Meaning of 'kalapas' What did the Buddha really meant with 'kalapas' (those ultra small particles of existence, that arise and pass away at an incredible speed)?

Is there a correlation between those kalapas and the emptiness of all things (sunnata)?

Can those kalapas be considered as the 'source' for all manifestations?

kalāpa in the sense you are thinking is used in the commentaries. The word is generally used in the suttas to mean "bundle", as in yavakalāpa - bundle of grass, or dhanukalāpa - sheaf of arrows. I can't pinpoint the first usage of the word to mean "smallest particle  of matter", but the Visuddhimagga uses it in this way:

  “But since neither of these is a fact, you should therefore give up conjecturing
  the difference to be in the supporting primary elements. Just as the natures of visible
  objects, etc., are dissimilar from each other though there is no difference in the
  primaries that form a single group, so too are eye-sensitivity, etc., though no other
  cause of their difference exists.”

  -- Vism XIV.45 (Nyanamoli, trans)

The Pali here is ekakalāpe - "in a single group". The meaning is that each instance of matter is made up of a single group of characteristics.

The abhidhammattha-sangaha also uses the term:

  Ekuppādā ekanirodhā ekanissayā sahavuttino ekavīsati rūpakalāpā
  nāma.

  There are twenty-one material groups inasmuch as they arise together, cease together, have a common basis, and occur together.

  (Bodhi, trans)

Bhikkhu Bodhi's explanation is:

  Material phenomena do not occur  singly,  but  in  combinations or
  groups known as rūpakalāpas, of which twenty-one are enumerated. Just
  as all the cetasikas possess four characteristics (see II, §1), so too do
  the material phenomena  in a group. All  the material phenomena in  a
  group arise together and cease  together.  They  have  a common base, namely, the conascent great essentials, which are the proximate cause
  for the derivative phenomena as well as for each other. And they all occur
  together from their arising to their cessation.

  (From A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, pp. 252-3)

Nyanatiloka gives the following explanation of rūpa-kalāpa in his Manual of Buddhist Terms:

  'corporeal group', material unit, designates a combination of several physical phenomena constituting a temporary unity. Thus, for instance, the so-called 'dead matter' forms the most primitive group, consisting only of 8 physical phenomena, called the 'pure eightfold unit' or 'octad' (suddhatthakakalāpa), to wit: the 4 elements (the solid, fluid, heat, motion); colour, smell, taste, nutriment (pathavī, āpo, tejo, vāyo; vanna, gandha, rasa, ojā).

  In Vis.M., and elsewhere, it is also called ojatthamaka-kalāpa, 'the octad with nutriment as the 8th factor'.

  The simplest form of living matter is the '9-fold vitality unit' or 'life-ennead' (jīvita-navaka-kalāpa), formed by adding 'vitality' to the octad.

  Seven decades, or units of ten (dasaka-kalāpa), are formed by adding to the 9-fold unit one of the following corporeal phenomena: heart (physical seat of mind), sex, eye, ear, nose, tongue or body. -

  See Vis.M. XVIII, 4; Compendium of Buddhist Philosophy (PTS), p. 164, 250; Atthasālini Tr., II, 413f.

Finally, Mahasi Sayadaw talks about rūpa-kalāpa in the context of rebirth as a human in his discourse on Paticca-Samuppada:

  With the arising of rebirth consciousness there occur simultaneously three kammajā-rūpakalāpas or thirty rūpas. These are rūpas that have their origin in kamma, viz., ten kāyarūpas, ten bhava-rūpas and ten vatthu rūpas. The nine rūpas, to wit, the solid, fluid, heat, motion, colour, smell, taste, nutriment and life together with the kāyapasāda (body-essence) rūpa form the ten kāyarūpas; bhava-rūpa and the solid, etc form the group of ten Bhavūpas. Bhavārūpa means two germinal rūpas, one for manhood and the other for womanhood.

  ...

  This embryonic rūpa has the size of a little drop of butter-oil scum on a fine woollen thread. It is so small that it is invisible to the naked eye. It does not exist by itself. We should assume that it arises from the fusion of the semen (sukka) and blood (sanita) of the parents. If we reject this view, it will be hard to explain the child's resemblance to his parents in physical appearance. It is also said in the suttas that the physical body is the product of the four primary elements and the parent's semen. Moreover, the piṭaka specifies three conditions necessary for conception, viz., the parent's intercourse, the menstrual discharge of the mother and the presence of something qualified to become an embryo. Thus it is clear that according to the scriptures, the embryonic kalāla has its origin in the fusion of parent's semen and blood.

  ...

  According to Western biologists, it is the fusion of the mother's ovum and the father's spermatozoa that gradually develops and becomes a child. The original embryo is so small that it cannot be seen with the naked eye. The findings of these scientists fairly agree with what the Buddhist books say about conception. Without the help of microscope or other instruments but purely by means of his intellect the Buddha knew how life begins with three kalāpas or thirty rūpas as kalāpa on the basis of parents' semen and blood. This was the Buddha's teaching 2500 years ago and it was only during the last 300 years that Western scientists discovered the facts about conception after long investigation with microscopes. Their discoveries bear testimony to the Buddha's infinite intelligence. However, they are as yet unable to reveal the genesis of thirty rūpas probably because the extremely subtle kammajarūpas defy microscopic investigation.

UPDATE (to reflect your new questions):

Is there a correlation between those kalapas and the emptiness of all things (sunnata)?

The theory of the kalāpa has no direct connection with the theory of suññatā; it simply describes the composition of individual groups of matter. Indirectly, though, since suññatā is very much connected with anattā (being devoid or "empty" of self), the fact that rūpa is made up of individual states that arise and cease without remainder is indeed an important part of the realization of this truth. E.g.:

  Having thus discerned by knowledge of contemplation of reflection that
  “All formations are void” (see S III 167), he again discerns voidness in the double logical relation thus: “This is void of self or of what belongs to self” (M II 263; Paṭis II 36).

  When he has thus seen that there is neither a self nor any other [thing or
  being] occupying the position of a self's property, he again discerns voidness in the quadruple logical relation as set forth in this passage: “I am not anywhere anyone’s owning, nor is there anywhere my owning in anyone (nāhaṃ kvacani kassaci kiñcanat’ asmiṃ na ca mama kvacani kismiñci kiñcanat’ atthi)” (M II 263).

  -- Vism XXI.53 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Can those kalapas be considered as the 'source' for all manifestations?

kalāpa, or more properly rūpa-kalāpa, are physical, so no they are only a source for certain other phenomena. "source" is a problematic term anyway, since the causal nature of reality is far more complex than simply A => B.


Understanding anatta via "there are no computer programs" analogy I tried to find an analogy that would help me to understand anatta: Just as we can say "there is no self" (there are just mental aggregates interacting with each other and eventually causing some bodily reactions), we can also say "there are no computer programs" (there are only electrons arranged in different patterns, and they eventually cause some changes in the output devices).

Buddhism claims that anatta is the ultimate truth, and that it is beneficial to know that truth. I wonder if it applies to my analogy, too: can we regard "no computer programs" as the ultimate truth?

I don't see how it could be beneficial for a computer user or a programmer to realise that "there are no computer programs". If we assume that the analogy is correct, there should be no benefit in realising that "there is no self".

I see two points where the above reasoning could be flawed:

It is actually beneficial to realise that "there are no computer programs".
It is not beneficial to realise the above, but there is no analogy between "there are no computer programs" and "there is no self".

Which point is true and why? Or is it something else that is the problem here?

EDIT: There are already quite a few general questions about anatta. Here I hope to get answers that would comment on whether the analogy I presented is relevant to understanding this concept, and relate to the specific questions I asked.

I find it helps to try to relate things back to the core teachings: suffering, the cause of suffering, the extinction of suffering and the way to achieve that.  So the relevant teaching here as I understand it is not "there is no self" but rather "clinging to a false sense of self causes suffering."

On its face, "there is no self" is patently false, much like the claim that there is no computer program.  There's room here to quibble about language, allowing you to see it one way or the other, but that distracts from the real matter at hand.  Suffering is a visceral thing and getting to its root requires delving into the nitty-gritty viscera of this self-delusion.  Otherwise "there is no self" is just a word game.


How to develop fortitude? Specifically when someone you love or whose opinion matters to you greatly attacks your way of life, your beliefs, or even on a smaller scale just makes you feel ignored, pushed around, etc.
I find I quickly lose confidence in my "inner voice" when my loved ones, particularly family, do this. Generally when a stranger does this to me it's easier to let go.
Does anyone have a useful visual metaphor or story around this? I try to see myself as a rock and their words like arrows pinging off me but it doesn't work.

