Theory of momentariness -- do things arise ex nihilo? As far as I understand it, according to the theory of momentariness (Kshana- Bhanga, or kṣaṇa) the cause does not exist in the effect. A perishes before B arises. It arises from nothing. Even if we take the Zero energy universe model, shunyata is seen as emptiness of emptiness, and the Zero energy universe is more akin to Nirguna brahman than Shunyata. Nothing arises from nothing.

My question is -- even if we say that the cause creates the effect, with what material does it do so? For example, if A gives rise to B, where did B come from? Is it the same substance/thing as A in a different form? If not, how did B arise from A? Even if A exists after or until B arises, how can a new B arise from A (unless B is A in a different form like water turning into vapor or unless A divides its substance/material into different parts)?

Things cannot arise ex nihilo can they? If we assume that things are created anew, that is actually ex nihilo (and is also a problem that many Theists have with their God creating things from nothing).

In actuality new things cannot be created, we see one root substance being transmutated into different components and forms but the root substance remains the same. Things cannot infinitely divide themselves. A cannot divide itself to become B, because the material would become infinitely smaller.
 No new materials are created. From what would they be created by? Actually new things in actuality cannot arise from existent things, let alone when such existent things have already perished before their effect arises, as in the case of khshana-bhanga. In nature we just see one substance being transmutated into different forms but the root substance remains the same.

I think that materialism makes more sense than the theory of momentariness for this reason?
The theory of atoms perishing and then giving birth to new atoms makes no sense. Even if Atoms didn't perish until new atoms were created, this would still be impossible as new things cannot arise substantially or materially as there is only transmutation/transformation in nature.in materialism that would be eternal subatomic components.

This is essentially the question: "Does X exist?"; "Does X not exist?" which are questions the Buddha puts aside as not being helpful towards achieving the goal. Whether or not X exists, there is pain (dukkha). This is the problem that is dealt with in the Buddha's system.

The idea of 'cause', as 'hetu' and 'nidana' and 'paccaya' and a half dozen other terms are translated (including 'ahara' food!), is an error. "Hetu" the most reasonable candidate for 'cause' means 'driving force' (something like the teamster's 'giddy-up!'). Cause remains a mystery that is not dealt with as it is irrelevant to the solution of the problem of pain.

What we get in the Paticca Samuppada (and other formulas dealing with the origin and ending of things) is not a description of cause and effect (no matter how often it is translated that way -- it makes no sense as a cause-and-effect description) it is a description of causal association (aka: Bhk. Thanissaro: requisite condition; aka: proximate cause, economic cause).

Causal association can be seen.

That is the point.

We deal in this system with what we can see and know for ourselves; what we can do something about ourselves.

"It cannot exist without it" does not equal "cause."

We cannot see the 'cause' for the appearance of aging and death from birth, but we can see that without birth there would be no aging and death.

So without needing to deal with 'cause', we can know for certain that the result, whatever the 'cause' may be, can be eliminated by eliminating birth. And so on for the other causal associations.


Samatha, Vipassana, Shikantaza scientifically compared? Is there any scientific studies that have observed through different bias the differences and similarities between those three type of meditation?

For exemple difference in EEG or brain plasticity in long term meditators, or various psychologic-cognitive tests that would give different results depending on the type of meditation.

That (above comment) said, there are numerous studies of what is called Open Monitoring (OM) vs Focused Attention (FA) meditation within the "mindfulness" category, for example the paper Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation, which first defined OM and FA. FA is pretty clearly related to at least some aspects of shamatha, and OA has sometimes been equated to "mindfulness" or even "vipassana", though both characterizations are in serious dispute (see below). So in that (complicated and quite likely misleading) sense, there are studies of shamatha vs vipassana, which you can find by looking up citations to the above paper.

The only study I know of comparing (parts of) two full and contrasting systems of meditation is the recent Arousal vs. Relaxation: A Comparison of the Neurophysiological and Cognitive Correlates of Vajrayana and Theravada Meditative Practices. Interestingly, that paper discusses FA and OM (or as it is called there, distributed attention) and concludes that the distinction is neither coherent from a phenomenological meditation standpoint nor supported by neuroscientific studies.


Is Mahasi Sayadaw's "counterfeit dhamma"? There are certain people on this website and one in particular who claim to know the only "true" teachings of Buddha and they are saying that following Mahasi Sayadaws and other masters teachings where you focus on the movement of the breath at the abdomen is not what Buddha taught so therefore it's incorrect practice and "counterfeit dhamma" and will therefore not lead to enlightenment. I absolutely do not agree with this. It reminds me of fundamentalist/evangelist Christians who take the bible literally and follow the Old Testament etc and tell everyone they are going to hell for not conforming. It's actually disappointing to see people behaving like this around Buddhism but I suppose at the end of the day it is just another religion so it's to be expected that dogma and zealotry will be part of it.    What do others think?

The true teaching attributed to the Buddha is found in the Tripitaka. So it is best to sticking with this orthodoxy than innovate with other practices. This way your practice is closest that the Buddha taught. The Buddha being more accomplished than anybody else and also having the quality "Leader of persons to be tamed" would have preached the best mode of practice to follow.

It is always good to be orthodox as dhamma disappears when counterfeit Dhamma emerges:

  Kassapa, the true Dhamma does not disappear so long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world. But when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma arises in the world, then the true Dhamma disappears. - sn16.13

Also discussed in more detail in this answer.

Like there are Christian, Muslim and Hindu are Buddhist countries. There are Buddhist countries also how has a history, culture and tradition of trying to preserve the Dhamma. This will make people of a Buddhist cultural upbringing be protective of the doctrine (pariyatti), practice (patipatti) and the fruit (pativedha) for future generation. Culturally some may feel this as a duty when brought up in a Buddhist environment.

In addition, regardless of the label you add as X tradition or Y tradition or A religion or B religion the Dhamma is universal and works the same way as long as you practice the right way. There is only one right way (ekayana magga) which is what is given in the Maha Satipatthana / Satipatthana Suttas. The Buddha gives a guarantee that you will get results of the practice this the right way. The key here is you should practice it in the way prescribed in the Sutta to get the results. To get the result you have to reconcile you practice with the Sutta and do accordingly. Applying a label as this is the technique of X tradition or Y tradition or this teacher or that teacher does not decide the results. It is the correct practice which gives result. If you are not getting results you should recheck what you are doing to see if it confirms to the steps given in the prescribed method to which the guarantee by the Buddha is attached to. This is more analogous to going through the instruction manual properly before assembling something. If you do not follow the instruction what you assemble will not work. If you follow it then it will work. Also if you do not follow the instruction manual properly the warranty also maybe void. Having said this one is one's own master, hence anybody is free to follow what they wish.

The question had the following also which since seems to be edited away.

  Why are Mahasi Sayadaw's teachings controversial? Can you outline the arguments which people present, in favour of and against these teachings?

For this please refer to this answer and linked content.


What constitutes virtue and how to train myself in virtue? It is said that Virtue is the ultimate weapon. It is also said that virtue automatically leads to enlightenment without any volition or desire to achieve enlightenment.
Therefore I want to develop 'heightened' virtue but I am unable to find any sutta which explains what constitutes Virtue.

In the following quote from AN 3.90 training for heightened virtue is mentioned:

  “And what is the training in heightened virtue? There is the case
  where a monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the
  Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains
  himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the
  slightest fault. This is called the training in heightened virtue.

My questions are :
1. What constitutes virtue ?(Any reference to Suttas would be great.If there are any books giving short summary of Patimokkha in English then that would also be great.)
2. How to train myself in virtue ? (Are there any training books available?)

Virtue or sila at the very minimum is the five precepts. Further practice of virtue is by the eight precepts, ten precepts, Right Livelihood, Right Speech and Right Action.

Further information can be found in AccessToInsight's virtue (sila) page, including sutta verses.

To practice virtue (sila), the first step is to vow to undertake the training of the five precepts, and then practice them with heedfulness (appamada).

The second step is to adopt this thinking 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. It is for the sake of
  this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
  should 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.’

The third step is to understand more deeply from the Dhamma on Right Livelihood, Right Speech and Right Action, and practise them with heedfulness (appamada).


Buddhism as a political party? Would it be advisable to form a political party based on the Dhamma?
This would, of course, not mean that all people would have to become Buddhist, but just let their nation be governed by Buddhist principles.

The current ideologies seems to be either highly confused and clueless, intentionally abusive or just greedy. To benefit the people over the politicians, I was thinking that a Buddhist party could help the world to become more peace and make more sense to peoples lives.

