doing samatha meditation you are only making your tool sharper, better and more precise but you are never actually applying that tool to the stone. You are never actually carving the stone.

That is why samatha meditation alone cannot lead you to enlightenment.

Lanka


Should one call oneself a Buddhist? When people ask me about my religion, it always gets me thinking as how I should announce to another person that I practice Buddhism, should tell that I am:

A Buddhist
Follower of the Buddha
Practicing Buddhism

Or an alternative to these?

The way I was taught Buddhism: identifying oneself with anything is a fetter. Self-identification is a form of clinging, and as such it inherently leads to conflict between "this" and "that", hence suffering.

Ego is a box made of stuff we identify with. Ego is not just being selfish, it is what makes us tremendously vulnerable.

Externally, avoid defining yourself, except jokingly or if required by circumstances. Internally, have no idea who you really are.

Do not identify yourself as Theravada, Mahayana, Democrat, Republican, Russian, Ukrainian, Man, Woman, Buddhist, Programmer, Human, or Spontaneously
Self-Existing
Luminous
Unity
of Emptiness
and Form.

  Thus, to all dharmas not getting stuck, not getting caught into traps of abstractions (aniketacari), not clinging -- he attains Awakening of the Lucky Ones.


How does one practice mindfulness during thinking - e.g. thinking about how to solve a problem? This question is in context of practicing mindfulness in one's day-to-day activities (e.g. walking, talking, washing dishes etc.), where one is supposed to be "aware of" / "observe" / "be mindful of" these activities.

But how does one be "mindful" during thinking, since the very act of "observing" thinking would interrupt the thought process? And, say, if the thought process is about solving a specific problem, the very act of "being aware of /observing" the thoughts would result in one being unable to effectively solve that problem - when compared to not observing/ not being mindful about those thoughts. Or, be unable to solve it all.

The same question for when reading something very interesting, or studying, where one is fully engrossed? Wouldn't being mindful about these activities interrupt the reading/study?

New to mindfulness here. Apologies if the question sounds foolish, or irrelevant due to my misunderstanding of mindfulness.

Thanks in advance.

A.K.
It's not a foolish question at all,  I think it's something everyone spends sometime trying to understand when they first start learning meditation and mindfulness.

Mindfulness is being present.  If you're sitting you know you're sitting, if you're standing you know you're standing. If you are washing dishes you are only washing dishes, you are not thinking about the what happened at work, about the bills, or about any problems you may have had with your spouse or friend. Eventually with enough practice you can stay present while sleeping though I make no claims on being able to do this.

This can extend to studying, shopping, for groceries, driving, etc.  I meditate most days while driving into work, as I'm completely mindful of what I'm doing and undistracted,  I'm probably the safest driver on the road. As an "intellectual worker", I stay mindful and undistracted with the work I do.  I think many people do this and do not understand they are being mindful. Mindfulness is not "non-thinking" though it can be as being present doesn't require thinking, it's being completely present with and aware of what you are doing. Decisions can be part of the process but should be void of I or my, rather the appropriateness of the decision to completing the task in the physical world is the factor of action.

A suggestion is that you don't draw a distinction between being mindful in meditation and when you get up from the mat, try to find things to extend your mindfulness to as the day goes on, pick simple things at first like taking a shower, going to the bathroom, driving, and start working on extending it through the entire day.  You will find things like basic planning and paying bills will take care of themself to a large extent.  You won't forget your social security number or to pay the bills..no worries. It is also a process that takes years -> decades, etc to fully develop but it is well worth the effort.

Addendum: I realized I hadn't addressed part of your question. About being mindful with "engrossing" or something or really interesting. This is probably the unpopular part of the answer but truth is just what it is.  For monastics, entertainment is not allowed.  The reason for this isn't that it's evil, but because by design it "hooks you",  creating desire (i.e. Dukka - suffering).  There is no problem with experience happiness or suffering - but mindfulness is to help you not cling to good things "engrossing" and desire (Dukka - suffering) push away bad things.  If you are fairly well down the path you may be able to do this quite easily without suffering, but most of us aren't.  So if you want to know how "engrossing" things cause suffering, imagine being denied to watch the next season of "Game of Thrones" if you are a fan.  This is a gross example, there are much more subtle forms of suffering also, things that re-enforce I and my. So though some could be mindful watching "Game of Thrones" without desire/attachment/suffering, it's really tough for most of us.

2nd Addendum:
I believe there are two different issues that are being mixed, one is thinking or concentration, the other is actively encouraging suffering. When you are mindful,  you are not bored as you are present and observing, and as noted taking action (decisions and thinking) such as braking and not hit the stopped car in front of you when driving. Working on a really hard problem is not much different than washing dishes and deciding to wipe more or not, except that it's more likely to be iterative. If you are really mindful, it's not necessarily more focused as you can be really focused on simple tasks as well as difficult problems. Working difficult problems does not encourage I or my  (dukka - suffering), unless of course you scold or complement yourself on how stupid or smart you are.

The case of entertainment again is something designed to make you unmindful, to rouse desire and emotions (dukka), if they didn't then shows like the "Out of Focus Pages of the Telephone Book" would be very popular.  The "designed to make you unmindful" part again doesn't make it evil - it's just with Buddhism the long game is rejiggering your mind, taking advantage of neuroplasticity to break life long habits that lead to suffering.  If you meditate alot, you will find watching something like GoT will make it really difficult to meditate for sometime afterwards. You find that avoiding things like this make you a more contented person.  I know that if you watched GoT in a completely mindful way, it would be like having a teflon mind, nothing would stick, but you would also not get the "high" (or "low") from it, you would not feel jubilation when the bad guy gets killed or depression when the good guy gets killed - you would just be observing and noting.  Renunciation is a process, you don't do it in a day, it happens naturally while developing your practice. It turns out not to be a sacrifice or hardship when you really understand on a deeper level more than an intellectual level within yourself that you're really gaining peace by doing so. In the mean time go and enjoy GoT and note how if it disturbs your mind and do not take my word for it. If you find this is true as you develop a practice (meditation,etc), it will make you naturally draw back from watching other programs of this sort in the future.