Perhaps it is possible that you aren't confident in being right, perhaps you are wrong and people who are challenging your views are right. In that case you should figure it out and do as they say if they are right and do as you see fit if you are right. Whether you are or aren't is the most important factor in determining your course of action.
If you aren't certain then don't get into a discussion. In general avoid getting into a debate if you aren't certain in your righteousness and don't understand the opposing position better than the opposition does.
You can always say 'this is my conviction but i am not certain, if you have all the answers then teach me but if you are likewise of speculative persuation then let's set this discussion aside until one of us gains verified confidence'. It will solve your problem because this statement protects the truth and avoids arguments.

But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth."
"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.
"If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html

As to how one develops fortitude there is no simple answer but this very training does develop it, namely the four bases of mindfulness, five faculties, five bases of power, seven factors of awakening, this noble eightfold path. One should avoid associating with bullies and seclude oneself from abusive people until becoming such that one's forbearance is one's mighty army and one can endure both the abuse and one's own anger without letting it loose.
When it comes to parents we can't just go along with whatever they say because we owe them

I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father."

It is normal that we want to bring people we like along with us and be aligned in view but we should associate with our equals or better and a person is neither of those by the virtue of kinship alone. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to seclude oneself and to that extent violate even kinship.
It is just sad to associate with people of different persuation because it is unpleasant to watch people we care about aim down and furthermore listening to their rationalization for doing so. If we don't agree with their rationalization a person will usually get upset and defensive about it. Therefore best leave them to their own until you have an ace in your sleeve so to speak.
Don't waste words of wisdom on people who are fixated in wrong views, don't throw pearls before swine.

There is no companionship with fools. Living with fools is painful as living with foes.

As to how to train in more detail, look up development of perceptions & contemplation, learn the defining of elements and practise jhana. .
If you are going to contemplate whilst people are abusing you then there are better themes:
I have compiled ~ 20 to be developed lines of reasoning and visualizations here (theravadin texts, mostly sutta):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kZxstsAvjhj9Svc47RUKRIyKQMuHMD4adIvr_7pp2uI/edit?usp=drivesdk
Something you should reflect on often is that people are like that. They critcized even the Buddha. Another thing is that bad people don't like good people.

Should one see a wise man,
Who, like a revealer of treasures,
Points out faults and reproves,
Let one associate with such a one,
Well is it, not ill, to associate with such a one.
Let him admonish, exhort,
And shield from wrong.
Truly, pleasing is he to the good,
Displeasing is he to the bad.
Associate not with evil friends;
Associate not with mean men;
Associate with good friend;
Associate with noble men.


What puts together composites according to Buddhism? I believe that the word for composite or compounded dharma is sankhara. What puts sankhara together, according to Theravada or Mahayana Buddhism?

I'd especially like an explanation that contrasts the answer to Hinduism.

The word 'sankhara' has many different meanings. It can mean:

"conditioned thing' (something made from causes & conditions; AN 3.134; Dhp 277; SN 22.90)
"conditioner' (a condition that conditions/creates another conditioned thing; SN 41.6; MN 44).
"conditioning" (the process of conditioning; SN 22.79)
aggregate of mental formations (sankhara khandha; SN 22.79; SN 22.48)
mental conditioning (i.e., mental proliferation, psychobabble or papanca; Dhp 203; SN 38.14).

Therefore what puts together a conditioned thing (sankhara; sankhata) is the conditioning (saṅkharonti) of other conditioned things (sankhara).

In the context of mental formations (sankhara khandha), SN 22.79 says:

  Kiñca, bhikkhave, saṅkhāre [plural] vadetha?

  And why do you call them 'fabrications'?

  Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati.

  Because they fabricate [saṅkharontī; verb] fabricated things
  [saṅkhatam], thus they are called 'fabrications'[saṅkhārā]

  Kiñca saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti?

  What do they fabricate [saṅkharonti] as fabricated thing [saṅkhatam]?

  Rūpaṃ rūpattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, vedanaṃ vedanattāya
  saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, saññaṃ saññattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti,
  saṅkhāre saṅkhārattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, viññāṇaṃ viññāṇattāya
  saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti.

  For the sake of form-ness, they fabricate form as a fabricated thing.
  For the sake of feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling as a fabricated
  thing. For the sake of perception-hood... For the sake of
  fabrication-hood... For the sake of consciousness-hood, they fabricate
  consciousness as a fabricated thing.

  Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati.

  Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called
  fabrications.

In the context of intentional kamma (action), AN 3.23 says:

  A certain person makes/generates/puts together
  (abhisaṅkharoti) hurtful (sabyābajjhaṃ) body
  choices/intentions/activities (kaya-sankhara), speech
  choices/intentions/activities (vaci-sankhara) and mental
  choices/intentions/activities (mano-sankhara).

  Saṅkhāra Sutta


Why the view "I am the owner of my karma" not contradict anatta? Why did the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do" when this seems to contradict anatta?

Isn't thinking "I am X" contradicting the teaching of anatta?

There are suttas where the Buddha advised not to associate the five aggregates with the self e.g. SN 22.93. Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't associate our self with?

Why didn't the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "there's no self in this body and mind doing anything"? What's the consequence of this view?

From AN 5.57:

  “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished.

This is how you practice equanimity (upekkha). It's the one of the four divine abodes. Just like in Metta(loving-kindness) meditation where you say "may I/my parents/relatives/friends be happy, well, free from suffering etc.", Upekkha meditation is also practiced at a conceptual level.

The purpose of Upekkha meditation is to cultivate equanimity in the mind. It does not lead to realization of Anatta nor enlightenment unless you turn it into Vipassana at some point.

Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many will endup being more confused than they already are. That's why there are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate reality.


What is the textual structure of original Pali versions of the suttas of the Majjhima Nikaya? I am reading Majjhima Nikaya from the translation by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi. In this book, each sutta is divided into several numerical sections. Each section consists of one or a few paragraphs. Now Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in the Preface that the numerical sections were introduced by Ven. Nanamoli and are not found in the original Pali manuscripts. I wonder whether the paragraphs also are modern creations or are actually found in the Pali manuscripts. In the case of collections of verses like Dhammapada or Udana, it is easy to separate them in old palm-leaf manuscripts. But in case of prose treatises like Majjhima Nikaya or Digha Nikaya, how the paragraphs were separated traditionally?

The Dhamma was traditionally spoken, heard, memorized and recited in unison. It was written down and organized later.
Bhante Sujato has a very useful overview of the challenge of organizing the Dhamma throughout the ages. Notably, Bhante Sujato has himself chosen to organize the Tipitaka into numbered segments, which allows translations to be matched up with their root sources verse by verse.


Wing Chun Buddhism Zen Stance - Standing Meditation I understand the Martial Arts namely Wing Chun basic stance has a form of meditation.
I understand Grand master Yip Man or Bruce Lee's master already modified it so it's easier to be absorbed and learned by public. Qi Gong or breathing technique been removed from syllabus as i understand.
There are too many versions and theories about this stance and breathing/meditation technique when i search online.
Anyone can share the closest original info about this stance meditation and breathing technique?

This is just another form of nei gong - not much different than Zhan Zhuang (standing post).  It has some things in common with samatha meditation namely the interplay of relaxation and upright posture.  It's good stuff, don't get me wrong, but it is limited as to the degree of one pointedness one can achieve at least as compared to sitting meditation.


Which book by Nagarjuna provides an introduction to his teachings? I've noticed there are a lot of YouTube video lectures on Nagarjuna. It seems he was a very prolific writer on Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy. Which of his works would be appropriate to get an introduction to his expositions on śūnyatā, the two truths, or relativity?

The word "introduction" may be out of place, but anyway his most important work would be the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. A translation, along with an extensive commentary, is available in The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Jay Garfield (here is a previously published commentary of chapters 1, 2 and 24). Bear in mind that this is a very, very difficult text to understand, even with the (indubitably necessary) help of commentators. Toward that end, let me point out Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction by Jan Westerhoff, which provides a synoptic overview of the arguments in Nāgārjuna's corpus concerning different philosophical problems with the aim of presenting an account of the whole of his philosophy (here is a helpful review of the book).


How Atheism and Buddhism are different? As I'm knowing Buddhism called atheism religion but I've doubt both are different, I call myself I'm an atheist as well as Buddhist. Or it just described what is it ?

Atheism is not a religion. It's just a view that says there are no deities. Atheism is harmless & compatible with Buddhism when it just means there is no creator/almighty God who is responsible for our fates. But it becomes extremely dangerous and contradictory to Buddhism when it grows into nihilism & materialism.

On the other hand, Buddhism is a comprehensive religion with vast number of texts containing in depth teachings and clear guidance on the nature of phenomena and their workings. It teaches the causes of these phenomena, what we need to aim for, and how to achieve that which needs be achieved.

These teachings include deities, non-humans, hells, heavens, rebirth, karma etc. & also guidance on how to make the household life successful. Buddhism also has rules & rituals associated with it.


Do we know in what posture the Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree? I was reading yesterday this blog by a Zen nun and in this post she casually says in the third to last paragraph that we don't know in what posture the Buddha did sit under the Bodhi tree.