Great idea. I don't know where the story is on the internet but the late Master Nan says in one of his lectures that some Buddha and his disciples, samadhi powers and all, tried to change India.
They failed. People are just too lazy and their karma way too thick to cut through mere skillful means. You help a person, and you enable their laziness and create a karmic debt for them! You jerk. You ignore them and let them suffer, they become motivated and help a million people.
Every action has an opposite reaction.

Other people can't save you without un-saving you later.
Buddha just can't save you, otherwise he'd have done it. There's something big going on!!
Buddha just can't kill your bad karma or anyone's bad karma.

He can only act as a intermediary and help purify that karma because of positive states of mind: shame, renunciation, faith, wisdom, concentration, meditation on the Buddha's positive qualities, etc. Buddha actually does little but act as a meditation object. The true power of mantras, according to Master Nan, can't even be accessed except by those in a deep state of dhyana/jhana/samadhi.

This is the same for confessions in Catholicism. Mother Mary can't do anything!
It was just a skillful means as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

If the Buddhas could effectively help people through political leadership--it would have already happened. It's because of some sort of karmic binding where people are self-responsible and must change their own fate, that they have not/cannot do it.

Politics is dirty, people are greedy, corrupt, and self-rationalizing! Even if Buddhism could become a political party--I doubt it stay for long. It would eventually become hijacked, derail, or decay.
The Three Poisons are stacking, moment by moment, millions of times in a day unawares until they cause people to behave in surprisingly evil ways. Countries have their own karma and everyone is contributing to it, it is hard for a small amount of people to purify the whole country's bad karma, especially when they are working against so many suave, manipulative, and cold-blooded murdering politicians.

The only salvation is self-awareness whilst not attaching to anything, not taking anything for self. Who cares about others anyway? Everyone will save themselves, give it a few million eons. All the while you enjoy yourself as a Buddha in Perfect Enlightenment, manifesting a million nirmanakaya bodies helping-beings-throughout-the-universe-through-causes-and-conditions.


How to maintain a Buddhist practice through dark times? Buddhism has slowly entered my life since the last 25 years. Though born a Hindu in India, I have always been open to practices that would help me answer my fundamental question about the meaning of life and, more specifically, how to attain the end of suffering and final release. I followed many traditions but none satisfied me. Meanwhile Buddhism, specifically Theravada Buddhism, sort of grew into me owing to its very scientific and rational approach to liberation, to Nibbana, sans gods and the like. For the last year or so, I have been intensively doing Samatha Meditation, Anapanasati specifically, and have been putting ~4 hrs on workdays and 6- 10 hours on weekends in sessions of one to one and a half hours. Initially, I went through a lot of physical problems, mainly severe flu-like symptoms, but I persisted and these have thankfully subsided now. At the moment, however, I am feeling very downcast and it appears that I am lost. There seems to be darkness all around, yet I am persisting with my intensive practice. These 'dark nights' make me so despondent sometimes that I feel that I may be having too much of bad karma that is obstructing my growth. My only motivation is Nibbana, nothing else, and I would go to any length to reach it but then something is not allowing me to move forward. Some time back, before the pandemic started, I was planning to go to Myanmar for a long retreat but CoVid- 19 simply poured cold
water over my plans.
Could someone guide me in this hour of distress?

I am in your state. I am sick as well. I want to be a monk but I can't.
The difference is I don't feel bad because I can see my effort when looking back to check what I did.
I can say I never sit  as much as you, and I can say if I can practice as much as you doing, I am going to be very happy and proud of it surely.☺
I understand the chance to meet Dhamma is extremely difficult, every practitioner doesn't want to miss this chance. However, you are trying and you still not giving up, so don't count your chickens before they hatch.
Samatha is for happiness, Vipassana is for serious considering. Both are helping each other, but Worry is for lost.
Relax. ❤♡♥


Is it bad karma if you say something that turns out to be false? In DN 27, the Buddha said that the Brahmins make bad karma for speaking falsely.

“Actually, Vāseṭṭha, the brahmins are forgetting their tradition when they say this to you. For brahmin women are seen menstruating, being pregnant, giving birth, and breast-feeding. Yet even though they’re born from a brahmin womb they say: Only brahmins are the first caste; other castes are inferior. Only brahmins are the light caste; other castes are dark. Only brahmins are purified, not others. Only brahmins are Brahmā’s rightful sons, born of his mouth, born of Brahmā, created by Brahmā, heirs of Brahmā.’ They misrepresent the brahmins, speak falsely, and make much bad karma.

So my question is do you get bad karma if you say something you thought was true but turned out to be false?

No. When it comes to lying, bad karma is not related to the actual truthfulness of what was said.
Rather, it comes from intention. Speaking the untruth intentionally is bad karma and a violation of one of the five precepts. Please see this answer for more details.
From Nibbedhika Sutta:

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect.

From Iti 25:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you,
there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This:
telling a deliberate lie."


Possible to get stomach discomfort because of meditation? I have been starting meditation more recently for about twenty minutes at a time. I am able to slightly focus on the breath and have noticed I focus better when the breathes are long. I have also noticed after these sessions I may have air in my stomach possibly that leads to gas buildup and stomach discomfort. Is this something others have had before? If so how can I prevent this?

Possible Causes:

You are eating too much and too soon to doing sitting meditation. While meditating or doing any relaxing activity, your digestive system functions much better thus producing more gas along with other things. Solutions: eat less and have at least an hour or two gap for meditation or try a different posture like standing/non-lotus.
You are stresing out (more than normal) while you are trying to relax (meditate) thus causing intenstinal ineffectiveness. Let go of those thinkings and be present and pleasant.
You are already quite gassy. Have some probiotics in the form of yogurt, kombucha, or fermented food.


I am having hyper vigilance issue in my daily life I self diagnose myself of having hyper vigilance, maybe as a result of having psychological trauma in the past. It is a condition where I can't really trust other human being. Often perceiving other human being around me as a threat. I am completely relax near animals or very-close person.

My condition is not severed, only fired up if certain condition arise. For example when speaking to new business acquaintance, I am in alert condition frantically trying to gather and analyze as much information as possible before giving out comment or response. Somehow I have feeling that I will be doomed if I didn't give a perfect response.

what kind of buddhist teaching that can ease this symptom?

First and foremost, you must establish mindfulness of the body. Your mind should always be in your (lower) Dantian. Initially you may have to do exercises, push your abdomen out 100 times, several times a day, until you get used to being aware of your dantian.

Whenever you deal with people (talk to strangers), you should force yourself to stay in your body. Do not "fly" over to their perspective, or to some imaginary point in abstract space. Stay inside your body.

You need to develop a good posture, good grace, and good gait. You should sit, stand, and walk conveniently, with good energy flow.

Second, you need to stop relying on people's opinions for your right-and-wrong. Your right-and-wrong should come from Dharma. When your right-and-wrong comes from Dharma, as long as you act by the Dharma, you'll no longer care what people think about you. Then you will not try to please them or be likable. Then you can be your own center, with Dharma being your center.

Third, you should also sit without doing anything for one hour every day. When you sit you reconnect with your center.

To summarize, develop awareness of your body esp dantian, stay in your body when you talk to people, develop grace, don't try to please people - instead be your own center acting by the Dharma, sit daily and reconnect with your center.


Have Matreiya ever meet the present buddha? I know that the Buddha went to tusita heaven or tavatimsa heaven to teach the dharma or Abidhamma to his mother. Matreiya is in tusita heaven so did he ever come down to tavatimsa heaven to hear the dharma from the Buddha?

Gauthama Buddha first met Mithrie Bodisatta on His return to Sankassapura(Sankissa Basantapura in India) after preaching Abhidhamma at Tavatimsa heaven. At that time, Maithrie Bodhisattva was born as the son of Siriwaddana Situ of Sankassapura.  After listening to a Dhamma discussion attended by Ven. Sariputta, he had expressed the willingness to join the monastic order. Maithrie Bodhisattva obtained the higher ordination from the Buddha himself and was named “Bhikkhu Arya Miethirya.” There after he practised the teachings well and became famous as an excellent Dhamma expounder.

Once Ven. Maha Prajapathi Gotami Theri offered two robes to Ven. Arya Maithriya. Ven. Arya Maithriya offered them back to the Buddha. At that time the Buddha looked into the future and predicted that there will be a kingdom known as "Kethumathi" and a universal monarch called Sankha whose advisor Subrahamme and his wife Brahamawathi will be parents of future Buddha Maitriya and that he will attain enlightenment under the Naa(Mesua Ferrea) Tree. This was the last affirmation received by the Maithriya Bodhisatta. The prediction of emergence of the future Buddha was announced on an Il Full Poya Poya Day.

There is also a story on Maithriya Bodhisatta meeting Gautama Bodhisatta in the distance past which I'm not including in the answer.


How Am I not the owner of the mind? Is it the mind that think mind is owned by itself? Can any one provide insights, techniques, meditations that help me to understand that "mind does not belong to me"?