3rd Addendum: From your last comment, I'll try my best to answer but I admit I am working somewhat out of my pay grade so take it as as a potentially flawed answer.  The purpose of meditation is as a vehicle to enlightenment which is the end of suffering by extinguishing the ego.  It is the ego that causes suffering,  not consciousness and not emotions.  With or without the ego emotions are still with us, it's just without the ego there is no suffering because the emotions are experienced without clinging and aversion. You can be happy, but as it passes since everything is temporary, you don't try to hold on to it or make it last longer, and when you're unhappy, you're not pushing this away. Without an ego there is no one to suffer. So an enlightened person can laugh and cry and is not an emotionless robot.  The difference is that there is no clinging or aversion.

An enlightened person may not detached from life at all, or may detach completely.  Though the next comment may cause some ire of others, I believe it to be true.  Many persons who very likely were enlightened have done things that people thought were unenlightened.  Examples are Suziki Roshi crying when his wife died, he mourned for a few days and some criticized him for it asking how could he be enlightened and do such a thing. He later commented that he mindfully observed his mourning. I've gone to a lecture with the Dalai Lama and he is very engaged, he often tells funny stories and jokes. Some of the best dharma talks I've heard could almost have been standup comedy routines. Metta meditation intentionally works to create compassion and raise positive emotions as does Tonglen meditation.  Probably more controversial would be Trungpa Rimpoche who drank, smoked, and was a womanizer, he never tried to hide any of this. You'd have to study his life and his work and try to figure out if you think he was authentic or not. I do personally. It's thought that this was at least in part to confound the minds of his followers as to what an enlightened being was and break their wrong preconceived notions.  When you read his writings and look at his accomplishments they were authentic and significant.  It would be tough to have much more of a less (apparently) detached life than his.

Monks are students, just like the lay Buddhist, it's just they've pledged their life exclusively to the path.  If they actually become a fully realized being, there are no longer bound by restrictions as those restrictions were only there to help them become a fully realized being.

I hope I answered you're question rather than creating more confusion.

I hope this helps..


Joining and then leaving the monastic order? One thing that seems fascinating about the rules of the monastic life, the rules of poverty and celibacy, and so forth, is that as strict as the rules are, it seems that compliance is voluntary.  A monk could,  at any moment, choose to disrobe and leave the order, and he would still be welcome to hear the Buddha and practice as a lay believer.

It seems almost as if he is lauded for acknowledging his limitations rather than continuing to struggle without making progress, and continuing to eat the alms food in vain.  I haven't yet read any sutras where a lapsed monk is told that he earned himself a rebirth in a bad destination.

Am I mistaken?  Does a lapsed monk earn bad karma from leaving the order, or from having mistakenly joined the monastic order?  On the other hand, is it possible that he earns good karma and a good rebirth for having been in the Sangha?  Suppose that his time in the Sangha makes him more wise, compassionate, forbearing as a lay person than he was previously.

Suppose a recently divorced banker or stock broker resolves to join an established Therevadin order for exactly seven years.  He will memorize the teaching and meticulously follow the rules during that time, after which he will return to his profession (and find a new wife).

Is this permissible and beneficial, according to the Dhamma?

I do not recall any suttas that refer to a bad outcome due to disrobing. This said, I do not recall any suttas about a monk returning to lay life given the Buddha generally intervened and prevented them.
However, the suttas do have teachings I recall about bad monks, such as the Dhammapda verses below:

There are many evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe. These wicked men will be born in states of woe because of their evil deeds.

It would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball, blazing like fire, than as an immoral and uncontrolled monk to eat the alms of the people.

As for good rebirth, this can only come from general good karma (rather than a token amount of time as a monk). For example, in Thailand, often corrupt politicians temporarily become monks to redeem their reputations. However, if they are inwardly rotten, ordaining temporarily won’t help much change their destiny.


What is a Buddhist ceremony or service called, and what day of the week is it likely to be? I am a student at Manhattan College. I am in a class on religious discrimination. For my class I must go to a religious service other than mine. I picked Buddhism. However I don't know what a service would be called, or what day of the weekend it would be. I am lucky I have a monastery around the corner from me; what am I looking for?

In early times, (and still today in some Buddhist countries), laypeople would intensity their practice on certain days according to the lunar calendar. The special weekly Buddhist holy day is called Uposatha and it is observed on the new moon, the full moon, and the quarter moons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uposatha

Today, particularly in the West where we don't use a lunar calendar, you are more likely to find a weekly, bi monthly, or monthly meeting at a fixed time. At the Laotian temple I attend, everyone is invited twice a month to a Sunday morning service which runs from about 9:00 am through about 1:00 pm. The most significant parts of the service include taking refuge, reciting the precepts, and offering lunch to the monks. In our tradition (Theravada), the monks don't eat anything after noon. So the lunch offered is quite a big event and an opportunity for people to give dana.

But Buddhist meetings and services are not uniform and can be scheduled for purely practical reasons. A temple in my area has a Sunday morning service in Vietnamese and a Wednesday evening service in English. Another has a Sunday morning service in Korean and a Saturday Day of Mindfulness in English. Some groups meet for meditation and others meet for something that is more similar to worship.

Best suggestion would be to call or stop by the monastery to see if they have services or events open to the public. The one universal rule is that shoes should be removed before you enter a monastery or temple. Have fun and be well. :)


Does a fertlized pigeon egg have life in it? I got pigeon eggs in my big balcony - in different places  -  some of them get abandoned by the pigeons.

At what time by Buddhism are the eggs considered a sentient being ?

Breath, and those interested (in possible release),

when ever there is the knowledge or assumption, that "living being", it would require to accept the destruction of life, if then (not knowing as it is) take on to destruct, call for it, or accept.

To tend to one speculation requires to deny the other possibility, once arosen.