I found that curious because I always assumed that the Buddha sat in a full lotus position.

Is this claim true? Do we not know the actual posture in which the Buddha sat under the Bodhi tree?

I hunted down a reference to the lotus posture in the Satipatthana Sutta where it is stated in passing, as a matter of fact; so it is likely the lotus posture was one of those very obvious things to Indian yogis of the time that doesn't need much specific mention.

  Nisidati pallankam abhujitva ujum kayam panidhaya parimukham satim upatthapetva so satova assasati sato passasati = "Sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps his body erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in front of him. Mindful he breathes in, and mindful he breathes out."

And, as I already mentioned in the comment above, according to Hindu scriptures and yoga manuals the advantage of the lotus position is that it is self supporting. In arupa-jhanas (also well known and practiced by Hindus) when one has lost all sense of the body and mind, a lotus posture will ensure one doesn't fall over.

This doesn't specifically mean the Buddha sat in this posture under the Bodhi tree, but if he's advising others to do so, it is likely this was how he sat always.


Buddhism and Astral Projection I was wondering if anyone had any insight into the possibility of there being “Astral Projection” in Buddhism. I know “Tibetan Sleep Yoga” is involved with Lucid Dreaming, which is the internal. Yet I was wondering if Buddhism had a concept where you could leave your body.
Any help would be amazing!

If you mean by this definition:

Astral projection (or astral travel), is a term used in esotericism to
describe an intentional out-of-body experience (OBE) that assumes the
existence of a soul called an "astral body" that is separate from the
physical body and capable of travelling outside it throughout the
universe

Then there are only a few verses that can be interpreted as such in the Pali Canon, for example in the Samaññaphala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya:

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made
body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made
of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties.
Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought
would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath
is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from
the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard.
The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the
scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword
has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a
snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is
the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough
another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the
same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright,
unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and
attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to
creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body,
endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not
inferior in its faculties.
...
With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of
supranormal powers. He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been
one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He
vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as
if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were
water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land.
Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With
his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and
powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the
Brahma worlds. Just as a skilled potter or his assistant could craft
from well-prepared clay whatever kind of pottery vessel he likes, or
as a skilled ivory-carver or his assistant could craft from
well-prepared ivory any kind of ivory-work he likes, or as a skilled
goldsmith or his assistant could craft from well-prepared gold any
kind of gold article he likes; in the same way — with his mind thus
concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects,
pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk
directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers... He
exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds."

The term used here is translated as "Mind-Made Body" (S. manomaya-kāya, C. yisheng shen 意生身). This text also details supernatural features, such as clairaudience and mind reading. Manomaya-kāya appears in various contexts in the Pali canon, which provide it with different shades of meaning. These are divided into three categories with nine subcategories:

Buddhist practice and attainment,

the body as part of a path of practice by practitioners bound for arhatship,
the body as the post-mortem destiny of disciples who achieve a certain level of attainment,
the body in which the Buddha visits the heaven of
Brahmā,
the form in which the Buddha comes to a disciple to teach him (once),
the kind of body of a generous lay person reborn in a certain heaven.

cosmology,

the form in which certain devas are incarnated in some heavens
the form in which certain beings are reincarnated in the early part of a kalpa in various cosmogonic accounts

views of other schools

one of a range of objects of identification that can be mistaken for a permanent self, in a teaching where the Buddha refutes the notion of such a self,
part of one of seven nihilist views refuted by the Buddha in the
Brahmajāla Sutta

In Mahayana texts, the term manomaya-kāya is frequently associated with the dharmakāya (Sanskrit: धर्म काय, "truth body" or "reality body", Chinese: 法身; pinyin: Fǎshēn, Tibetan: ཆོས་སྐུ་, Wylie: chos sku, rdzogs sku). This is one of the three bodies (trikāya) of a Buddha in Mahāyāna Buddhism. The dharmakāya constitutes the unmanifested, "inconceivable" (acintya) aspect of a buddha out of which buddhas arise and to which they return after their dissolution. Buddhas are manifestations of the dharmakāya called the nirmāṇakāya, "transformation body"
Note that this is only a short summary to answer your question for textual references that could be interpreted as OBE. These texts are not taken literally by the majority of Buddhist schools. For an in-depth scholarly analysis of the term, I recommend the following studies:
The Meaning of ‘Mind-made Body’ in Buddhist Cosmological and Soteriological systems
Early Buddhist Dhammakāya: Its Philosophical and Soteriological Significance


Can/should we actively use thoughts as part of mindful awareness? I've been reading Thich Nhat Hanh's 'The Miracle of Mindfulness'. It's a wonderful, short book that I wish I had found years ago.

There's one very basic thing I still struggle with. This is a quote from the book:

  'When you are walking along a path leading into a village, you can
  practice mindfulness. [...] You practice by keeping this one thought
  alive: "I'm walking along the path leading into the village"'

Since I began mindfulness meditations a few years ago I've always aimed to practice an awareness where thoughts are merely things that happen whilst I am being aware, and that I should let them pass as they come, not engaging but not strenuously pushing away. However, is Thich Nhat Hanh suggesting in the quote that we can 'hold' a thought in our minds that mirrors the subject of our awareness, or this instead just a way of articulating the experience of awareness?

He also mentions similar practices regarding mindful breathing throughout the book.

This is such a basic thing that I'm concerned why I haven't 'got' it after all these years, it often feels like I understood mindfulness more when I was relatively new to it!

All the best,
James

Mindfulness (sati) does not mean "awareness" or "observation" of objects.

Mindfulness means to carry or maintain a wise thought or view in the mind.

The original scriptures say:

  One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.

  MN 117

  One recollects the Dhamma and thinks it over. Whenever, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwelling thus withdrawn recollects that Dhamma and thinks it over, on that occasion the enlightenment factor of mindfulness is aroused by the bhikkhu.

  SN 46.3

For example, if the teaching of non-craving & non-unwholesomeness is maintained in the mind using mindfulness, the mind will be clear & quiet. When the mind is clear & quiet, it will naturally become observant of the breathing without any intention to observe the breathing. However, it is not mindfulness observing the breathing. It is consciousness that observes the breathing. All mindfulness does is keep the mind free from distracting thoughts.

The scriptures (AN 10.58) say all dhamma practises are "governed" by mindfulness. This is the role of mindfulness, namely, to govern practise and keep practise on the right path. Mindfulness does not observe objects. The observing of objects happens automatically because it is the mind's nature to be observant, conscious or aware.


Is the continuous effect of karma also sustained by karma? Like say that someone gets cancer which is caused by karma. Now is that cancer staying on that person also sustained by karma, so that if the karma ran out then they would lose the cancer.

Or someone wins the lottery, is them having that money also sustained by karma so that if the karma was depleted they would lose the money.

When something bad happens does it go away when the karma causing it is depleted?

Is the effect sustained by the initial karma or is the effect sustained by other karma.

As soon as a karma runs out are you free from its effects or can other karma continue it effects.

Karma is extremely difficult to understand because in every situation there are numerous karmas working at the same time and also numerous circumstances affecting the result.

In some way you can compare the complexity of karma with the complexity of gravity.  Every single atom in the universe is subject to the influence of gravity from every other atom in the universe. Of course the closer they are the more influence they will have.

In karma, the strongest karma will have the strongest effect in the outcome, but other karmas will also have an effect. Only an enlightened being can fully understand it.

For example you may have the karma to be born as an animal and also have the karma to have a live free of suffering, then you can be born as a pet of a very rich family that will take the best care of you.  Or you can have the karma to be born as a human being and also have the karma to have a live of suffering, and then you can be born in a violent and poor country and experience a lot of suffering.

Karma, understood as “cause”, can only have a limited “effect”. There is no such karma with unlimited effect.  Once the effect of a karma has mature, it won´t happen again.

Personally, I like the definition that good karma is everything that helps you get closer to enlighten while bad karma is everything that moves you away from enlighten. Winning the lottery or getting cancer are neither good nor bad karma per se. If winning the lottery distracts you from your spiritual practice, makes you forget about the beings suffering around you and males you pride, then it is bad karma.  While if getting cancer makes you think about the suffering of others, opens your heart and makes you a more patient and considered person with the people around you, it is good karma.

You can also say that good karma is what allows you to learn from every situation and makes you grow, regardless of what that situation is.  Bad karma is what makes you react is such a way that it will hurt your spiritual development, regardless of what the situation is.

The advice would be not to worry so much about what happens to you, worry about your response to those challenges.

I hope this helps you.


Anapanasati: Mindful Breathing Concentration Point I have been practicing mindfulness of breathing for some time. But I am having doubt regarding my practice. When I focus on a single point on nostril and keep attention there, and note natural breathing. It breaks attention. It seems like there are two objects to concentrate. feel on nostril or breathing?

What am I doing wrong?