I aware that thoughts are coming from nowhere and we don't intentionally make them. But this is not enough. Can you please provide me a deep explanation, especially a guided meditation to practice no-self?

In my opinion, the linchpin teaching of Buddhism is the teaching of no-self. It is the pillar that holds the entire foundation, and once it falls, enlightenment is inevitable.

You have made a very common jump in logic that will hold you until you free yourself. You have two contradicting beliefs that will never allow you to progress in your path to freedom as long as they remain.

  Can any one provide insights, techniques, meditations that help me to understand that "mind does not belong to me"?

You must not ask if mind belongs to you. By asking that question, you have already jumped to the conclusion that there is a “you” it can belong to. Ask instead if your mind is you. The teaching of no self can only be understood if we question the assumptions we make about ourselves. Do not ask if something belongs to you. Try instead to find yourself. Right now it may seem so obvious who you are, but the more you look, the harder it is to find.

  Can you please provide me a deep explanation, especially a guided meditation to practice no-self?

No-self is not a practice. It is an instantaneous realization that causes the end of all suffering and a clear view of Nirvana. Understanding it experientially as opposed to logically is the end of the journey and utterly life changing.

All you need to do to inquire deeply about no self is to follow the following steps.

Think about something you identify as a part of yourself.
Ask yourself, does this thing ever change? When it changes, do I no longer exist?
Ask yourself, does this thing come and go? When it goes, do I no longer exist?
Ask yourself, is this thing essential? If it were gone, would I no longer exist?

Hopefully at the end of your inquiry, you will come to the conclusion that that thing is not you. If find it essential, send me an email and let me know because I’d love to know. =]

Continue this over time to slowly rid yourself of the beliefs you hold onto that keep you from seeing the world unfiltered. The only way to truly understand no-self, is to realize all the facts you have about who you are are actually beliefs. Then you must understand all your beliefs are incorrect. If you do so, eventually you will see the world as it is, which can not be done from the perspective of a human being.

I hope this was helpful to you in some way. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime.


Why does Guan Yin ride a dragon? Someone had once asked here "Why is Kwan Yin riding a sea turtle?", but what I'm more curious about is why is she seen on a dragon? There are many images or the Bodhisattva riding a dragon, one I posted being but one example. But who/what is the dragon? Is there a story behind it? I've heard the dragon is a symbol of wisdom and purity, others have suggested the dragon represents a wrathful force subdued by Guan Yin underfoot, but really what's the case here? Is it merely symbolic or is the dragon a literal entity (sentient or otherwise)? Any information would be appreciated (not modern "New Age").

Wikipedia says that she is "protector of fishermen, sailors, and generally people who are out at sea".

A Chinese dragon is esteemed (a symbol of the emperor), and "traditionally symbolize potent and auspicious powers, particularly control over water, rainfall, typhoons, and floods", also prosperity and good luck and so on, rulers of weather and water.

So I assume that riding a dragon like that symbolizes control over the sea (part of being "protector of fishermen and sailors").


Om - meaning and "significance" of it in Buddhism - esp. in theravada? Many buddhist mantras have Om/Aum in starting of it. In buddhism, esp. theravada, what is the meaning and "significance" of "Om"?

(note:although I am open to mahayana,vajrayana interpretations too as an "additional" input)

There is no OM or AUM in Theravada to my knowledge. It's found only in Mahayana and Vajrayana.

The 14th Dalai Lama explained here the meaning of OM in "OM MANI PADME HUM" as:

  The first, OM, is composed of three pure letters, A, U, and M. These
  symbolize the practitioner's impure body, speech, and mind; they also
  symbolize the pure exalted body, speech and mind of a Buddha.


Buddhism And Dimension What does the perception of Buddhism observe or speculate, about the limitations of our 4 dimensions of perceptual observation (three dimensions of space, giving us the material; and time being the fourth, affording us memory of events within the material that we can judge the present by)?

If Buddhism's pursuit is of enlightenment, could that goal lead to perception of five dimensions of observation (as that perception would afford a picture of the direction of time both ways, and give the observer a picture of every possible event leading from the 'choices' of each of the inhabitants of this world and every outcome of every choice chosen past present and future)?

Is this the enlightenment Buddhism is pursuing (as it would give the observer knowledge of the outcome of every choice, and in a sense the 'Judgement and sentence' of every action, but would detach them from any interaction within the four as a consequence of its perception, and the certainty which would trap any attempt to change the four's events because of the undeniable logic)?

What does the perception of Buddhism observe or speculate, about the
  limitations of our 4 dimensions of perceptual observation (three
  dimensions of space, giving us the material; and time being the
  fourth, affording us memory of events within the material that we can
  judge the present by)?

We can only find limitations for any number of dimensions of perception because all dimensions eventually collapse. Space is not self.Space does not give us material or time. Material is a separate element. It can be classified Earth element. Every element needs to be examined separately. Time is actually embedded with every element as every element must change or perish.

  If Buddhism's pursuit is of enlightenment, could that goal lead to
  perception of five dimensions of observation (as that perception would
  afford a picture of the direction of time both ways, and give the
  observer a picture of every possible event leading from the 'choices'
  of each of the inhabitants of this world and every outcome of every
  choice chosen past present and future)?

No dimension can include all choices we make because sometimes there is free will. Free will by definition can not be predicted individually or statistically. In other words if you tell me through prediction what I will do in future then I sometimes have the free will to change it. For example if you predict that I will stop this sentence with a full stop then I won't

  Is this the enlightenment Buddhism is pursuing (as it would give the
  observer knowledge of the outcome of every choice, and in a sense the
  'Judgement and sentence' of every action, but would detach them from
  any interaction within the four as a consequence of its perception,
  and the certainty which would trap any attempt to change the four's
  events because of the undeniable logic)?

I don't think so. Enlightenment is state which is unborn , uncreate. Nirvana can not be expressed in words because the One who attained Niravana can not be said to conscious or unconscious or choice driven or choiceless.


What is the difference between papanca and sankhara, and in particular citta-sankhara? While contemplating both terms I could not find a difference between mental elaboration and mental fabrication. Aren't they one and the same?

yes it is not easy. First people  say that there are 2 triplets of sankaras : (kayasankhara, vacisankhara, mano sankhara) and (kayasankhara, vacisankhara, cittasankhara). they claim that they are not the same. See http://www.suttavinaya.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Conditioned-Arising-of-Suffering-2018.pdf
 Citta sankharas are vendana and sanna and they do not produce karma.
They claim that because they say that for instance, kaya sankhara  is the breath, but obviously the arhats still breath, therefore kayasankhara  still exists for the arhats.
Since they read that the arhats do not create karma, they infer that the kaya sankharas cannot be karmic.

The famous bikkhu analayo lists all those sankharas here https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/encyclopedia-entries/sankhara.pdf

For papanca, people translate that as ''objectification'', like here
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.030.than.html

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?cx=006639875531220445029%3A2z3mhfokk-u&ie=UTF-8&q=objectification&sa=Search

some say ''proliferation''. It means thinking this https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.047.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.055.than.html

  "He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling,
  or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling.

  "He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing
  perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in
  perception.

  "He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as
  possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self
  as in fabrications.

  "He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
  consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.
  "Now, there is the intellect, there are ideas (mental qualities),
  there is the property of ignorance. To an uninstructed run-of-the-mill
  person, touched by experience born of the contact of ignorance, there
  occur (the thoughts): 'I am,' 'I am thus,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not
  be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall
  be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' or 'I shall
  be neither percipient nor non-percipient.'


Sexual Ethics in Buddhism I have a couple of questions regarding the Viewpoints of sexuality in Buddhism for lay people.

Why is lust seen as being unskillful? Lay-people are lay-people because they don't want to renounce worldy life; they strive for 'heavenly realms' instead of nibbana. What's unskillful in a natural urge? Non-engagement won't decrease the urge either.
In a sutta the Buddha said the consequences of an action are important, and this is the reason why he abandoned thoughts of sensuality, because it harms others and himself. It obstructs wisdom (this is true because it hinders Nibbana), but why are sensual/sexual thoughts dangerous? If I lust after a woman in a healthy, non pathological way, I see no danger there. As long as I don't sexually harass her? Maybe she has sexual fantasies as well?
Samadhi is 'achieved' by the momentarily stilling of the 5 hindrances. Elsewhere it was stated that past sankharas influence present sankharas, and present sankharas in turn condition future sankharas. If past sankharas were 'kama chanda' it is likely that I engage in the present in such a manner. Suppose I do, isn't it possible to cleanse present sankharas during meditation (after some while) in order to concentrate the mind, resulting in seeing things as they are ('vipassana)?

Why is lust seen as being unskillful?