Once such a serious thought of "it could be..." is arosen, it would be unskillful to simply deny it unproved and act on it. It falls then quick under what is called "deliberate" act.

Even if it would then show that there was no life in it, "luckily", the acceptance before, is unskillful kamma, yet not a break of precept.

So the wise way is always, if in doubt, to handle it as if, and not to deny it out of certain personal reasons, at least most unskillful.

"Please" be clear that intention is something very close to the act it self and not a far purpose.

One literary sample would be the burning down of a forest, jet accepting even if humans are inside, that they would die, as one story where a monk caused a downfall - transgression. (See Pārājika discussion)

To tell somebody "there is no life in it" without directly knowing, would transgress (aside of possible purpose to even have something killed) the precept of "speaking what is not true".

At least, in regard of the question: the modern and by certain sects used "sentient" is not a messure, since such leads to all kind of speculations. "Living", in what ever way and state is to be taken as messure.

Does a fertlized pigeon egg have life in it?

If knowing even this that fertlized... If not knowing that it died, it is to be assumed. Eggs have possible life in it. That is something seen and known, for the most, yet not an inherent knowledge of everyone at the same time.

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


Prostration and attachment to rites and rituals Why isn't prostration considered as a rite or a ritual in the sense of silabbata paramasa (one of the fetters that had to be abandoned to become a stream-enterer)?

I wonder how this practice can contribute to insight especially when prostration is done mechanically (as practiced around Buddhist pagodas in Birma; Sri Lanka and Thailand)?

Preforming a ceremonial act isn't the same thing as clinging to rites and rituals. Clinging to rites and rituals specifically means that you think that some ceremonial action has some sort of power in it that can take you to enlightenment.


Why should I study the Suttas? If the Buddha said that we shouldn't take his teachings as dogma, but rather try to experience for ourselves what realization is--why should we study the scriptures?

If the Buddha said that we shouldn't take his teachings as dogma, but rather try to experience for ourselves what realization is--why should we study the scriptures?

First, one should study the scriptures so one is not caught on hearsay of what the Buddha might have taught. Moreover, how can one expect to learn the teachings of the Buddha while at the same time ignoring the teachings of the Buddha?

Having said that, besides being understood as a religion or carrying a philosophy, Buddhism carries a pedagogy and much of what the Buddha taught is a training, and like all training, it is intimately associated with technique (pretty much anything that requires repetitive practice is an exercise on technique).

By comparison, take anything else that requires training and technique, like martial arts, for example. With the dedication to study and practice guided by a master, one can expect you to become a master yourself, perfectly fluent in the craft, in this life time. But turn your eyes away and ignore those who came before you, and the likelihood is that you might not develop yourself at all, much less, become a master yourself -- possibly, will hurt yourself before there's any significant progress.

In another analogy, take calculus. It's not so hard to learn what Newton created by studying his work. However, it's very hard to come up with and invent calculus yourself.

Now note, it's not impossible to progress alone in any path -- some of them did have someone to pave the way after all. It just requires a certain commitment, a high endurance to failures and skills that is really rare. On that vein, some people may entertain the idea of trying alone anyway -- but then, the goal is not something like achieving nirvana (or understand calculus) but something else (like being recognized as someone who did it all by oneself -- a strange devotion to the very ego one is trying to destroy, one could say).

Now, to explain why a teacher would say to avoid taking the lessons as dogma, imagine for example a martial arts student copying and memorizing the lessons and boasting others by how well he has memorized -- but who could not perform a single move of what has been taught. Such student would likely have the teacher telling him "hey, don't take what I say as a dogma, but experience [the movements in order to learn]".


Buddhism on We are all one As explained here Buddhism does no belong into pantheism because God can be interpreted no as oneness but a creation of the mind as the fourth aggregate explains (eg. "an invisible man who lives in the sky who is separated from you etc") that implies something separated from you.  Nevertheless the third mark of existence "Anatta" tells you that there is no self that is to say the idea of you (ego) is illusory.

Is is right from a Buddhistic point of view to say that you and me are the same because there is only one consciousness playing different minds(egos, personalities, psychologies, etc) and bodies of all sentient creatures at the same time. Eg. "the same driver driving all the cars at the same time in present, past and future"

OP: Is it right from a Buddhist point of view to say that you and me are the same because there is only one consciousness playing
  different minds (egos, personalities, psychologies, etc) and bodies of
  all sentient creatures at the same time. Eg. "the same driver driving
  all the cars at the same time in present, past and future"

No. That's a classic teaching of Hinduism.

According to the Hindu text Shvetashvatara Upanishad:

  God, who is one only, is hidden in all beings.
  He is all-pervading, and is the inner self of all creatures.
  He presides over all actions, and all beings reside in Him.
  He is the witness, and He is the Pure Consciousness

According to the Hindu text Bhagavad Gita 13.14:

  Everywhere are His hands and legs, His eyes and faces, and He hears
  everything. In this way the Supersoul exists.

What did the Buddha teach?
(from the Theravada perspective)

From MN 38:

  "Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in
  dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood
  is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence
  on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that
  burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a
  fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a
  cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified
  simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is
  classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness
  is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which
  it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms
  is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises
  in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as
  ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose
  & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply
  as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on
  the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as
  body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

Think about it. How can the silent witness witness anything except through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. There is therefore no independent consciousness.

Consciousness is dependent on and conditioned upon these six media. It does not exist independently connecting all beings. The consciousness in every being may be of a similar type, but it's not the same consciousness.

For example, I can say that every candle has a similar flame, but it's not the exact same flame that appears on every candle. Each flame is different.

From Sabba Sutta (also see this question):

  "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
  speak."

  "As you say, lord," the monks responded.

  The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would
  say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on
  what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable
  to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it
  lies beyond range.