  "He breathes in experiencing the whole body, he breathes out
  experiencing the whole body": that is, with well-placed mindfulness,
  he sees the beginning, the middle and the end of the two phases, the
  in-breath and the out-breath. As he practices watching the in-breath
  and the out breath with mindfulness, he calms down and tranquilizes
  the two functions of in breathing and out-breathing.

Meditation on Breathing

You can feel anyone of them, but you have to use one of them for whole your meditation.  I prefer breath. First you have to notice that you are inhaling when inhale and you have to notice that you are exhaling when you exhale.  When you do that you may feel lot of things: pain in legs, scratches, mosquito bite like feelings.  Just ignore them at once and make sure before you start meditation you are in a position that will be less trouble some for you.

Make sure you keep your righthand on the lefthand and keep them on the lap after sitting down the proper way.  Don't get too comfortable with a cushion or too uncomfortable with hard floors.

Now concentrate on your breathing, focusing your thoughts only on the breaths.  Then you will feel the larger breaths will slowly give way to short lighter breaths. But continue to concentrate on your breathing. Don't loose your attention. Then you will feel so comfortable with your mind because your mind is entering a state of concentration. But don't pay attention to the comfort because it will also break your concentration.


Permission to ordain from absent father I want to become a monk in the Theravada tradition and have already obtained permission from my mother. My father does not live with us and never has, so according to the following passage from the Vinaya Atthakathā, I shouldn't need his permission:

  A father, not concerned for the welfare of his wife and son, runs
  away. The mother gives her son to some monks, saying, “Let him go
  forth.” When asked, “Where has his father gone?” she replies, “He has
  run away to disport himself.” — It is suitable for him [the son] to be
  given the going forth.

However, I am still not sure since in his case it isn't that simple. Although my dad moved to another country, he continued to fully financially support us in the first years of my life and paid for all my school costs up to 12th grade. As far as I know, he initially had the intention to bring us over to live with him, but it seems my mom refused. Even then, he continues to visit me every year or so, and we talk on the phone quite often. One could argue that he did, in a sense, leave me, since he could have well come back and at least live closer to me, even if he had split with my mom, but I still have mixed feelings.

The reason I ask is that I know he will not agree with my ordination, since he's quite focused on money and material things, and expects me to become accomplished in those areas. He is also quite unskillful in his behavior and conducts himself pretty much opposite to the Noble Eightfold Path.

I would speak to the preceptor you wish to ordain with.

  There is no need to get a parent’s permission if he/she is no longer
  alive or has abandoned the son. From this it can be argued that if the
  parents are divorced and one of them has totally abandoned
  responsibility for the son, there is no need to get permission from
  that parent. If, however, both parents continued to assume
  responsibility for the son, he needs to get the permission of both.

  https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0054.html


What is the meaning of Gatha #140 of the Parayanavagga? Gatha #140 of the Parayanavagga goes as follows:

  “Akincannasambhavam natva, nandi samyojanam iti,
  evam-etam abhinnaya, tato tattha vipassati:
  etaṁ nanam tatham tassa, brahmanassa vusimato”

  Where can I find some interpretation about this verse ?

I am going to give this a shot.  From my kindergarten level self taught Pali.

key words:

Akincanna: perception of Jhana in No-thingness
nandi: joy, dwelling
samyojanam: bind, fetter
vusimato: insight

when one gains a knowledge that joy or dwelling in content of the infinite consciousness (empty of any permanent nature)-  is a causal of a binding fetter, He practices insight wisdom in that knowledge.

My opinion, i.e.  Buddha's meditation teachers when he was seeking enlightenment, those two meditation teachers did not see the binding force (fetters) caused by joy in (from) those meditative states so they did not gain any insight.

further simplify:
when you know that joy in meditation is a binding, you practice insight from that knowledge.


Sources on the Consequences of insulting I recently encounted a situation where some comic fans in my country gathered up and had a Comic Con and it was worth their effort on making their own costumes. They have spend a lot of their time and dedication to represent their fictional characters.

After the event was over I saw certain low minded individuals have used certain pictures of the cosplayers and have insulted them in vrry bad ways (memes and some relate to nudity) and it went viral. Some of those cosplayers were pretty depressed after that and all. And the other organizers and them defended them and now it has gone viral all over the world and everyone else is supporting.

This is the scenario I encountered. My question is what are the karmic and other type of consequences of insulting a person's character according to the Pali Canon? Can I have references to them?

-Metta

I think the most famous sutta is Akkosa Sutta: Insult (SN 7.2).


How to Practice Vipassana? I have been practicing samatha for five years now and have rarely done any other kind of meditation. I have tried to practice vipassana in the past but get confused with how to do it.

First of all you place your attention on your abdomen,when i'm more used to my attention being on the tip of my nose. Is there a way to practice vipassana with your attention on the tip of your nose? I can avoid getting too concentrated with a technique I found by accident, by widening my focus to the entire nostril instead of just a point. This helps allow for thoughts, etc. to arise. Because I notice during samatha thoughts are minimum to none.
Please describe a method of practicing vipassana with the base/anchor being the tip of the nose not the abdomen.

Many thanks.

A hammer has two ends for a reason; one end is great for pounding nails, but not at taking them out. The nose is avoided in Vipassana for a reason; it is too apt to lead to calm.

That being said, it is of course technically possible to cultivate insight at the nose, if you insist. Vipassana takes as its base the four elements, earth, air, water, and fire. As per the Visuddhimagga:

  But one whose vehicle is pure insight, or that same aforesaid one whose vehicle
  is serenity, discerns the four elements in brief or in detail in one of the various ways given in the chapter on the definition of the four elements.

  -- Path of Purification XVIII.5

So, you have to find the elements at the nose; there is some faint pressure, which is the air element, and there is heat and cold, which is the fire element. The breath itself is a concept, so you can't use that as an object of Vipassana. You might note "hot, hot" or "cold, cold" or "hot, cold", as it presents itself. Also, "feeling, feeling" for the pressure.

Having taken that as a base, you would then note whatever other experiences arose, based on the four foundations of mindfulness, as per the instruction given by a teacher.

And, what Anthony said :)


Wheel turning king runs the country without stick or sword, what does it mean? In Nikaya, it is said that wheel turning king runs the country without using stick or sword, since that term is quite abstract, what does it mean?

Some of my interpretations:

1/ Without waging war, since stick and sword are the symbol of weapon. But then what is the role of military, or how can he protect his people when needed?

2/ Runs the country without punishment. I don't see this as an realistic option, as even the sangha has offenses for monks, and managing the world without punishment is impossible.

3/ Without violent punishment. For example, jail is not violent but torture, beating or cutting hand of robber are violence. I see this as the most realistic interpretation, but I am not sure.

So what does it mean? Reference in Nikaya is appreciated.

I believe "wheel" refers to tradition (in the broadest sense) and "turning" refers to establishing and/or continuing the tradition.

The wheel turning king (or, in modern terms, leader) rules by setting up a way of doing things that (most of) people find compelling enough to follow, without being forced to -- this is what I feel is referred to as "without stick or sword".


Question about Vijnana and the correct view of Nama and Rupa So I understood Vinana to be activated only when there is an object present to be aware of, and I think that is why in dependent origination it is said Vijnana conditions nama rupa and nama rupa conditions vijnana.

In other words without an object that we can be aware of with name and form (nama rupa) there cannot be consciousness.

Based on this, it is clear that consciousness is an activity (of cognizing an object), not an entity that can "cognize" itself. Therefore I am confused in the Jhana about infinite consciousness, because it says consciousness is conscious of consciousness.

How is that possible when consciousness only can be aware of an object, and not itself (because it is an activity, and not an entity as Vedanta says)?

Also, please correct me if the meaning of nama rupa that I gave (name and form) is not correct in Buddhism. This is the Vedanta view that I have read about. Can someone describe the difference between the Vedanta view of nama rupa and the Buddhist view of nama rupa?

The mind can only become aware of the mind in a subsequent moment. We get angry, and then know so. In moment 1, vinyana arises along with anger and delusion, aware only of the story. In moment 2, for a mindfulness practitioner, the vinyana arises with mindfulness and samadhi, abandoning the anger, unbonded to thought.
In the infinite consciousness jhana there is only vinyana in its  unbonded state (bare and separate awareness). In the next moment, it is aware of itself from the previous moment. In the next moment it is aware if itself again. It is infinite it the moment to moment unended reflection, not the sense of its size.  Hope that helps!  Oh and yes there are tiny spaces of nothing between angry and mindful of it, but those are very hard to see. Once you can, you are well into vipassana, seeing there is no continuity or prevailing consciouness (anatta).


Who is experiencing the non self? There is no self that is permanent. All this results from 5 aggregates, then who is experiencing the non self?

There are several questions on this site which are more-or-less about this topic.

One which I found helpful was, How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

I also liked this little summary of Right View, which includes, "A thicket of wrong views".