Your question goes directly to MN1, which is a difficult sutta:

  relishing is the root of suffering.

Briefly, the delusion of lust assumes that one can separate lust from the suffering and loss that follow. In other words, one might ask "how can this good feeling cause suffering?"  But look at how much effort we devote to peculiar practices such as "maintenance sex" or "faking it". Seeking the eternal, we might try to immerse ourselves in lust. But it always ends. We can never escape the suffering. It is unskillful because the more you lust the more you suffer. Do addicts look happy or lost in suffering?

The urge is real. It is a biological chemical imperative to procreate honed to compel over generations of successful breeding. And when followed heedlessly leads to overpopulation. Which means that we should, perhaps, skillfully consider that very urge as "not my self".

If I lust after a woman in a healthy, non pathological way, I see no danger there.

The danger is subtle. Women will have friends, some "pretty" and some "un-pretty". And will you be kinder and more devoted to the pretty woman and less kind and devoted to the un-pretty friend? That is the trap of pretty. That we should blindly value someone for the shape of their skin rather than the clarity of their heart.

  Seeing a sight with the eye, you linger in the neighborhood of a sight that’s a basis for happiness or sadness or equanimity...Therein, by relying on the six kinds of renunciate equanimity, give up the six kinds of renunciate happiness. --MN137

This will take time...

isn't it possible to cleanse present sankharas

Your question is on detailed practice with a cleansing focus. However, it might help to inform that practice with a broader knowledge of vital conditions. Also, since your inquiry is based the mechanism of delight, you might find it interesting to explore the exact point where the hook of delight sets itself in the middle. Practice might proceed better with more focus on relinquishing and not getting hooked.


What would be some Japanese Buddhist/Shinto routines or rituals that households will do? I believe in all the religions holding stake in the world but I am more attuned with Japanese Buddhism and Shintoism. I've read through a lot of info on the two and love the harmony between them. I also enjoy the Shinto legends and in a way believe in the life force or kami of the world around me. I understand that a majority of these religions are trying to find the happiness and the peace within yourself and in your life. Respecting nature too.

My question comes from wanting to know if there is anything that I could insert into my daily life that would help me... feel more at peace I guess. I watch and read a lot about Japanese culture, but I can't really seem to find any info for little routines or actions that I've seen portrayed in media.

For instance, Charms hanging from the windows/doorways. Little shrines to meditate in front of in the house.

Are there more of these that aren't explained due to them being so minor? Are there special statues or paintings that hold any meanings? Maybe sayings? Plants? Smells?

Recently, I've started caring for plants more...in-particular, a bonsai that I am hoping will be beautiful and something I can pass on to my children.

I use incense which helps me think about my life and introspect.

This article about Buddhism in Japan mentions visiting temples, having an altar, saying grace, and greetings.

Some traditional Japanese arts have Buddhist influences or applications: including flower arranging and gardens -- and calligraphy.

A zafu.


Is vipassana outside a ten day retreat possible? Traditionally Vipassana meditation is taught in a 10 day retreat. I have been trying to participate in one of those, but there is only one place where I live that offers this course, it is almost always fully booked, so it is very hard to match their availability with mine as I work pretty hard.

I have been practicing meditation for some time (different types) and went to a retreat in Asia, but I never had the chance to practice Vipassana in a traditional course.

I will keep trying to join the retreat, because this is important for me, but in the meantime is there anything one could try at home? Some glimpse of Vipassana perhaps?

This is possible but anything less than 10 days for you 1st sitting may not give you visible results for an average novice. Also anything shorter may not have the critical push to give results. This is the reason the courses are organised in such away.

Also some continuity or length of practice takes you deeper and give better results. Just when you practice playing a game, more frequently you do it better you become.


Personal Geospatial Placement perspective terminology What would be the proper terminology to define the different geospatial perspectives of myself?
If I envision myself inside my body viewing an experience in front of me, such as when I watch a movie, is there better terminology to use other than "first person perspective"?
What about if I envision myself still from a first person perspective, however with the added perspective of 3 dimensional awareness. Is there different terminology for this?
What about if I envision myself outside of my body looking at myself from a third person perspective?
Is there more descriptive terminology I can use to define these experience perspectives?

The first perspective, watching TV, is called "ego-centric".You are using "I" as the central reference point, and all action is described in relation to that. (If you think about it, it's not necessarily that you watch TV. It maybe that a stream of information gets projected at a memory store, triggering reactions and associations.) To think that you are the one watching gives too much credit to the role of being a sink.
The second perspective is called "mixing mind with space". It is what we sometimes use in meditation. To be aware of the space around you helps avoid falling asleep.
The third perspective, people watching you, is called "imaginary importance". You imagine that people's eyes and thoughts must be directed at you, as if you were so important as to occupy the central place in their minds. But the people looking at you in your imagination are not real people, they are your projections, figments of your imagination. Real people are occupied with their own interests. Your importance to them is imaginary and is a sign of vulnerable and hungry ego. Cultivating this perspective is twice as bad as the regular egocentric perspective, so you should avoid it like a plague.
The right way to see things, according to Buddhism, is from thousand-miles-high point of view, the so-called "divine eye". Divine eye is the impersonal perspective, completely neutral, not taking any sides.
The ultimate way to see things is "Buddha's eye". This means, to see things from all perspectives at once.


Hard not to control my breathing For the record I'm new to meditation.
I'm trying to observe my breathing without controlling it. That was the guidance from someone I met at a buddhist meeting.
Though sometimes I just ralize that I do change the frequency and deepness of it. I don't want to do it, just happens.
Is it just me or it will be better with practice?

Don't try to force or control anything, observe and just note it and continue.

It's not that much important how your body reacts to your meditation, but how you deal with these bodily reactions. Yes, there will always be some bodily reactions that will distract you from meditation, but the point is to not get distracted and just remain in the "present moment".

With practice you will be less distracted, until you won't be distracted any more. Practice diligently and you shell rip the rewards soon.


Hesitation between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta I hesitate between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.
Buddhism pleases me very much for its willingness to seek an end to suffering, being depressed it speaks to me a lot.
But intellectually, philosophically, I find the Advaita Vedanta logically more convincing.
I don't understand the emptiness that Buddhism gives to consciousness.
The Advaita vedanta teaches us that we are pure consciousness, and that there is no self in the sense that we hear it. If Buddhism teaches that there is no self in this sense, I can understand it. But Buddhism seems to indicate that there is no self at all, no conscience.
I find that illogical; who lives the Nirvana? Who's waking up?
If there is no self, there is at least one conscience witness, one spectator.

You don't think so ?

Yours sincerely.

If you want to know the truth about reality, you have to learn how to make impartial observations of nature. When you ask questions like "Who is waking up? Who is witnessing?", you have already made the assumption that there is an entity involved. The moment you do that, you drift away from reality and the experiment becomes biased. It's the same as asking "Who is making it rain? Who is making the sun rise from the east? Who is making the fruits fall to the ground?".

To take an example, if you impartially analyse the experience of seeing, you wouldn't be asking the question "who is seeing?". You would ask something like "what are the different aspects of seeing?". That question does not add anything assumed/fabricated/artificial to the test environment. Then you will notice a physical aspect and a mental aspect to the experience that took place. Physical aspect is the light, eye and the mental aspect is the awareness of it. Upon further investigation, you will notice that these experiences do not just happen magically. You will notice that they arise due to causes. You will notice that the awareness aspect of the experience is also something that arises due to causes and that it is impersonal.

Likewise, if you want to know reality, throw all of  the assumptions out of the window and take each experience as it is. If you do not hypothesize or fabricate, the truth will reveal itself.


Why is it that I always experience sleep paralysis (suffocating) very often? Is there anything I can do to avoid sleep paralysis? Has this got anything  to do with astral projection?

I once read that meditation, yoga etc. can help to get a deeper breath and to switch more to belly breathing instead of breast breathing. Thus, those practices may potentially support your condition. Nevertheless, I think you won't find the reason or cure for it in Buddhism.


What is gained by learning Vipassana meditation in long retreats? My understanding of S.N. Goenka's method for learning Vipassana meditation is that the student is introduced to meditation in a 10 day retreat in which he or she sits in silent meditation for almost all his or her waking hours. This seems  a daunting way to introduce meditation to a newcomer. Also, for many people, it could be difficult to arrange for 10 days without family or work obligations. Thus, I ask: What does the student gain by through an introduction to meditation via a "marathon" retreat?

To put it succinctly you need to rub two pieces of wood long enough to get fire.

Likewise you need to meditate continuously for some stretch of time to see results.

As Goenka says "Continuity of practice is the secret of success".


Purifying Karma using mantras and/or prostrations I would like to know if, in the pali canon, there is any practice for purifying karma, such as: Using mantras, prostrations etc...