Seeing things as they are There's a lot of emphasis within the insight tradition on "seeing things as they are" , "turning towards difficult emotions" etc etc.   But in my experience it's not always the best advise. For example if I'm feeling sad,lonely, depressed etc,  I find  it's not helpful to sit there and look at it at all. I end up feeling worse. Going for a walk or swim and getting into my body seems to be far more helpful. I end up feeling happier.  Why is there so much focus on this kind of passive acceptance? Sure I can accept that right now I feel sad but ifs it's within my power to change that then why wouldn't I?

What you are saying, about seeing things as they are, is not very accurate. You're not supposed to passively accept your negative mind states, neuroses, pathological emotions, traditionally known as "evil, unskillful qualities of the mind". Otherwise, why would it be called the path of liberation, if it did not lead to abandonment of the above bad qualities and cessation of suffering that they bring?

From Tri-Yana perspective, the method varies depending on the practitioner's style:

If you are a Hinayana-style student, you're supposed to confront and overcome your negative emotions - through either direct willful effort, or as you say, through deliberate self-distraction.

If you are a Mahayana-style student, you're supposed to look inside until you see which egoistic attachment has given rise to the emotion, and by letting go of attachment, dismiss the emotion.

If you are a Vajrayana-style student, you're supposed to get in direct contact with the psychosomatic energy of the emotion and by going through the emotion transmute it into pure energy.

What you're referring to as "seeing things as they are" reminds me of one of the methods that Buddha taught back in the Pali Canon, that kinda spans all the three styles above:

In this method you look at your emotion analytically, objectively - so instead of replaying the thoughts/events that feed the emotion (which is bad), you philosophically/phenomenologically/scientifically analyze the emotion: see it's source in the attachment, see it's psychosomatic projection in the body - and this analysis itself (this will sound like a joke but it's not!) actually serves as a distraction that switches your mind away from the emotion to the skillful mind quality known as "analysis of dharmas". Makes sense?

So you don't just passively accept your negative mind states, you work with them, but this work does not always have to be as crude as suppression or distraction - there are more subtle methods, and this is one of them.


Did I do more harm than good? I was out walking today when my eyes were intially attracted to a butterfly that was on the ground to my right. I stopped to have a quick look at it to notice that it couldnt' fly very well. I picked it up, it fluttered about in my hand and then flew a bit and landed on my jacket where I could see it better.

It turned out there was a bit of (what looked like) brown leaf which was stuck to one of its wings, which didn't seem fully developed / opened. I made the decision to pull this bit of brown off away from the wing thinking it'd help the butterfly. As I pulled it cafefully off, I noticed a tiny speck of the wing came off too. However, after I pulled it off, the butterfly flew away over my head - something it couldn't do before.

So, I'm thinking was it so panicked that it managed to fly away in terms of a short burst (it fluttered away fairly quickly) or was I able to help it do what it wanted to do in the first place?

I realise that I imposed my will onto something thinking I know best which I feel bad about but I possibly also helped it do something that it wanted to do in the first place?

I also realise that in the grand system, maybe that butterfly was to become food for another creature which I've now deprived it of. So I'm not sure whether I did something worthwhile or not.

If it wasn't worthwhile, then is helping another creature / person frowned upon because it isn't as it should be?

... I realize that I imposed my will...

No you did not. The spirit (in an abstract sense!) brought you and the butterfly together. You played your role, butterfly played its.

Was your intent pure? Have you felt the sacredness of the moment? Were you acting foolishly or have your weighted the possibilities?

Life and death is around us and inside us all the time. The fact that butterfly was on your right is a good sign. Life gives us chances once in a while, sometimes it's a chance to change someone's life - and sometimes it's a chance to have someone change our life, to be in the role of the butterfly.

At the end of the day we are not Gods - we can't foresee all repercussions of our acts, even such simple ones as yours. But we can do our best, and if we do it consistently then in the long run we will all be in the best place we could have possibly been.


Does speed of body movements affect the calmness of mind? Does speed of body movements affects the mind? Do we have to slow down our actions to have a better sati? It feels it does affects. But are there any sutta about this? How that works?

The ordinary speed of ordinary body movements does not adversely affect the mind. In my experience, the ultra-slow methods of walking meditation do not enhance mindfulness and, in my opinion, hinder mindfulness, because it takes far more unnatural activity of mind to maintain a very slow unnatural walking pace.
The original Buddhist scriptures are silent on the speed of walking meditation, which means walking meditation was most probably done at a natural pace; which is why it is described as "walking back & forth (caṅkama)".
I know from intensive personal practice that natural ordinary body movements are the optimal for mindfulness.
In fact, the what most do not understand is how to practice mindfulness. In higher practise, mindfulness is maintaining the mind is a state of letting go. Therefore, in the state of letting go, body movements are natural rather than contrived and controlling.


Is working for a big corporation invariably wrong livelihood? That can be a very complicated point.
Almost every work for a big corporation could be (potentially) seen as wrong livelihood! Hard to find a big corporation that works with good products, ethical conduct, respects the environment, the employees and is not involved in tax evasion, bribe or any other scandal... so what is more important from a Buddhist's point of view: What YOU do in your work routine or what your company does or sells?

It does feel like big corporations are somehow less ethical but I suspect it's related to complexity. In a smaller company it's relatively easy to understand whats going on and where the ethical grey areas may or may not be. I work in a company of 30 people so I've a reasonably good idea what we are up to and if there are any major ethical concerns. However in a bigger company all manner of things can and will be going on. Your department may be perfectly ethical but another department might be selling arms to unsavoury regimes. The office 50 miles away might have real issues about work place bullying. The executive board might be engaging in large scale tax evasion. In a big company there are a lot of conditions in play, lot of things going on, lots of places to hide. There is bound to be good and bad there.

But in reality we are all affected by each other. A small company has suppliers - what are they up to? A small company invests in pensions - is it ethically investing? A small company still has an environmental footprint - is it excessively flying its people to other countries? The more we think about ourselves and others, the more these issues will come up. I think we are living in a golden age for Buddhist practice (controversial I know) but I do think that our livelihood is one of the areas that is more difficult for us in the modern world. But we still need to consider this kind of issue - exactly as you are doing.