Is it counter productive to accumulate a lot of ideas while meditating? I'm not particularly into Buddhist style meditation but wasn't sure where else to ask. I tend to accumulate a lot of random ideas that filter in and after my session I jot them down - is this counter productive to an effect meditation? I use the Muse brain sensing headband and still stay in a fairly calm state of mind.

There are two types of meditation available in Buddhism. Samatha and Vipassana.

In Samatha, you should concentrate your mind into one target sense. The target sense can be inhale and exhale witch is popular as Anapanasathi. There are more Samatha meditation methods which are targeting difference target senses. Kasina meditation and Asuba meditation are some of them. There you continually get that target sense into mind without allowing any idea, sense or feeling other than that. Then you will feel your mind become more powerful and very high state of calmness. actually Samatha is like sharpening your weapons against a war.

As Buddhists, our main intention is to attain Nibbana. So after performing Samatha we look at the uncertainty of the body and mind. Here what we are doing is not generating ideas. but perform root cause analysis on uncertainty of body and mind. actually wipassana is like use your weapons against enemy.

you cannot get good results if you are not following sila, at least five precepts. My friend, Use five precepts not Headbands.


Do thoughts 'create' vedana? Vedana is described as reaction to a sense contact. Are these only the 5 senses or is vedana also 'created' by thoughts or emotions?

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

  On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,

  one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,

  one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of mental pain,

  one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

Titth’ayatana Sutta

  Cognizing a mental object with the mind, one examines the mental object as the basis for
  pleasure, or for pain, or for neither-pain-nor-pleasure

Saññā Nānatta Sutta

  Dependent on the mind-object element, there arises the perception of mind-object;

  dependent on the perception of mind-object, there arises the thought regarding mind-object;

  dependent on the thought regarding mind-object, there arises the desire for mind-object;

  dependent on the desire for mind-object, there arises the passion for mind-object;

  dependent on the passion for mind-object, there arises the searching for mind-object.

Here searching is for the pleasure the intellectual stimulation brought.

Also all 121 minds according to Theravada Abhidhamma is associated with sensation as the mental factors of sensation is present in each of them.

When dealing with any sensation from any source (Contact with Faculties, 4 Frames of Mindfulness) you have to look at the arising and passing of sensations. Use painful sensation to eradicate aversion, pleasant sensation to eradicate craving and neutral to eradicate ignorance. How to sensation tied to thoughts are as follows:

Adopted from Pahāna Sutta (also found in the introductory commentary as is). This goes for thoughts as well.

  (1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;

  (2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;

  (3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings

Avijja Pahana Sutta 2

  Here, bhikshu, the monk has learned [heard] that nothing is worth clinging to. And a monk has
  learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things. Having directly understood all
  things, he fully understands all things.

  Having fully understood everything, he sees all signs differently:

  He sees the mind differently; he sees mind-objects differently; he sees mind-consciousness differently;
  he sees mind-contact differently. Whatever that is pleasant, or painful, or neutral, that arises on
  account of mind-contact as condition, that, too, he sees differently.

  Monk, when a monk knows and sees thus, ignorance is abandoned by him and true knowledge
  (vijja) arises.


Will someone explain rebirth and the differences between reincarnation? Can someone explain the difference between reincarnation and rebirth? I've read the tags and am a little confused. Is the goal of buddhism to cease to exist? If people aren't reincarnated, then how does the cycle of suffering continue.

The problem with Buddhism, there is no single accepted interpretation of just about anything. On the other hand, that's what makes it fun. Buddhism today is like mirror shattered in a thousand pieces. I have spent more than two decades trying to get to truth and I think I'm 99% clear about it now.

Most people thinking about past and future lives assume that something (some very important part of them, may be consciousness) stays alive after death and goes on to "other worlds" and maybe spends some time in an intermediate state to eventually obtain a new body. This is what's usually called "reincarnation".

The Buddhist view (of course I will say the only right Buddhist view - but you don't have to believe) is to view life as a continuous and not discrete phenomenon, both space- and time-wise. In this view everything is interconnected and made from millions of causal/conditional influences contributing to a particular configuration in a particular timespace locality. There are no individual "objects" let alone "people" or "souls" - that would seem to exist in a static world. Instead, the world is a dynamic system of constantly flowing influences, deterministically unfolding from their interactions.

The most important aspect of all these causes/conditions/influences that interact to compose everything, is information. Natural world with its variety of species is first and foremost an informational process, shaped by the principle of natural selection. As Richard Dawkins correctly explained the main subject of evolution is gene - essentially a sequence of information - with body being a physical manifestation of gene's tendency to replicate itself and pass itself on.

Likewise, the human culture can be seen as evolution of informational forms - memes (which was a term coined by Dawkins to expand the idea of gene as informational subject of natural selection beyond its one type known as the DNA). In this view, primates are media for memetic evolution, with our culture being a manifestation of memes' tendencies to replicate and pass themselves on, just like a body of biological organism is a manifestation of gene. Makes sense so far?

Our mind (what we call "our" "minds" - but which in fact should probably be called "The Mind" - because it's not "many") is an informational phenomenon made possible by a flow and interaction of information, an evolved kind of the same information that manifested the natural world, passing between different kinds of media. These media include primates' brains as well as various artifacts of human culture - primarily books and these days the digital medium of computers-and-the-internet. In this view the subjective experience or consciousness is no longer a mystery but rather a very natural property of information to re-present (to reflect, to model, to remember) other stuff. Any possible object or configuration or system of relationships found in the natural world can be re-presented with information. When this re-presentation gets robust enough it is called "experience" or "consciousness" or "sentience".

So now to get back to Buddhism. Because our lives and our minds are understood to be manifestations of, and 100% shaped by, informational processes (both at the material as well as the subjective levels), these processes operating contiguously & non-descrete-ly across the utterly complex combinations of various media capable of re-presentation; because in Buddhism we (supposedly) have a very clear understanding of all of the above -- we no longer see humans as separate blobs of matter (with or without "soul") getting born and dying. In this view, there is no birth and death, there is continuous trans-form-ation. The mind of a person does not start with death, but comes together gradually over time from various sources. All of those sources trace back to something that existed (events that happened) long before this particular human was born. In this sense there is no new person having been born. The person is an assembly or a manifestation of multiple threads of information transformation. The birds-eye perspective on this that looks at the entire human civilization (as well as the pre-human evolution) will see a graph of interconnected causation/information/transformation rolling forward like a stream. The entire thing is contiguous and highly interconnected, with no discrete entities to be found.

Then as the human child grows up, he or she develops ability to delineate and differentiate "objects". I don't have room to go over this here in much detail, but this ability is something Mahayana Buddhists call "objectification" or "reification". In this ability to designate discrete entities lies the biggest power and the biggest vulnerability of sentient mind. Since mind is nothing but dynamically interacting system of re-presentations, there is no way for it to know that its models (the discrete objects it delineates) are not the reality but only a rough (simplified) re-presentation of reality. This results in mind absolutizing and clinging to its models as all-correct and all-important, and developing attachment to some configurations and aversion to others, based on its simplistic re-presentation of the world. This attachment, aversion and confusion lead to conflict and suffering when our models mismatch other similar but incompatible models (harbored by other people) and also when our simplistic models inevitably mismatch reality.

When Buddhism talks about Enlightenment it talks about clearly understanding all of the above (this is my claim anyway). When Buddhism talks about liberation from suffering, it talks about the above. When Buddhism talks about no-self and no-rebirth, it talks about the above.

  Is the goal of buddhism to cease to exist? If people aren't reincarnated, then how does the cycle of suffering continue.

Now we have all the tools we need to answer your question, aren't we? The goal of Buddhism is to transcend the naive model we have that "to exists" means "to exist as a separate object". Transcending this model leads to the notion of death (as well as re-incarnation of an individual soul) becoming utterly naive and irrelevant.

The cycle of suffering continues with each generation passing the objectification/reification on to the next generation. Each new child is born and learns to see the world as a collection of separate objects, him- or herself one such object among others. (The exact process of how this separation unfolds is explained in Buddhist teaching of Twelve Nidanas aka Paticcasamuppada aka Pratitya-samutpada). This naive reification/objectification in turn leads to suffering, because of the conflict between the model and reality or one model and another model. Growing in the civilization shaped by the incorrect understanding, we humans internalize the reified world as the only possible cognitive framework and pass it on to the next generation, continuing the cycle of suffering.

This answer getting too long I have to stop here - but this should give you the big picture. All of the Buddhism's teaching and practice with its various schools can be explained nicely in terms of the above.


The pali word for this concept I'm wondering if pali has a specifically designated word for the view that the outer world is a reflection of one's own life state, not the other way around.

Additionally, I am wondering if there are any good recources that people know of online that acts as a pali dictionary for buddhist philosophical concepts.

A Pali word for the view that the outer world is a reflection of one's own life state is 'namati', which means 'inclination' or 'bent'.