I know there is the concept of using good Karma, like dana, to balance the results (vipaka) of bad Karma, however the question is focused on rituals or practices.

As I pointed out in "If I undergo suffering now, will my next birth be better?" a while ago, liberation is not attained by "burning" past karma, but through "abandoning of unskillful mental qualities and the attainment of skillful mental qualities in the here-&-now"

As @Yam Marcovic showed in his "large boulder" quote (SN 42.6), Buddha of Pali Canon laughed at using rituals to improve someone else's rebirth. Indeed, how can your chanting help a dead person attain skillful mental qualities?! :)

However, Buddha never denied efficacy of rituals for changing one's own mood and motivation. In fact Buddha promoted usage of verbal aids for attainment of first jhana, and mantras can be seen as a kind of verbal aid.

In Tibetan Buddhism mantras and prostrations are used to cleanse one's own mind (not past karma!), one's own habitual tendencies. Specifically, mantras help stop inner dialog, and prostrations help against egoistic resistance.

From Mahayana perspective, denying efficacy of such self-directed rituals is foolish, because rituals obviously do change mood and motivation of the performer and participants.


Why does it hard to ask other Buddhists to do analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing? From I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?, I get that Buddhist goal is not only to get wisdom, but as a practice for "understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point."

This explains why others miss my point. It is more of Daoism I think, in which sufferings are not meant to be cessated, but to be transformed into something more useful. It's like saying "hey, sufferings are fun. Please give me more". This attitude makes sufferings not sufferings anymore, although technically you are suffering.

I think every Buddhist aware of the importance of intellect. Yet, when I especially ask for an analysis they still focus on the core goal, thus missing my point. For example, this person stops replying after I explain the Daoist point. Another example is my very previous question. At first the titular question asked for "what to do" , but then all answers focused on the reason, forcing me to change the title to "why is that" (ChrisW's answer is an exception). (Nevertheless this has a good side, as it tells me that I am missing Buddhist points too.)

There are two advantages if I can ask other Buddhists to do analysis with me:

My understanding can be refined, and my wrongs can be corrected
If the other person doesn't seem to understand the teachings properly, but dismiss any analysis because they misinterpret that Buddhism advocates to abandon reasoning completely, then this will be beneficial for them (cf. the snake sutta, the raft sutta)

So, why does it hard to ask other Buddhists to do analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?

FWIW, my though is said to be interesting if the readers are in analytic mode.
Related: Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?

Yes puthujjanas crave intellectualism, building fantasies, speculating, building a system of thoughts, classifying ideas, creating ideas, searching for definitions, and they always invent a story where they are good people for spending their day doing philosophy. Always claiming that their speculation ''makes things clearer''. It is completely normal.

And, when they hear that the only good use of mano in the dhamma is to judge the thoughts and sanna and vedanna, and select only the good ones, in order to purify mano to the point where mano has piti, just before the jhanas,  they get disappointed to see that they are not as righteous, with respect to the dhamma, as they thought they where in their intellectual bubble.

Then, like you said, some puthujjanas even manage to say that dukkha can be good. They try to salvage dukkha, because that's all they have in their life. It's like some people claiming that pain has meaning, pain can be useful, creates a person because it would strengthen a person and the person would learn something valuable from pain.

The whole point of the buddha is that there is nothing behind dukkha. Dukkha is just dukkha and is never ever worth it. There is no deep meaning with dukkha. There is no hidden purpose tied to dukkha. Dukkha is purely meaningless. There is no exploration of dukkha that is worth it. But puthujjanas manage to fall in love with their aggregates, and then they claim that dukkha can be skillful. This unconditional love, the clinging to this love by the puthujjanas is pure insanity.


Sanskrit term for a "Buddhist" What is the Sanskrit term for a person who is a follower of the Buddha, i.e. a "Buddhist"?

Things I tried: I searched online but couldn't find anything. I looked in the only Sanskrit I have access to, which is The Student's Sanskrit English Dictionary by Vaman Shivram Apte. It has a term in it, but the Devanagari is so small, I can't make out the letters. It looks like the term is "buddhupasaka" or "buddhupasakra", and it is defined as "a worshipper of Buddha".

The Sanskrit term for Buddhist is bauddha.

This derivation is known as a "secondary derivation" (taddhita-pratyaya). An -a suffix is added, and the initial vowel is strengthened. It has the general sense of "of or relating to", and here the specific nuance of "one who follows the Buddha". Compare the more familiar word Jaina, which is the name for a follower of the "Jina", i.e. Mahavira. The word brāhmaṇa is derived from brahman via the same process.


Watching crime in apps or website By watching crime in mobile apps or in website , is one actually participating in the incident? If one thinks about it, is one perpetuating the incident again? Does it add to one's karma? How does one react to this kind of situation ? if we ignore the video , are we creating a bigger incident?

Regards.

Let's separate this out. If you watch a recording of a crime on a website, does it impact the victim of the crime? Not in itself.

It DOES give a "view" to the video, and thus you are, in a sense, giving your tacit support to the recording, and publishing, of the event. THAT is, for me, the reason not to watch such events, as far as the world impact is concerned. I guess one needs to attempt to assess the motive of the publisher - was it to shock? Or to educate?

As far as impact upon oneself is concerned, this is another question. Are we adding to our own karma? It depends entirely upon the intent with which we are watching. Sooooo much consumption of internet material is quietly mindless - which means we are blindly watching with no concern for what impact it might have on us: because someone has published it, it must be okay. This attitude allows others to have control over our minds! As a meditator, I'd rather that weren't the case!

Thinking about karma is tough - does it affect my Karma? Can I ever experience my karma as a tangible sensation? I'm not sure I ever have.

Can I see impacts on my experience that demonstrate that certain kinds of actions have noticeable impacts on my experience? For sure, and some have impacts on my experience in meditation. Some I can learn to work with. For others, I just practice "guarding the gates of the senses" and avoid that stimulus.


Did the Buddha have more advice for the lay follower than is typically supposed? In the book The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople: Practical Advice for Prosperity and Lasting Happiness the author Bhikkhu Rahula Basnagoda claims that the Buddha actually had a lot of advice for the lay follower but that advice was most likely lost. A possible reason was that the first council emphasised the monastic content of the Buddha's teaching as this was of greatest concern to the council.

  From the bhikkus point of view such a partial preservation is
  understandable. [...] senior bhikkus found that the most urgent need
  was to retain unity and discipline amongst themselves

(quoted from pp 10 of The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople)

I'm intrigued by this claim and I would like it to be true. I like the idea that the Buddha had a lot of teachings for the lay community that perhaps we don't have now. But is this a common opinion. Is this claim made elsewhere by anyone or is it just a really way out opinion put forward by this author. Is there even any evidence of any kind for it - admittedly I find it difficult to see what kind of evidence there could be but you never know.

I guess I'm after an indication of the validity of this claim either by other reputable teachers or academics making the claim or by some kind of evidence.

Thank you.

I've seen this listing of The Buddha's Daily Routine where it is said the Buddha slept only one hour each night. He divided his days into a morning session and an afternoon session and his nights into 3 "watches".

It's said the monks would usually go to the Buddha to ask him questions during the afternoon session. The followers (which I assume means lay followers) would go to listen or ask questions in the first watch of the night (6 pm - 10 pm) and then the angels would do the same in the middle watch of the night from 10 pm - 2 am.

I don't know the origin of this information, but I can't help but be inspired by both the orderliness of it and the kindness of it, for the Buddha to devote so much time to helping beings find their wisdom. We've had a good question here on the site about asking questions. It's interesting that we here are still asking questions in this same spirit of seeking support for finding our own wisdom.

So with all that time devoted to answering the lay followers questions, one can imagine that there was plenty of advice given over the 45 years that the Buddha taught. How could there not have been? I think the monks who had to recite all the suttas orally for those many years before they were written down must have had their hands full. It seems logical that they would have focused on that which would bring the most benefit to those most dedicated to the goal of enlightenment.

Edit

One sutta from the Pali Canon which is full of advice to lay people is

Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala.


What are timeframe were pali canons, included commentaries, done, especially Mahavihara-Theravada? My conclusion from tipitaka and commentaries:

Most of Tipitaka canons and commentaries, except Kathāvatthu the forth of abhidhamma, began before 1st saṅgāyanā, but catagorize at 1st saṅgāyanā (see: DN.Commentary.)

But some tipitaka canons had done at 1st saṅgāyanā, some at 2nd, some at 3rd, and just vinaya-history in parivāra had done after 3rd saṅgāyanā (because vinaya have serious rule about the qualification of vinaya-successor, so list of vinaya-memorized successor's names were required, in parivāra, that began in upāli-thera school).

What canons were done at 1st?