I've a personal preference for working for smaller companies but I'm not sure that it's because of right livelihood and general ethical concerns. It might be just my ego playing out - preferring to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.


What happens to grasping at 'self' after termination of life? Please answer these two questions:

1a. Suppose there is an ignorant person named X who is grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping'). Suppose X's material body is being destroyed by cancer. X is suffering very much because of grasping. For X the incoming termination of life is hell in the here & now because of grasping. For X termination of life is reality in the here & now because of grasping. Suppose X life will be terminated while X is grasping. My question is: in the described case of person X, will grasping stop after X's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?

2a. Suppose there is an enlightened person named Z who is not grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping'). Suppose Z's material body is being destroyed by cancer. Z is not suffering because of freedom from grasping. For Z the incoming termination of life is liberating because of freedom from grasping. For Z termination of life does not exist in the here & now because of freedom from grasping. Suppose Z life will be terminated while Z is free from grasping. My question is: in the described case of person Z, will grasping re-arise after Z's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?

In case one, there is re-birth - hence he continues with grasping.
In the second case (for an Arahant), there is no rebirth.


If there is no soul or self, why did the Buddha speak of his past lives? How is it possible that he had past lives and how did he know they were his? What defines them as his?

How is it possible that he had past lives?

Because until he became the Buddha he hadn't eliminated craving.
Craving leads to clinging, clinging leads to becoming, becoming leads to birth.

  how did he know they were his? What defines them as his?

Do you remember your childhood? If so, why do you call it your childhood? Because your current existence(assuming you are an adult now) is conditioned by how the child behaved. In the same manner, if your mind had the power to go further back in time, even before your birth, you would see what actions you performed in your last life to condition your present birth. In that sense, it makes it your past life.

But here we are merely talking about a causes and effect relationship. Such a relationship does not require an existence of a soul. A mango seed does not require a soul to result into a mango tree. It rather requires sunlight, water, fertilizer, air etc. Water does not require a soul to turn into steam. It requires heat.

In order for something to qualify as a soul, it has to be under your total control. Which means, it shouldn't be existing without your consent, it shouldn't be changing without your consent, it shouldn't be dying without your consent. Can you find anything in your mind or body that meets those conditions? Could the child have stayed as a child if he/she didn't like to become an adult?


Should I limit the time I do metta? Metta feels great. It is unconditional love on tap. So, could there be too much of it? It is addicting.

No, there's no limit to practising metta. In Metta sutta it is mentioned that the one who practices this can do it anytime and anywhere.

Whether standing or walking, seated
or lying down free from drowsiness,
one should sustain this
recollection.
Metta sutta

This is one of the four protective meditations (metta, contemplation of the Buddha, death and foulness of the body) and you won't experience side effects as in other types of meditations as well. You cannot practice breathing meditation when you are ill, like headaches and anxiety, it tends to aggravate the problem, but metta doesn't. Also, it is usually recommended to practice the four protective meditations before breathing meditation to reduce defilements.
The claim, metta meditation does not lead to wisdom is also not entirely true. In  AN 11.16 sutta it is clearly stated how a metta jhana can be used to  develop insight.

Then again, a monk keeps pervading the first direction with an
awareness imbued with good will, likewise the second, likewise the
third, likewise the fourth. Thus above, below, & all around,
everywhere, in its entirety, he keeps pervading the all-encompassing
cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will—abundant, expansive,
immeasurable, without hostility, without ill will. He reflects on this
and discerns,
‘This awareness-release through good will is fabricated
& intended. Now whatever is fabricated & intended is inconstant &
subject to cessation.’
Staying right there, he reaches the ending of
the mental fermentations. Or, if not, then—through this very
Dhamma-passion, this Dhamma-delight, and from the total wasting away
of the first five Fetters—he is due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes],
there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world.
AN11.16


Sloth and the Hindrances In ven. Nyanaponika Thera's compilation, The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest, some aspects seem to recur:

One should attend to hindrances -- sloth included -- with wise attention and not unwise attention. What is meant by this?
For sloth, one should contemplate the drawbacks of sloth (e.g. meditate on death, on suffering) and on inspiring topics (e.g. sympathetic joy, spiritual journey, master's greatness). Are inspiring topics of contemplation natural remedies against sloth? If so, would being moved and experiencing awe counter sloth as well?

Such states as awe or being moved have been studied and valued in psychology, but I have never seen them opposed to laziness or lack of motivation. It just seems to me that the topics of contemplation mentioned in the Five Hindrances text most likely elicit elevation and a sense of meaning in their practitioner.

Yoniso manasikāra as such means “directing the attention to the roots of things,” that is, observing
  phenomena as they truly are, as being characterized by impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self.

Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta

You should know the experience of the hindrances are also impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self.

  If so, would being moved and experiencing awe counter sloth as well?

Stimulating the mind may result in sloth on the downturn when stimulation is ending.


Should Buddhist teachers get rich? In recent years in "Western" culture, teachings derived from Buddhist practices have been increasingly common.  These teachings are often of a secular nature and are about compassion, meditation and mindfulness.  However, some of them expressly bring out teachings about dharma, dukha, metta, etc.  Some of these teachers charge significant sums for retreats, which may have dozens or even hundreds of people attend. It's obvious that a lot of money is being made.  While I don't begrudge someone making a living - even a comfortable one - in a few cases, I know that these teachers are living very well: driving expensive cars, living in the most expensive neighborhoods/suburbs of their cities, etc.  Am I misunderstanding something, or does this go against the Buddha's teachings?

Edit: For clarity's sake, let me elaborate on the type of teacher I'm discussing.  I'm NOT referring a monastery charging a fee to cover operating costs for retreats, classes, etc.  What I'm asking about are people who have best selling books, charge $100 for 1 day retreats with 100 people attending, and who have observable significant wealth in that they live in neighborhoods where the houses cost millions of dollars and drive cars that are a hundred thousand dollars or more.