The Dependent Origination explains when ignorant sankhara arise & control the mental faculties (nama), the mind (nama) develops an inclination (nati) bent (namati) by those ignorant sankhara.

As a result, the mind will pursue & engage in sense contact (passa), in which it views the external world in an ignorant way, such as viewing evil as 'good', the ugly as 'beautiful', the undesirable as 'desirable', the impermanent as 'permanent', the unsatisfactory as 'satisfactory' & not-self things as 'self', etc.

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

  Dvedhavitakka Sutta

~~~

  Nati (f.) [Sk. nati of nam] bending, bent, inclination S ii.67; iv.59; M i.115.

  Namati [Ved. namati, Idg. nem to bend; also to share out]


What is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface? From MN 49 (trans. Sujato):

  Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s
  what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water,
  fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming
  radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the
  Overlord, and the all.

  Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ ...

The invisible consciousness (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ) from MN 49 seems to be different from the sense consciousness described in MN 18 e.g. eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness etc. because it is not within the scope of sense experience, according to MN 49. It is also found in DN 11. It is also translated as "consciousness without surface" (from here, trans. Thanissaro).

Question 1:
What is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface described in MN 49 and DN 11?

Is it a cosmic consciousness like the one found in Hinduism? I guess not.

Question 2:
This answer implies that this invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface is the re-linking consciousness (patisandhi-viññana) that connects one lifetime to the next. This also implies that the re-linking consciousness (patisandhi-viññana) which is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ) is the consciousness that descends into the womb causing materiality-mentality (nāmarūpa) to arise (from DN 15). Is this right?

Question 3:
Also, the description of "invisible, infinite and radiant all round" sounds very similar to the "luminous mind" (pabhassara citta) from AN 1.51-52. The same word "pabham" (luminosity) or "pabhassara" (luminous) is used in both MN 49 and AN 1.51-52. How is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface related to the luminous mind?

Few thoughts, based on my understanding of Buddhism:

One: Vijñāna is not an entity, not a substance - it is an emergent effect, an emergent phenomenon known in modern terms as "subjective experience" or "subjectivity". Most people, when they read this phrase ("Consciousness that is invisible, infinite" etc.), assume it means consciousness as something objective that exists or dwells - like electromagnetic field - but in Buddhism it means subjective awareness, subjective experience, the continuously unfolding content of cognition. So we're not talking about cosmic consciousness that lives in space, we are talking about one's actual state of mind.

Two: on many occasions Buddha spoke about "support" and "condition" and "ground" - and how any such support/condition/ground is a basis of dukkha. He then advocated transcending any notion of ground, to achieve a dynamic state of mind which is ground-less, and therefore unconditional. Consider the following image from SN 12.64:

  "... Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"
  "On the western wall, lord."
  "And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"
  "On the ground, lord."
  "And if there is no ground, where does it land?"
  "On the water, lord."
  "And if there is no water, where does it land?"
  "It does not land, lord."
  "In the same way, when there is no [ground such as] desire, attachment, craving, then viññāṇaṃ [=cognition or cognized] does not land and does not grow."

Also, in MN21 there is a following image:

  "... Suppose a person was to come along with dye such as red lac, turmeric, indigo, or rose madder, and say: ‘I shall draw pictures on the sky, making pictures appear there.’ What do you think, mendicants? Could that person draw pictures on the sky?”
  “No, sir."
  "Why is that? Because the sky is formless and anidassano. It’s not easy to draw pictures there."

Here the word is used in context of blame and blamelessness, indicating a condition when one's pure morals provide no ground for any blame. So, anidassano refers to something that provides no surface to lean on, no basis for something to happen or to be done.

Adding points One and Two together, we can reach conclusion that Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ means subjective experience that is completely open and groundless, without support, that feels like the infinite radiant sky.

This of course matches all of my teachers' descriptions of Enlightenment. For official sources, here's Dogen:

  The water is clean, right down to the ground,
  Fishes are swimming like fishes.
  The sky is wide, clear through to the heavens,
  And birds are flying like birds.

or Pema Chodron, a student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche:

  "...Then he [Trungpa Rinpoche] goes on and he talks about the mantra. And the mantra is: OM GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA.

  In other words, a way to practice the profound prajnaparamita is actually to say this mantra —as well as the on-going practice of continually letting go, or letting be, training in a flexible, open, ready mind.

  [Chogyam Trungpa] Rinpoche's translation is: OM, GONE (GATE is gone), GONE, (then PARAGATE) GONE BEYOND, (PARASAMGATE) GONE COMPLETELY BEYOND, (BODHI) AWAKE, (SVAHA) SO BE IT. So: OM, GONE, GONE, GONE BEYOND, GONE COMPLETELY BEYOND, AWAKE, SO BE IT.

  There's lots of translations of this, and one is: OM, TRANSCENDING, EVER TRANSCENDING, TRANSCENDING EVEN TRANSCENDING, TRANSCENDING EVEN TRANSCENDING OF TRANSCENDING, SUCHNESS, SO BE IT.

  What is wonderful about this mantra is that it is not a description of some fruition. It's actually a description of a journey that we are all on. We are all on this journey of going, going, going beyond, going even beyond.

  No matter where we are, we can move on to the next beyond. Do you see? It's not a description of: I made it! It's like this! It's a description of: OM, groundless, even more groundless, can it get more groundless than this, Oh my gosh, it's ultimately groundless, there's no ground!, and then BODHI could be translated as Aaaaaaaaaahhhhiiiiiiiii! [Makes a falling scream] So be it! [Audience laughs]

To summarize, I think

  Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ

means

  Cognition with no support, unbounded, completely transparent.

or perhaps, if we take viññāṇaṃ with an -m to be an adjective, then

  Providing no ground for the cognized [to land and grow into dukkha], without a limit [to stop it], completely transparent.

which reminds of the following instruction given by Buddha in Bahiya Sutta:

  "... Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Either way this is clearly a description of Non-abiding Nirvana (apratisthita-nirvana), also known as "suchness" (tathata).


Abhidhamma Pitaka and its relationship with theoretical physics Is it necessary to study quantum field theory to understand the Abhidhamma Pitaka

Abhidhamma mainly deals with citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbāna.

Rupa deal with physical properties but concentrates mainly or the making of the physical body.

Citta and cetasika deals with mental and psychological factors.

Nibbana is a state one can experience which is not governed by the laws citta, cetasika, rupa, which results in liberation when one realise it.

The physics in Rupa is different from the current knowledge in physics so this baggage might be an impediment to learn Abhidhamma if you try to draw too much parallel.

Also, Abhidhammarmic studies are generally motivated to realise Nibbana so the teachings are geared toward this goal and a general understanding of how things work for mundane affairs.


Why do I have to suffer due to a thing that a person in a past life has done that I have no control over? The question that I was asked recently and couldn’t come up with a proper answer to was,

  "Please explain to me why I have to suffer due to a thing that a person in a past life has done that I have no control over?"

Supreme Buddha says that we suffer because of our mis-perceptions of things, seeing constancy in what’s inconstant, pleasure in what’s painful, self in what’s not-self, and attractiveness in what’s really unattractive. So the question that I am asking is in relation to this question, that an ordinary person who is suffering, and has little understanding about this ‘otherness’ that is found in the dhamma, once asked.

Your friend believes they are suffering due to past life kamma. I have never read such a belief in the Pali suttas. Further, if this belief is true, there is no way for your friend to stop suffering since the causes of the suffering are inaccessible to them since the causes occurred in a past life.

AN 3.61 refutes the (sectarian non-Buddhist) view that suffering arises from past kamma. It states:

  When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential,
  monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be
  done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or
  reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered &
  unprotected.

In Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta, it is not said suffering (dukkha) arises due to past kamma. It is only said that past kamma determines certain worldly conditions, such as being short-lived, long-lived, sick, healthy, ugly, beautiful, insignificant, influential, poor, rich, low-born (social status), high-born (social status), stupidity & wisdom.

In the teaching of Dependent Origination, which explains how suffering arises, the word 'kamma' does not even exist in the Pali (despite some erroneously translations including the term 'kamma-formations'). Therefore, past kamma is unrelated to Dependent Origination, which explains the ultimate cause of suffering is ignorance.

In the teaching of the Four Noble Truths, it is explained suffering arises due to craving & new becoming occurring in the here-&-now:

  And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the
  craving that makes for new becoming — accompanied by passion &
  delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for
  sensual pleasure, craving to be, craving not to be.

Your friend has the non-Buddhist sectarian view described in AN 3.61. Due to this wrong view, your friend has no solution to suffering & lives unprotected, as is warned in AN 3.61.


What is a 'pernicious' wrong belief? Under six major wrong doings (Abhithanani) in Buddhism,
(i. matricide, ii. patricide, iii. the murder of arahants (the Consummate Ones), iv. the shedding of the Buddha's blood, v. causing schism in the Sangha, and vi. pernicious false beliefs (niyata micca ditthi)),

  vi. pernicious false beliefs (niyata micca ditthi)

is mentioned in http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.piya.html.

What is the definition of a pernicious false belief and
why is it considered such a severe offense to be in the same level as other acts?