Because of unanimous decision of 500 saṅgha at 1st saṇgayanā, that saṅgha must not add/cut/change any buddha's words off teaching. So this canons must done in 1st saṇgayanā:

Buddha's literal canons, that was learn & memorized by ānanda, upāli:

7 vinaya-pitaka (except sattasatikakhandhaka in cullavagga), parivāra-content (except vinaya-history), 4 nikāya, buddha's literal canons in kuddaka-nikaya.

Sāriputta's literal canons, that was learn & author by sāriputta-mahāsāvaka and memorized by his students, who were in 1st saṇgayanā instead of sāriputta, who died before 1st saṇgāyanā. Buddha chose to support sāriputta as the best teacher (etadagga) like himself. So no one can change his speech, too. So his canons should had done in 1st saṇgayanā, too:

Sāriputta's literal sutta in 4 nikāya, sutanipāta, sāriputta-theragāthā, niddesa, paṭisambhidāmagga, sāriputta-apadāna, cariyāpitaka, 6 abhidhamma-pitaka, Mahāaṭṭhakathā (The great commentary).
In my opinion I think buddha-apadāna and many jātaka are memorized by sāriputta, too. Because of buddhavaṃsa's and cariyāpitaka's characters. And in nidāna of DN.Commentary. also have an conversation between ānanda (dīghabhāṇaka) and sāriputta's students (macchimabhāṇaka) at first saṇgāyana about the categorization of KN. & buddhavaṃsa & cariyapitaka that should include in suttanta or in abhidhamma.

The other sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech, that were memorized by some saṇgha in 1st saṇgāyanā:

Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were memorized by ānanda: Itivuttaka, The remaining speech in 4 nikāya.
Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were told by the owners: Some thera/therīgatha, Some thera/theri-apadāna.
Sāvaka's & sāvikā's speech that were told by their students: Sāriputta-theragātha/therāpadāna, Moggallāna-theragātha/therāpadāna, etc.

What canons were done at 2nd?

Some thera/therīgatha, Some thera/theri-apadāna (some thera died after 1st saṇgāyanā such as ānanda, kassapa, anuruddha, upāli, etc.)
Sattasatikakhandhaka in cullavagga and just sattasatikakhandhaka's commentary. (In my opinion arahanta, in 3rd saṇgāyanā, did not author 3rd saṇgayana history anymore because they realized that it will be over responsibility of future-generations-vinaya-memorizers).

What canons were done at 3rd?

Kathāvatthu and just kathāvatthu's commentary.
Commentary about 3rd saṇgāyanā history.

What canons were done after 3rd?

Vinaya-history in parivāra.
None-Pali commentaries' translation and extension (andhaka-aṭṭhakathā, kauanadī-aṭṭhakathā, pañcarī-aṭṭhakathā).
Visuddhimagga and Abhinava-aṭṭhakathā (the combination of commentaries. It is just old commentaries in new package. Buddhaghosa wrote that he never add/edit anything. He just remix fussy/duplicate texts and translate siṇhala commentaries to pali language).
Abhidhammatthasaṇgaha, abhidhammāvatara, and many conclusion-commentaries.

Related Answer:

Beginner's Buddhist Course Syllabus By Ancient Pali Canon (Ganthadhura And Vipassanādhura)
Layers of pali literality already being in buddha-living-period.https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/21166/10100

This may not exactly be the answer that you're looking for, but it's related. It doesn't say at which council, but it speculates on the chronology of different parts of the Pali Canon, from an academic viewpoint.

On this page and this page, you can find the "Chronology Of The Pali Canon" by Dr. Bimala Churn Law.

Here, it is written in the beginning:

  Rhys Davids in his Buddhist India (p. 188) has given a chronological
  table of Buddhist literature from the time of the Buddha to the time
  of Asoka which is as follows:--

  The simple statements of Buddhist doctrine now found, in identical words, in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.
  Episodes found, in identical words, in two or more of the existing books.
  The Silas, the Parayana, the Octades, the Patimokkha.
  The Digha, Majjhima, Anguttara, and Samyutta Nikayas.
  The Sutta-Nipata, the Thera-and Theri-Gathas, the Udanas, and the Khuddaka Patha.
  The Sutta Vibhanga, and Khandhkas.
  The Jatakas and the Dhammapadas.
  The Niddesa, the Itivuttakas and the Patisambbhida.
  The Peta and Vimana-Vatthus, the Apadana, the Cariya-Pitaka, and the Buddha-Vamsa.
  The Abhidhamma books; the last of which is the Katha-Vatthu, and the earliest probably the Puggala-Pannatti.

But later, after in-depth analysis, the author comes to the conclusion:

  The results arrived at concerning the chronology of the Pali canonical
  literature are presented in the subjoined table:

  (1) The simple statements of Buddhist doctrines now found, in identical words, in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.

  (2) Episodes found, in identical works, in two or more of the existing books.

  (3) The Silas, the Parayana group of sixteen poems without the prologue, the atthaka group of four or sixteen poems, the sikkhapadas.

  (4) The Digha, Vol. l, the Majjhima, the Samyutta, the Anguttara, and earlier Patimokkha code of 152 rules.

  (5) The Digha, Vols. II & III, the Thera-Theri-Gatha, the collection of 500 Jatakas, the Suttavibhanga, the Partisambhidamagga,
  the Puggala-pannatti and the Vibhanga.

  (6) The Mahavagga and the Cullavagga, the Patimokkha code completing 227 rules, the Vimanavatthu and Petavatthu, the Dhammapada
  and the Kathavatthu.

  (7) The Cullaniddesa, the Mahaniddesa, the Udana, the Itivuttaka, the Suttanipata, the Dhatukatha, the Yamaka and the Patthana.

  (8) The Buddhavamsa, the Cariyapitaka and the Apadana.

  (9) The Parivarapatha.

  (10) The Khuddakapatha.

But there is no table available listing each sutta with its date of writing.


Why are there are only one Buddha per universe? Why there are only one Buddha per universe?

And why there are not more or less at any time?

The teaching attributed to the Buddha of 'there can only be one self-enlightened Buddha in a world-system (lokadhātuyā)' is found in the Bahudhātuka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, which states:

  He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones (arahanto), Fully Self-Enlightened Ones (sammāsambuddhā), could arise
  contemporaneously in one (ekissā) world-system (lokadhātuyā) ― there is no such possibility.’

  And he understands: ‘It is possible that one Accomplished One, a Fully
  Self-Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system ― there is such a
  possibility.’

  Bahudhātuka Sutta

The Milindapañha, which is a later-day commentary (c. 100BC), provides a detailed explanation:

  This world system, O king, is a one-Buddha-supporting world; that is, it can bear the virtue of only a single Tathāgata. If a second
  Tathāgata were to arise the world could not bear him, it would shake
  and tremble, it would bend, this way and that, it would disperse,
  scatter into pieces, dissolve, be utterly destroyed. just as a boat, O
  king, might be able to carry one passenger across. Then, when one man
  had got on board, it would be well trimmed and able to bear his
  weight. But if a second man were to come like to the first in age and
  caste and strength and size and stoutness of body and build of frame,
  and he too should get on board the boat—would that boat be able, O
  king, to carry them both?

  Or suppose, O king, that a man had eaten as much food as he wanted, even so that he had filled himself with nourishment up to the
  throat, and he—thus satiated, regaled, filled with good cheer, with no
  room left for more, drowsy and stiff as a stick one cannot bend—were
  again to eat as much food as he had eaten before—would such a man, O
  king, then be at ease?’

  Suppose, O king, there were two carts quite filled with precious things up to the top, and people were to take the things from the one
  cart and pile them up on the other, would that one be able to carry
  the weight of both?’

  If, O king, two Buddhas were to arise together, then would disputes
  arise between their followers, and at the words: “Your Buddha, our
  Buddha,” they would divide off into two parties—just as would the
  followers of two rival powerful ministers of state. This is the other reason, O king, why two Buddhas could not appear at the same
  time.

  The passage (of Scripture) that the Buddha is the chief would become false, and the passage that the Buddha takes precedence of all would
  become false, and the passage that the Buddha is the best of all would
  become false. And so all those passages where the Buddha is said to be
  the most excellent, the most exalted, the highest of all, the peerless
  one, without an equal, the matchless one, who hath neither counterpart
  nor rival—all would be proved false. Accept this reason too as in
  truth a reason why two Buddhas cannot arise at once.

  Of other things also, whatever is mighty in the world is singular. The broad earth is great, O king, and it is only one. The ocean is
  mighty, and it is only one. Sineru, the king of the mountains, is
  great; and it is only one. Space is mighty, and it is only one. Sakka
  (the king of the gods) is great, and he is only one. Mara (the Evil
  One, Death) is great, and he is only one. Mahā-Brahmā is mighty, and
  he is only one. 51 A Tathāgata, an Arahat Buddha supreme, is great,
  and he is alone in the world. Wherever any one of these spring up,
  then there is no room for a second. And therefore, O king, is it that
  only one Tathāgata, an Arahat Buddha supreme, can appear at one time
  in the world.’