I don't think there is a definite answer to this question. Bear in mind that Buddha did not give any commandments in form of 'do' and 'do not'. He rather gave guidelines and various methods that are suited for various types of people.
The fact that one style goes against your preferences, does not mean that someone else cannot benefit from that. To practise Buddhism one should try not to judge others and focus on his own development.

It should be clearly said, however, that generosity is the first Paramita (liberating action or perfection). Through practising the 6 Paramitas, one can break the cycle of samsara and offering goods to the Dharma teacher is though to be a great act of generosity and it creates lots of merit in practitioner's mind. Bearing that in mind, I can think of the following reasons why there is a lot of wealth around some teachers:

a teacher has a very generous and rich sponsor who made promises to always provide for his teacher
a city where the teacher lives is not the safest one and the Sangha (community of practitioners) donated money so that the teacher stays in a safe environment. They also want the teacher to be healthy and have a long life, so they will always cook the best food for him and will call for the best (usually most expensive) doctors.
expensive cars means that they are reliable and won't break a lot so that the teachers can travel safely to spread the teachings. Same for expensive computers and phones.
it is also an act of generosity to give others opportunity to pay money towards the Buddhist teachings. It is better if people pay hundreds of dollars for the teachings rather than in a casino.

The problem arises when the teacher abuses generosity of his students but we are not the ones to judge them. If they use Dharma to get rich, be sure there will be some karmic consequences.

Personally, I am not attracted to teachers who charge a lot for teachings. I trusted a teacher who is low-profile so I can relax and donate as much money as I want and can afford. Other people, however, prefer developing with their teacher in a palace and if it works for them, we can only be happy that the Dharma spreads.


Nine different ways the word ‘Mind’ is used? I was reading a comment on this answer and it mentioned the word mind being used in nine different ways.

Comment below :

  If you learn to apply episteme, the way Foucault, Derrida, and Kant had
  used, in deconstructing the key Buddhist Pali words, you may find
  other deeper meaning to them that are of a supramundane nature. For
  example, you will find nine different ways the word ‘Mind’ is used

Specifically in what 9 ways is the word mind used? In only nine ways? Not more not less?

According to my experience, there are two main meanings of the term "mind" in Buddhist context. It's important to understand those meanings, in order to avoid confusion and misconceptions.

First meaning is "mind in general", which means limitless space where all the reality manifests.

It's related to notions of Buddha-mind, Dharmakaya, Universal Mind, Consciousness.

There are many kinds of consciousnesses. In the philosophical Buddhist tradition of Chittamatra (or Cittamatra), which means "Consciousness Only", there are eight consciousnesses. (Some schools count few more or less).

These eight consciousnesses are:

The five primary - the consciousnesses of:

eye
ear
body
nose
tongue.

The sixth is the mental consciousness, which processes the data from the previous five. Our practice deals with this, the sixth consciousness. Sometimes it might be referred as "mind".

The seventh is manas. As I understand, it's like consciousness in post-freudian psychology: a part of the space centered on our personal perceptions.

The eight is alaya-vijnana, or Store Consciousness. I understand it as limitless ocean where our seventh consciousnesses floats like a crystal ball.

Alaya-vijnana stores our karmic seeds - imprints of past actions - kinetic energies of our intentions.

It is related to the notion of vijnana as the fifth group of phenomena (dharmas). (The fifth skandha).

Please don't feel overwhelmed with all these concepts. They are just pretty simple ways to describe our experiences. If you study them in practice, it all becomes not so complex.

Note that for the most part I spoke of consciousness rather than mind; I distinguish these terms.

So basically the first major meaning of "mind" is limitless space where dharmas appear.

Perhaps the most important and praised philosophical school of Buddhism, Madhyamaka ("Middle Way"), emphasizes emptiness of all phenomena, conditional nature of all notions and objects.

Even the mind - as that limitless space, or in any other meaning - is not really existent. (Though also not really non-existent).

In that sense, Buddhists speak of awakening as realization of No-Mind. As long as we cling to ideas of mind or self or whatever else, we rely on the level of ideas, production of the sixth consciousness, rather than the original reality.

Therefore, what is actual Buddha-mind? Nothing real. Not even that limitless space I mentioned before.

In awakening, we see all such things as mental generalizations, nothing more.

Now what is the second major meaning of "mind"?

When Zen teacher asks you, "What's your mind?" - what would you answer?

Maybe you would describe your experience you are living through, right now.

In that sense, "mind" is the experience now. It can be clouded, with vexations, or very clear and bright...

This meaning of "mind" relates somehow to the notion of consciousness from Twelve nidanas (links of dependent origination).

Consciousness from Twelve nidanas is depicted as monkey jumping among fruits on a tree. From one fruit to another. It's consciousness engaged in activities formed by samskaras (mental constructing).

Being limited by our mental creations, consciousness becomes entangled in samsara.

So liberation can be explained as dropping the limits of mental constructions, opening the mind to being unlimited, dropping even the notions of "mind" and "unlimited" and "awakening" and "liberation".

I'm not sure I answered the question completely - as you see, I have no idea what they meant by "nine meanings of the term mind".

Theories are endless. I hope I pointed at some key ideas which can help you in the practice.

Use the mind well, and through practice of exploration you will always find some useful understanding, eventually helping all beings in liberation.


Equanimity, aversion and anatta Equanimity is described as It refers to the equanimity that arises from the power of observation, the ability to see without being caught by what we see. The definition can be found here.

If i dig further at look at the concepts as set by Buddha at http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/dhamma-lists/, it confuses and muddles my understanding.

If i attempt to understand not rationalize the description of equanimity, i gather that if an emotion arises or is arising, i observe it. This emotion may be happiness, love, sadness, hatred, dislike, etc. As long as i don't interact or engage the emotion, i am mindful and aware.

Again because i tend to look to examples be it in nature or behavior, i will attempt to describe my understanding.