First of all, the commentary to that sutta doesn't use the term 'niyatamicchādiṭṭhi' for the sixth abhithana, it uses the term 'aññasatthāruddesa', which means 'proclaiming another teacher', i.e. setting oneself up as a student of a teacher with views outside of the Buddha's teaching, something an enlightened being cannot do (abhabba kātuṃ).
As to what the term 'niyatamicchādiṭṭhi' (pernicious wrong belief) means, the MN tika says:

ahetukadiṭṭhiakiriyadiṭṭhinatthikadiṭṭhiyova niyatabhāvaṃ pattā niyatamicchādiṭṭhidhammā.
Views such as the view of causelessness, the view of non-action, or the view of nihilism, when fallen into a state of certainty are called states of pernicious wrong view.
(MN-t 22)

Basically, the meaning is that any wrong view becomes 'pernicious' when it is clung to as a certainty.


I'm a widow trying to find myself My best friend, business partner and lover died four years ago, and I’m struggling to find myself again. I’ve tried meditating before, but it doesn’t seem to work at 5 minutes a day. I have lots of time, please help me. Where do I start?

Buddhism explains a person's self-identity is generally based on the external things the mind attaches to (MN 44). Therefore, it is expected or normal a widow may struggle with their sense of self if their partner passes away. Buddhism calls this 'aging-&-death', i.e., when a loved one dies, something within the living partner also 'dies' (mentally).

Also, while it may sound pessimistic, Buddhism tells us all conditioned things are impermanent and ‘I must be parted and separated from everyone and everything dear and agreeable to me.’ (AN 5.57)

Buddhism also says: "Separation from what is loved/pleasing is suffering" (SN 56.11).

However, Buddhism does not instruct us to completely forget loved ones. DN 31 says: "I shall offer alms in honor of my departed relatives."

The starting point of Buddhism is Refuge in the Three Jewels, which are the Buddha, the Dhamma (Teachings) & the Sangha (Noble Community).

Since you sound aggrieved, finding a trustworthy Buddhist group may help offer some support and noble friendships.


Is space impermanent? I know that space is often said to be unconditioned, and it seems right to say that it is empty of svabhava.

But, is it impermanent?

No one done a physics answer yet?

Here it is.

Space is impermanent. General relativity shows that space and time are linked together and they change with mass. Mass tells spacetime how to bend, spacetime tells mass how to move.

The whole field of cosmology studies how the  space of universes changes.


Would Buddhists help non-Buddhists continuing their attachments? Let's take 2 examples:

A Buddhist notices a crying girl. After asking it turns out that she lost her mother, and don't know where to find her
Alice and Bob has a complicated relationship. Bob wants to communicate with Alice, but due to her misunderstandings and prejudices, she doesn't accept his words. Helplessly, he turns to a Buddhist that is an important friend with Alice, hoping that he will help him to tell Alice that she needs to listen to Bob carefully

Would the Buddhist helps them?

Yes, because explicit sufferings (losing mother, being unable to communicate, having prejudice) are more suffering than implicit ones (staying in the attachments)?
No, because ultimately it's still helping them staying in the attachments, while the Buddhist goal is aiming at the ultimate freedom? Or is that because helping others also a kind of attachment?

Related: Is there any source saying that Buddhists can temporarily form relationship to help people?

Reading your question I feel like you are little misled about what Buddhism is (or maybe I don't understand your question at all). So however, I will give you an answer as I understand your question.

First of all, as I know the word "attachment" is wrongly translated from the "Pali" word "Ragha".
The meaning of "ragha" can philosophically explained by using the words like greed, sensuality, desire, attachment or excitement for sensory objects, lust, sexual desire and passion. Now, because of the "ragha" when you lost something or someone you love or even when you can't have something or someone you love, you face an unbearable pain. This unbearable (or bearable) pain called in 'pali' as "dukkha".

Now, you cannot control losing things or people and not being able to having things or people you love. Nothing and no one last forever. Things decay they brake, people age they die. Even we didn't lose them when we alive, we die eventually then we lose them in the moment of our death.

In Buddhism it teaches about reincarnation, a cycle of birth, living and death (Sansara). After someone died they reborn again based on what they did in their past lives(Karma). Every living being suffer in various ways sicknesses, injuries, pain of losing loved things, does't matter rich or poor, powerful or not, every one suffer as life goes on. So, as the cycle of livese goes on the pain (dukkha) continues. So the Buddhism is all about braking this cycle of lives and ending the continuous pain (attaining nibbana). Buddhism teaches us that holding onto things/attachments (Ragha) is one of the reason this cycle goes on. To break the cycle you have to lose the 'Ragha'. The way to lose ragha is being well aware of that everything is not lasting forever and accepting the reality of world (practicing Upekha). If you truly master this 'Upekha' you wouldn't be in pain of loses. This doesn't mean that Buddhists have to leave or stop protecting their loved ones, loved things or Stop trying to achieve things, earn money and doing jobs. People need those things to be alive, to survive. Buddhism teaches to be aware of the fact that things don't last. Love people knowing that someday we lose them, use things knowing they break, they don't last, Earn money to survive not out of greed, Eat food only to be healthy not because taste good.

Now about your question, If you understand what I explained above you will realize that helping a child to find her mother is not helping her to stay in attachment. Doesn't matter you help her to find her mother or not she always will be attached to her mother, even the mother is dead. As long as the girl don't understand and not accept the concept of 'dukkha' she will always feel the pain of losing her mother, doesn't matter you didn't help the girl or not. One cannot be removed from attachment(ragha) by just being away from others. That attachment(ragha) is a state of mind, a way of seeing the world. Helping the girl doesn't make her or you any more or less 'ragha' person. It's not ultimately helping her to be in attachment it will only be helping her to survive and allow her to be with the people she loves.

Same like that helping Bob and Alice will only be helping them to communicate and understand the situation and helping them to continue with their lives.

Helping others to live or helping them to continue their lives with ease doesn't make any bad effects on your ultimate freedom (Nibbhana). However, if someone did those things with 'ragha' mind that will affect his 'nibbana'.

My vocabulary is not that good to explain things in the Buddhism. I don't know the most suitable english words and phrases to explain these things. I hope you understood and got the answer you needed.


What to make of Jhanas as explained in the pragmatic dharma movement? In this set of videos two experts (Kenneth Folk and Nick Halay) go through the 13(?) jhanas

Several aspects of this video make me wonder - primarily, I find it curious that they can speak and move their limbs while being in a jhana. I notice Nick instinctively wipes his nose at 7:18, and rubs his eye a little later, all while supposedly in the third and fourth jhanas!

Can others with jhana experience or with experience in the pragmatic dhamma movement comment, and help me understand? What am I seeing here?

Are they really speaking of the same jhanas that we commonly understand from the teachings?

Unfortunately, the canonical definition for jhanas is too vague.

  Quite secluded from sense pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states of mind, he enters and dwells in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied thought and sustained thought with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. (M.i,1818; Vbh.245)

Restricting only to the first jhana and Considering only the above, one could gloss over the seclusion part and interpret applied/sustained thought, rapture and happiness in any convenient way.

Probably the most superficial understanding would further conflate rapture and happiness as just some pleasant feeling, and regard applied and sustained thought as a very ordinary kind of concentration (e.g the one required to read or observe and describe something). Naturally, this would make jhana a very ordinary experience.

Richard sankman wrote a book about jhanas ("the experienxe of samadhi") where half of it is devoted to interviewing monks and lay teachers on how they interpret many of those things. Though some do not set the bar much higher, it seems none of them had such a loose understanding of jhana.

In a more traditional interpretation, the bar is higher (and jhana is nothing ordinary): the factors are more delineated, better identified and it takes a lot of practice to develop them -- like building the trust of an extremely scared animal. Even access concentration which precedes the first jhana requires some hard work.

But even here there are some disagreements (e.g. Can one hear sounds while absorbed?)

In any case, In this stronger interpretation, While it may take little time for a seasoned yogi to be absorbed (depending on how strong the factors are), i think the gross movements and speech are quite incompatible with this state. Thus, they might be telling a different story.

In my experience, the depth of tranquility and concentration before the first jhana makes it quite challenging to articulate long discursive thoughts without causing disruption -- e.g. the mere lookup for analogies to describe something would weaken the concentration significantly, as the focus moves away from the meditation object. Let alone speak such descriptions during the absorption, specially when we feel very disinclined to say a word or make disruptive movements as we progress towards it (say, when we are so focused that it requires significant effort to use any mental faculty that was already put to rest or to drive the mind away from the object of meditation).


Cause and End of Suffering vs the Four Noble truths I have heard that the Buddha once stated that he only teaches the cause of suffering and the end of suffering.

Can I have a Sutta reference for this?
What happened to the other two of the four noble truths? Doesn't he teach them? Why did he only specify two?

This is in MN 22.

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

Here, the teachings are summarised in a two-fold manner; other times four-fold, such as four noble truths; other times twenty-four-fold, such as dependent origination & dependent cessation.


Sanghas of those who practice like monks but aren't officially monks? Are there Sanghas(in the more broad meaning of the word) of those who practice like monks but aren't officially monks and have not been ordained as monks by monks? If they could call themselves "Bunks" or something besides "monks", would this be problematic? Are there any scriptures related to this?

In the Mn140 Pukkusati is referred to as a Bhikkhu before receiving the going forth;

  Ven. Pukkusati also spent most of the night sitting [in meditation]. The thought occurred to the Blessed One, "How inspiring is the way this clansman behaves! What if I were to question him?" So he said to Ven. Pukkusati, "Out of dedication to whom, monk, have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? Of whose Dhamma do you approve?"