  Mil 5.5 11; Mil 235


Meditation and Mouth breathing Some meditation techniques use the nostrils as a point of concentration, others only mention that we should breathe via the nose.

Many people have problems with that and can only breath through their mouths. Is this a problem for meditation? How serious is it?

Here are some of the reasons that focusing on the breath is beneficial in meditation.
http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/lifestyl/medi/breath.htm

  Using the breath: Why? Assuming you see the value in taking up a
  specific object for developing concentration, the breath has many
  things to recommend itself as the object of choice. 1 - it is
  portable. Every where you go you have it with you. No need to worry
  about forgetting your worry beads. 2 - it comes free with every body.
  No need to buy any special equipment. 3 - it is complete in and of
  itself. No need for any upgrades or add-ons. 4 - it is 100% natural -
  they don't come more organic than this. 5 - it is effortless. The body
  knows how to breathe without you needing to do anything, You just sit
  back and let it do all the work - while you just watch. 6 - it is a
  connection with a vital life force. 7- it is calming. There is a
  simple, natural rhythm the breath follows and following that leads one
  to peace.

All of these reasons but especially 4, 5, 6, and 7 indicate that breathing should be natural and unforced, effortless and done in a relaxed way. So the emphasis is not on trying to make breathing to happen in a certain way, but allowing it to happen natural. If the nose is blocked from mucous then the mouth is the only option.

But on the same page are many variations of how breath can be integrated in meditation:
http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/lifestyl/medi/breath.htm
examples are counting, following, listening to noise. Observing and turning away.
Walking meditation can also use breathing in it.


Five tricks to avoid unwholesome kamma I have heard of five tricks/methods which could be used to avoid performing unwholesome kamma. I can remember three of them precisely. Would like to know all 5 listed in order.  One is shifting the mind away from the unwholesome thought, another is finding the root cause, another is thinking of consequences.

Vitakka Saṇṭhāna Sutta gives the following 5:

Replace the unwholesome thoughts with wholesome thoughts
Examine the drawback of unwholesome thoughts
One sould forget unwholesome thoughts
One should try to still the source of unwholesome thoughts
Subdue the unwholesome thoughts


What buddhist topics cover the arise of meaning? I'm convinced that I give meaning to whatever I perceive. Which either can make me suffer or happy. So I have seen that I create my own suffering. That state is reflected in my body (or bodies?). Objective reality holds no meaning it itself. The meaning arises the moment I interpret information. This insight came to me after meditation where I saw things arising from nothing. I could choose to stay in the nothingness by not interpreting, or observe, interpret and meaning arose.

What buddhist topics are related to this phenomenon?

You might want to look at The 5 Aggregates, namely the aggregate(s) of Perception, Mental Formations and Consciousness.

Especially the forth aggregate of mental formations relates to what you are describing, since it contains volition (cetana). See also SN 12.38: Cetana Sutta.

The Abhidhamma goes into further detail on the topic of Citta & Cetasikas.
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi has written an execellent summary called "The Abhidhammattha Sangaha - A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma".


Is it a bad heavy karma to criticize or give up your guru? "However it is said in the Guhyasamaja Root Tantra:"

"If sentient beings commit an action
As grave as the five heinous crimes
He [still] can attain the superior Vajra Vehicle,
But who from within disregards his master
Shall never attain, even if exerted."

"That means having given up your guru, criticized the guru, or having heresy or broken samaya with one’s guru. It is not possible to explain how heavy the negative karma is from these things. One who criticizes, hurts, or belittles one’s guru from the heart will not achieve anything in this life; even if one practices one won’t achieve anything."

https://www.lamayeshe.com/advice/killing-ones-parents

Does asking a sceptical question count as criticism? Such as why the guru is charging x-amount for teachings? And giving up a bad guru is it bad? Does it matter if the guru is buddhist or not? Perhaps this only applies to certain types of buddhism?

Heavy bad kamma is always a matter of strong wrong view, and ingratitude is such especially if it's toward real and lasting help: Toward one's Gods, Parents, people of goodness.

Much done.

It's how ever not bad if based on right view and if the relation is a more or lesser good trade with the world, it would be even good to seek for leaving, correct of course and not just for another similar way.

[Not given for trade, exchange, stacks and what ever relations not dedicated toward real liberation]


Is pain comprised of the four great elements? Is pain comprised of the four great elements. I believe it is because  it has hardness/softness, coolness/hotness, etc.

No! Patavi, Apo, Tejo, Vayo are elements of Rupa. Pain is a sensation caused by those elements coming into contact with the sense doors while the the mind is present.


Life testament, illness and Buddhism I would like to ask a question about ones last will and how buddhism views that.

In Denmark where i live we have an option called a "life testament". In here there are 2 options that will be taken into account if one becomes severely ill or are about to die.

Does one want life-prolonging treatment if one is about to die?
Does one want life-prolonging treatment if illness or injury is leaving one behind without the possibility to take care of oneself either physically or mentally?

I was wondering if im breaking any buddhist rules if i answer no to any of those?

I have tried thinking about it but i cannot fully grasp it at the moment.

Lets say i was in a traffic accident and was left as a vegetable. By writing the life testament and answering no to life-prolonging treatment because it would only op hold the life of a vegetable am i then breaking anything?

Is this the desire/craving for non-existence im wandering into here?

Should i just let things be and play out according to my kamma. Im a bit confused.

Help would be much appreciated. Thank you.

May you be happy, peaceful and free from physical and mental suffering.

Harshani

There are many views among Buddhists on the issue of euthanasia, but many are critical of the procedure.

An important value of Buddhism teaching is compassion. Compassion is used by some Buddhists as a justification for euthanasia because the person suffering is relieved of pain. Keyword is intention (cetana). However, it is still immoral "to embark on any course of action whose aim is to destroy human life, irrespective of the quality of the individual's motive."

For bhikkhus the rules are explicitly spelled out.

The monastic code (Patimokkha) states:

  "Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life,
  or search for an assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death,
  or incite him to die (thus): 'My good man, what use is this wretched,
  miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than life,' or
  with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various
  ways praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he also is
  defeated and no longer in communion."

On the other side, there are the Vakkali Sutta and the Channa Sutta.

a) In the Vakkali Sutta (SN 22.87), the monk Vakkali, who is "sick, afflicted, gravely ill," tells other monks of his intention to use a knife to commit suicide. Upon learning of Vakkali's intention, the Buddha personally visits Vakkali to speak with him. In the course of their discussion, it becomes apparent that Vakkali is well progressed on the path to enlightenment—having already gained direct and genuine insight into the impermanent, self-less, and ultimately unsatisfactory nature of existence. After the Buddha parts company with Vakkali, he goes to the nearby Mount Vulture Peak to dwell for the rest of the day and night, and that night he is visited by "two devatas of stunning beauty" who remark to him that Vakkali is "intent on deliverance" and that "he will be liberated as one well liberated." The next day the Buddha has monks deliver a message to Vakkali recounting the devatas' auspicious visit and assuring Vakkali that his death will be a good one: "Do not be afraid, Vakkali, do not be afraid! Your death will not be a bad one. Your demise will not be a bad one." After Vakkali receives this message from the Buddha, he "uses the knife," as planned, and kills himself.
Upon receiving word of Vakkali's suicide, the Buddha leads a group of monks to the Black Rock on the Isigili Slope, where Vakkali's corpse can be seen:

"Then the Blessed One, together with a number of bhikkhus, went to the Black Rock on the Isigili Slope. The Blessed One saw in the distance the Venerable Vakkali lying on the bed with his shoulder turned. Now on that occasion a cloud of smoke, a swirl of darkness, was moving to the east, then to the west, to the north, to the south, upwards, downwards, and to the intermediate quarters. The Blessed One then addressed the bhikkhus thus: 'Do you see, bhikkhus, that cloud of smoke, that swirl of darkness, moving to the east, then to the west, to the north, to the south, upwards, downwards, and to the intermediate quarters?' 'Yes, venerable sir.' 'That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali, wondering: 'Where now has the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali been established?' However, bhikkhus, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final Nibbāna.'"

b) In the Channa Sutta (SN 35.87) the monk Channa, who is suffering intensely due to sickness, tells the monks Sariputta and Mahacunda that his condition is worsening and that he intends to kill himself using a knife:

"Friend Sariputta, I am not bearing up, I am not getting better. Strong painful feelings are increasing in me, not subsiding, and their increase, not their subsiding, is to be discerned. Just as if a strong man were to split my head open with a sharp sword, so too violent winds cut through my head. I am not bearing up… Just as if a strong man were to tighten a tough leather strap around my head as a headband, so too there are violent pains in my head. I am not bearing up....Just as if a skilled butcher or his apprentice were to carve up an ox's belly with a sharp butcher's knife, so too violent winds are carving up my belly. I am not bearing up....Just as if two strong men were to seize a weaker man by both arms and roast him over a pit of hot coals, so too there is a violent burning in my body. I am not bearing up, I am not getting better. Strong painful feelings are increasing in me, not subsiding, and their increase, not their subsiding, is to be discerned."