Example 1

Surrounded by children, in laughter, there is a sense of happiness and innocence. If i simply observe the emotion of happiness, should i not participate in it? Yes, it may be temporary but isn't that being in the present or moment all about?

If i am devoid of emotion and only an observer, am i not practising aversion?

How does this differ to physical interactions?

Example 2

Relationships are strained between 2 or more people. The fact that they have stayed away from one another reduces the strain as it does the thoughts that arise from remembering incidents. Over time, people sympathize as well as empathize. This leads to the belief that should they meet again, they will have better understanding.

Is staying away deliberately considered aversion? If someone had been
abused and they stayed away from their abuser, is it aversion?

Is not wanting to think about it aversion?

Is the 'loss' of memory and an understanding on the path of anatta?

Does this 'loss' of memory and thought as well as an understanding of the situation and experience lead to the path of equanimity?

I'll try to answer as broadly as possible and I hope it becomes a little more clear. But if you want more detail or deepening in one or more of you questions, I suggest you to post new specific ones.

  As long as i don't interact or engage the emotion, i am mindful and aware.

For me it seems the order is quite opposite. As long as I am mindful and aware, I don't get too involved with phenomena, and then no strong emotions takes over. If I don't get caught by what I see, what I perceive, my mood don't oscillate, my temper is even, there is equanimity.

  If i simply observe the emotion of happiness, should i not participate in it?

You don't need to choose to participate or not. When they happen you only observe them.

So I think the question is not whether you should or not participate in emotions. But how is you attitude towards what you perceive and how and why these feelings emerge. When it is told to observe, it is not to perceive just the emotion happening. But it is to see the whole process, from its origin and development to its end.

  If i am devoid of emotion and only an observer, am i not practising aversion?

It could be aversion, it could be disregard. If you can't feel, or you ignore your all feelings, how could you be compassionate? Equanimity isn't to be devoid of emotion, but to not have strong mood oscillations.

  Is staying away deliberately considered aversion? If someone had been abused and they stayed away from their abuser, is it aversion?

Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends on how you feel about meeting the other person. You could feel disgusted by just thinking about someone and totally refuse to meet that person. You could feel sad about that person and prefer to not meet him/her.

  Is not wanting to think about it aversion?

It really depends on the attitude towards the thought. Refusing it and fighting against it forcefully is one thing. Now, observing it while letting it be and letting it go is another thing.

  Is the 'loss' of memory and an understanding on the path of anatta?

If I understood your question correctly, no. Anatta is about perceiving the ultimate reality, there is a QA about it: What is the precise meaning of anatta? It isn't about "losing" memories, but more about not clinging to them and not getting overwhelmed by them. Anatta is perceiving that apparently there is a self with memories, thoughts, feelings, and so on, but none of these even the self are permanent or absolute. And it isn't much about intellectual understanding, but about perceiving, observing.

  Does this 'loss' of memory and thought as well as an understanding of the situation and experience lead to the path of equanimity?

Quoting the text you referred, "through the power of observation equanimity arises". Through observation you can stop feeding bad memories and undesirable thoughts, eventually if you stop feeding it, it won't be able to bear fruits.

Understanding the situation and experience is somewhat a dilemma. It could make you feel more comfortable, it would yield clearer understandings, but you are still feeding the memory anyways.

Equanimity happens when we don't cling on phenomena, when we relax our attitude towards phenomena - again - through the power of observation. When an emotion happens you observe it, let it be and don't get caught, don't get overwhelmed by it, don't let it take over. Stay calm and let it go away by itself.

Sheesh, I think you still got questions, so I suggest you to post specific ones, if you will. Try to find some key doubts that will help you lead your reasoning.


Looking for info on the Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw tradition I have started practicing Vipassana meditation and seek information on the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition. Could anyone provide me with some sources for learning about and understanding this tradition? Thank you!

If you are looking for reading material, here are some good resources:

http://www.sirimangalo.org/teachings
http://www.saraniya.com/page/ebooks/ebooks-mahasi-sayadaw.html
http://www.yellowrobe.com/books/mahasi-sayadaw/237-books-by-mahasi-sayadaw.html

If you are looking to follow a course, it depends on where you are or where you can travel to.
If you are in Canada, checkout the courses page at sirimangalo.org
If you come to Asia, there are many choices. Here are a few:

Sri Lanka
Myanmar
Thailand (besides Wat Chom Tong, where Ajahn Tong is the abbot, there is also Wat Ram Poeng and Doi Suthep - same tradition, all have instruction in English)


Role of belief in Buddhism As a westerner that self-identifies as Buddhist, I have struggled to understand the role of belief in Buddhist practice. In my culture, we are more familiar with the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) for which what one believes is central to the religion.

So, what if I choose to believe that nobody can be enlightened, therefore the Buddha was not enlightened? This question goes for other Buddhist concepts like karma too.

You don't need to believe anything in Buddhism, but a little faith can give you a boost in your practice. It would certainly be difficult to progress if you had no sense that the people teaching you knew what they were talking about.

But in the end, a good teacher will just tell you "This is the path to enlightenment", rather than "I am enlightened", and leave it up to you to discover the veracity of their claim.

Certainly, once you practice according to the Buddha's teaching, you will gain understanding about reality that will allow you to verify that karma and enlightenment are very real.


Avoiding inner narration while practising Anapanasati I began meditating a few months ago with the help of guided online meditations for a long time from different sources and read some articles on how to do Anapanasati while continuing my practice. After realising what the essence of the meditation practice is, I decided to practice it on my own with the help of online timers. What is bothering me is that, while other thoughts do arise and the point is to recognise the thoughts and bring the attention to the breath, while doing the meditation there is also an inner narrator in my head which comes in as any other thought would and it guides me as an instructor would in guided meditations, that too in great detail. The voice would often be in someone else's voice and at times on my own voice. I am not entirely sure if I am forcing this on me at times or it comes up effortlessly. And at times it adds up to my dissatisfaction and confuses me a lot.