There aren't any actively recruiting communities that i know of atm.

Also Anagarikas are basically not ordained and are in training.


Earliest occurrences of meditation? What are the earliest records of people meditating?

The Wiki page for History of meditation mentions "prehistory" but provides no details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_meditation

The only other mentions begin at around 1500 BC.

According to various internet sources, 5000 years ago, or approximately 3000 BC, references to the form of mediation used at the time is found in Hindu scriptures.
According to Lovetoknow.com, A recent archaeological find in the then capital city of Moheyo-dara, capital city of the Indus Valley civilization, by John Marshall of a seal of a meditating yogi is dated at 2600 BC approximately. Of course , it may be assumed that meditation was taking place for an indefinite period of time prior.


Direct interaction between Gods and men From the Mettanisamsa Sutta, one of the benefits of practising metta is that the Devas would protect him. This leads me to my question.

According to Buddhism and the suttas, do the Brahmas and Devas have any direct interaction with human beings? Please provide examples.

Are these interactions all positive or also negative?

Which ones are initiated by humans and which ones are initiated by Brahmas and Devas?

Could this explain some interactions between God and human prophets in other religions?

The God of the Old Testament sounds very much like the Mahabrahma of the Brahmajala Sutta:

  Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the
  exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and
  re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made,
  feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in
  glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.

  "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time,
  there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns):
  'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment,
  due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their
  merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and
  re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There
  they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving
  through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long,
  long period of time.

  Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am
  Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the
  Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator,
  the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that
  are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is
  the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings
  might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these
  beings have come.'

Your own thorough practice of Metta is your best protection.
Being reborn in a God realm is not the goal in Dharma Practice.
Leaving Samsara is the initial goal, and Buddhahood is the Ultimate Goal.
Gods and Devas also are within the rounds of Samsara.
As beings who take rebirth in the God realm also eventually have to leave that realm when their karma for that lofty position is finished.
Actually this human rebirth is the best for the full attainment of Enlightenment.

Here is funny talk on just this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibx_2nmHyV0&feature=youtu.be&t=960


"Human Dignity" in Buddhism Can we find a concept of "Dignity" or "Human Dignity" in Buddhism? My understanding is that in the Western World the concept of Human Dignity is used to justify that each of us deserves to be not only treated with respect but also valued as a part of humanity whatever our origin or our place in society.

I read that each of us has the nature of Buddha. Could this be considered as the foundation of Human Dignity or a similar notion in Buddhism? What would be the closest(s) equivalent(s) in Buddhism?

Dignity in Buddhism is not built-in, it is to be earned. A realized person is respected because they deserve to be respected. If someone can control one's emotions, does not fall victim to one's weaknesses, has deep vision and wise judgement, flexible mind, and clear moral - then one can be respected. The word "arahant" ("arhat") is a Buddhist term for a realized person - it means "worthy" (of respect). The word "arya" is another such term which means "noble" or "civilized" in the highest sense.

Then there is compassion. This is when someone does not deserve to be respected, but nevertheless we don't disrespect them either, out of compassion. Compassion reminds us that at fundamental level we are products of our environment, our experience, and our choices - so no one is fundamentally better than another because they "are actually" better. They could be better off due to luck or circumstances or their own good karma or someone else's compassion etc. So compassion tells us to not disrespect those whom we can't respect.

And then of course on the personal level, for one's own perspective on oneself, the notion of Buddha-Nature reminds us that we have the same right to be here as the stars and the trees, that at the most fundamental level we are the heirs to Buddha-Dharma, and that we are not less worthy of Enlightenment than the closest students of Buddha, if we make the effort to take it.

So these are the three sides of Dignity in Buddhism. Dignity of the unlucky - thanks to compassion, Dignity of the aspirant to Enlightenment - thanks to the Buddha nature, and the fully deserved Dignity of the winner.


prayer ettiquette in a wheelchair Is it (in a strict view) possible to go to inside a temple/pagoda sanctum with a wheelchair or should it be placed outside? and/or orthotics? Ihave spina bifida and sit mostly in a wheelchair. I can walk a few steps with help but need orthotics to support my ankles (without them its werry difficult to walk because i will stand on my toes.)

I ask cause my friend is buddhist (i write from his account)

Is it (in a strict view) possible to go to inside a temple/pagoda sanctum with a wheelchair or should it be placed outside?

Where do you live or where is the temple you want to go to?

A good idea is to either visit, write or call (if possible) the Temple and ask about their options. Some remote temples might not be accessible via wheelchair due to infrastructure or lack there of.

A list with a couple of places to visit temples:

There is a temple in Canada that is wheelchair-accessible from the backside.
There is also a temple in Thailand.
Wheelchair-accessible Tanah Lot Temple in Bali.
Wheelchair-accessible Sensoji Buddhist Temple in Asakusa, Tokyo.
Recommended Temples to visit in Tokyo with wheelchair-access.
Here is a link to New Kadampa Festival for wheelchair-users.
A great post about a wheelchair-user who visited temples in both Cambodia and Thailand. She mentions that she was able to visit even temples in the remote countryside.

  and/or orthotics?

Regarding the use of orthotics inside Temples is difficult to answer. Many temples require one to remove shoes when entering as a sign of respect. Other temples might give out cloth to wrap over e.g. a shoe or orthotic. There are many ways to show respect. It would be a good idea to also ask about this topic when contacting a temple. Some temples are very strict while others are more relaxed.


Investing in poultry stocks and Buddhism Peace !!

I am planning to invest some of my money in poultry stocks in the stock market and having second thoughts. As I understand Buddhism teaches not to kill any living beings although it does not say directly not to eat meat even for monks or laymen.

However , I don't think humans can survive without destroying other species . e.g. Even if you take water it has bacteria or micro creatures in it .

My intention is to make a profit , not kill animals . However I may have contributing to animal suffering by a proxy. I am in a grey area. Is this something morally wrong ?

Honestly I would say that it's not even a grey area. For me, investing in stocks in the meat industry is not in keeping with right livelihood. To quote the Vanijja Sutta in full

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

  "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
  engage in."

By investing in a poultry company you are in effect a part owner of that business - therefore you are in the 'business of meat'

Of course when you say poultry stocks I'm assuming that this is a business for producing meat for consumption. If the business is raising chickens so that small children can love them and keep them as pets then fantastic - a wonderful ethical investment (slight tongue in cheek - I couldn't resist).


Clenching teeth and pressing tongue against roof of mouth This may sound similar to this question, but it's not the same.

This practice appears to be similar to the Khecari Mudra of Hindu yoga, but it's not the same, because the tongue need not be inserted into the nasal cavity. It is sufficient if it is pressed against the roof of the mouth.

This is based on the quote below from the Vitakkasanthana Sutta.

My questions are:

Since this appears in the Pali Canon, do contemporary Theravada teachers teach this?
How does it work? Does it stimulate certain nerves?
Is this considered a last resort to controlling the mind, or is it a regular part of Buddhist practice?

  "If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or
  delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to the
  relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then —
  with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with
  his awareness. As — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed
  against the roof of his mouth — he is beating down, constraining, and
  crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts
  are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind
  right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a
  strong man, seizing a weaker man by the head or the throat or the
  shoulders, would beat him down, constrain, and crush him; in the same
  way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or
  delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to the
  relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then —
  with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his
  mouth — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his
  awareness. As — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against
  the roof of his mouth — he is beating down, constraining, and crushing
  his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are
  abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind
  right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

In Mahayana, we take such things as expression devices - not literal instructions. In this case clenched teeth are a pointer to great effort, great application of willpower.

The objectives of samatha are to disidentify from the mind, to learn to control attention, to acquire concentration/willpower, to integrate the disjointed layers of psyche, and generally to attain a "tamed", "pliable" mind.

It is towards these that we apply the great effort. Especially when the inappropriate thoughts arise, and if other techniques did not work (such as switching attention to antidotes and other techniques described in that sutra), as a last resort, we apply the sheer willpower.