What I want to know is, am I doing something wrong or is it perfectly normal for people like me who are new to meditation and started off with guided meditation as a starting point? If it is wrong, how to avoid this and continue my meditation sessions without hindrance? Should I be non-judgemental or non-reactive to it like any other sensation and visual/pictorial thoughts arising on mind while meditating, observing it, and bringing the attention to my breath be of help? I need help here because I don't think that at this rate, I can bring myself to have the level of concentration to be effortlessly aware of my breath to reach the next stages of meditation.

Edit: Apologies to everyone for the delay and maybe I wasn't verbose enough in my question. What I meant was that apart from auditory or visual distractions that come to some/most of us while meditating (eg; a song popping up in our brain, or some conversation which happened a while ago or a long time ago, some negative thought or remark by someone to us which made us sad/angry -- and most of which come without us putting an active effort to bring forth these thoughts, i.e. unwillingly and naturally), I experience the narration of voices of many people based on whose guided online courses, audio files, videos, I started doing meditation (eg; Gil Fronsdal, Sharon Salzberg, John Kabat Zinn, etc.). And often, they come when bodily sensations(distracting in nature -- kind of like a fidgety feeling) or mind wandering (of other forms) start taking the central stage for a brief period of time during Anapanasati, and sometimes without any kind of distractions.

I am not certain if this is happening with an active effortless conscious effort from me or whether this is some kind of distraction/mind wandering/cognitive auditory effect of its own coming from the Default Mode Network of my brain. For the record, I do have ADHD and my psychiatrist (of recent) thinks that it may be plausible that I might have BPAD, but he isn't sure as more tests are needed to conclude that. Maybe some of it is because of these ailments. I hope I was more clear now.

Inner talking is fairly standard with all practitioners. In your case it takes a form of instructions, in other cases it can be songs, arguments with imaginary adversaries, all sort of replayed conversations that had some emotional charges in them, or simply commenting on what one's currently doing.

All teachers I worked with always said I must learn to stop that talking.

At the end of the day, it takes a level of integration and control over one's mental faculties when you can directly feel where this talking is coming from and can let go of it, in the same kind of way as you relax a muscle.

Until you reach that level of insight and control, you can try several tricks:

reading meaningless mantras, out loud or in your head
holding your tongue and lips in a fixed position, e.g. tongue up against the roof of your mouth, lips closed
switching and holding your attention onto external auditory environment (background noises)
rolling your eyes and/or engaging your peripheral vision
humming

At some point you will reach a level of integration when the talking will be very easy to stop. Until then just try to see how inner talking is (usually) connected with some sort of inner neurosis and see if you can relax that. Meanwhile you can try using the tricks above to stop it when it gets too annoying.


How can you use daily walks for spiritual growth in Diamond Way Buddhism? For a variety of reasons, my daily routine will include two one-hour walks per day during the coming couple of months (one in the morning, one in the evening). I want to use that time for my spiritual growth. In some branches of Buddhism (Zen) there is a walking meditation.

I'm practicing Diamond Way Buddhism and I'm wondering if there are any exercises in that tradition I could do while I'm doing those 2 walks per day.

From how I was taught, in Zen the best way to use daily walks for spiritual growth is to not use them for spiritual growth ;) In the true spirit of Parjnaparamita, forget about "spiritual growth" which is a very deluded motivation, and just walk.

From Karma-Kagyu perspective, I guess we can get into more details...

When you walk, it is very important to feel your entire body -- and not ignore any tension or tightness. The tension manifests in your posture and your gait, in how you hold your head-and-shoulders, your torso, your pelvis, how you put your weight down on your feet, what you do with your hands. When you feel comfortable, you can open up and your body parts can move more freely and be in harmony with each other. And vice versa - when you make your body and feet conveniently positioned - then your mind can feel comfortable. Imagine how a king or Buddha would walk, to us it looks like they walk "with pride". The reason they walk like that is because they always keep themselves very comfortable. They don't maintain negative stories and they don't maintain body tensions.

As you walk and see things, try not get caught up in stories. When you see something, if you habitually relate to it as "good" or "bad" then you no longer see it, instead you see your thoughts overlayed on top. Usually when we judge we judge on the basis of one or few "signs" or "marks" (nimitta - characteristic features that give us hints about qualities of the object). We then make inferences based on those signs and interpret what they tell us. This formula "marks => qualities => story" is what my last teacher called "preconception". They (preconceptions) come from our past experience. We then compare that story with how things are supposed to be in the perfect case. And then we evaluate it as "good" or "bad" - and we feel corresponding emotion. When this happens we no longer see things as they are, we only see the "signs" and the "story" colored with some feeling. Instead, when you don't let this mechanism go on autopilot, then you see things more fully - you see many other aspects than just signs, your experience becomes much more rich and nuanced. In Buddhism we say you see things "as they really are".

Same thing happens if seeing some things or some people makes you judge yourself. This happens in two cases. Either you see something or someone that you evaluate as "very good" - and then you start comparing it with yourself and come to a conclusion that since you are not "so good" - then you must be "bad". Or there is a case when you imagine how someone must be seeing you from their perspective and you imagine what they probably think about you (awesome/worthless, smart/dumb, handsome/ugly etc.) There are many variations of these - but basically they all involve some comparison and imagination. So again, instead of feeling yourself as being fully yourself - you are making up some story in your head. Needless to say, when this happens you usually lose the sense of your body and posture/shoulders/lower back/pelvis/feet. Instead, when you don't alienate (deny, disown) yourself and you allow yourself to be natural/uninhibited/spontaneous, we say you become "an authentic person" or a "true person".

So the idea with walking meditation is to get out of your head and just walk, walk while seeing the world in all its multifaceted colors, and while feeling you are who you are with all your various qualities - without getting caught in those imaginary stories.

Of course, when you walk you don't need to think about any of this - you just walk comfortably and look around. It's the simplest thing in the world.