Sariputta and Mahacunda exhort Channa not to kill himself but he decides to do so anyway, asserting that he has led a “blameless” life. Sariputta, believing that Channa may have broken precepts of the Patimokkha by having inappropriately close relationships with laity—and assuming that Channa would not attain Nibbana upon death as a result—approaches the Buddha to inquire about the nature of Channa's rebirth. The Buddha replies that Channa has done nothing wrong and that he has, in fact, attained freedom from the round of birth and death:

"The Venerable Channa did indeed have these friendly families, Sariputta, intimate families, hospitable families; but I do not say that to this extent one is blameworthy. Sariputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa. The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sariputta, should you remember it."

It is noteworthy that Channa’s suicide appears to be something of a non-issue in his case, and we may reasonably conclude from this sutta that suicide—when carried out to avoid unbearable physical pain associated with terminal illness—was considered, by the Buddha himself, to be an acceptable course of action."


The emptiness of nirvana Maybe a strange question, but I wonder if emptiness (sunyatta) is also a characteristic of the state of nirvana?

Actually, Nirvana... is something beyond emptiness.
Emptiness (sunyata) is the stopping phase of cultivation.
Nirvana is the "seeing" phase, where you transcend even that stopping, which is a type of total non-existence, still dual.

Nirvana is beyond all dualism. It is not existence nor non-existence.
Heart sutra is reccommended.

Nirvana is a synonym for the enlightened state. The Enlightened state is beyond non-existence ("emptiness") and existence (experiencing the skandhas) and is capable of existing and exercising its function anywhere, no matter what, be it in hell or heaven. N onetheless, we must experience both sides fully, existence and non-existence before we can enter into the non-dual, indescribeable, open awareness of Nirvana.

Note: despite this, emptiness is still the first step, especially in this age where everyone is obsessed with materialism and existence. Finding emptiness IS the first step. You must make your mind empty and clear and must discover and BECOME emptiness, particularly through attainment of samadhi before you can truly succeed on the vipassana path.
Of course, others have differing perspectives saying that "dry insight" is enough to get to Nirvana but I don't think it's that easy or even reliable as a path.

Calm your mind (emptiness, samatha practice, focus your mind on clarity), and see (Nirvana, vipassana, let go of everything and just witness).


How to prevent the development of insight to become ignorance anew? It is necessary to develop insight in the way ignorance lies at the basis for the conditioning of suffering. See 12 links of dependent co-origination. Insight in the conditioning of suffering is developed by seeing the four noble truths at work at every aspect of the dependent co-origination. Ie: fabrications are suffering because these will "colour" experience, therefore ending the fabrications (unskilful actions, complex emotions, fixed ideas,etc...) is to be achieved by developing wisdom instead of ignorance, and finally this transforming of ignorance into wisdom becomes the path of transformation. When then does the newly acquired skill itself become redundant and a hindrance to liberation?

------------- EDIT--------------

Somehow the thinking part, the studying element of the development of wisdom creates a structure essential to gain insight into suffering. This knowledge may then become a kind of established truth, again giving rise to clinging to it, craving for it, ... and ultimately the birth of "the truth". This doctrine now needs to be defended, is liable to decay and misinterpretation, ... in short suffering. As it is impossible to use the insight to overcome itself (this is like a vicious circle), the only option left is to know when to abandon the knowledge (like in the raft simile) lest it becomes anew a cause for suffering. I hope this does clarify the issue somewhat.

Well, Buddhism is not simply a doctrine or belief system that needs to be defended through clinging to its knowledge or the view. The wisdom mentioned here that is acquired through reading, thinking or studying has to be experienced through Vipassana meditation. Unless it is experienced through this way, this knowledge will become just another view among many other views in this world subject to decay and misinterpretations.
There's a seven step purification process in Vipassana where you begin simply from practicing virtue, give up all the wrong views midway and finally end in wisdom.
You go through the entire process similar to using seven relay chariots until you arrive at the destination where each chariot is used only to achieve its designated purpose and then you abandon it without clinging to it; this is explained nicely in Ratha-vinitha sutta.

"... purity in terms of virtue is simply for
the sake of purity in terms of mind. Purity in terms of mind is simply
for the sake of purity in terms of view. Purity in terms of view is
simply for the sake of purity in terms of the overcoming of
perplexity. Purity in terms of the overcoming of perplexity is simply
for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is
not the path. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of what is & is
not the path is simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge &
vision of the way. Purity in terms of knowledge & vision of the way is
simply for the sake of purity in terms of knowledge & vision. Purity
in terms of knowledge & vision is simply for the sake of total
Unbinding through lack of clinging. And it's for the sake of total
Unbinding through lack of clinging that the holy life is lived under
the Blessed One."
Ratha-vinita Sutta [Thanissaro Bhikkhu]

If the steps are followed properly, then it doesn't become a vicious cycle.


Where are the references of Vesak in the Pali canon? It is traditionally believed that the Buddha was born, enlightened and passed away on the date(tithi) of Vesak. Now it does not seem to be very probable that all three major incidents of one's life would occur on the same date. What is the earliest source of this information about Vesak in the scripture?

Without looking too deeply, it seems that the word "visākhapuṇṇamadivase" (day of the full moon of Visākha) only appears in the commentaries. I don't think there is any canonical reference to that date; though I can't think offhand of any sutta that is precisely self-dated.


Does Ichinen Sanzen include "wishful thinking"? Does Ichinen Sanzen include "wishful thinking," or am i getting it wrong?

Also, does Theravada buddhism include "wishful thinking?"

This is the text I read that made me have this question:

http://www.sokahumanism.com/nichiren-buddhism/Practical_Meaning_of_Ichinen_Sanzen.html

Ichinen Sanzen isn't really wishful thinking, because it's not just hoping for a situation to get better— it's actually working for a situation to become better.
Wishful thinking implies that the subject expects the situation to change, whereas Ichinen Sanzen (3000 realms) implies that your own outlook  needs to change. This means not viewing oneself as victim of one's environment and basically that the concept of goodness and badness only exist in out head.
Here is a quote that Nichiren (a buddhist monk who propagated the 3000 realms) wrote in one of his letters to a follower that I think gives the gist of the idea of Ichinen Sanzen:

"The Vimalakīrti Sutra states that, when one seeks the Buddhas’ emancipation in the minds of ordinary beings, one finds that ordinary beings are the entities of enlightenment, and that the sufferings of birth and death are nirvana. It also states that, if the minds of living beings are impure, their land is also impure, but if their minds are pure, so is their land. There are not two lands, pure or impure in themselves. The difference lies solely in the good or evil of our minds.
It is the same with a Buddha and an ordinary being. When deluded, one is called an ordinary being, but when enlightened, one is called a Buddha. This is similar to a tarnished mirror that will shine like a jewel when polished. A mind now clouded by the illusions of the innate darkness of life is like a tarnished mirror, but when polished, it is sure to become like a clear mirror, reflecting the essential nature of phenomena and the true aspect of reality" (The Writings of Nichiren Daishonin   vol. I 4).

You'll notice that he is referring to perception of events and not just wishing problems away. That's the difference between The 3000 Realms and wishful thinking.
If you want a more technical definition of Ichinen Sanzen where I break down each part and say how it works, I'm happy to do so. Just add a comment to my answer asking me.
Anyhow, I hope this helped!
Edit: I'm not really sure about the specifics of Theravada Buddhism, but I know that both wishful thinking and Ichinen Sanzen aren't part of Theravada Buddhism.
Wishful thinking isn't a real practice in Buddhism regardless of the sect, and The 3000 Realms was developed by T'ien-T'ai, a Chinese, Mahayana monk; so, it's not part of Theravada Buddhism either.


Addictive Withdrawal and Buddhism It's well documented in psychology that the cessation of any type of addictive behaviour causes a period of withdrawal. During this period, less pleasure is experienced overall as well as mental difficulties.

Does Buddhist have any advice about such periods and way to help the recovery process?

Sure, the way to have clarity of perception is with sati sampajana and the way to have pleasure is to go beyond sati sampajana, ie, with samadhi. nobody can have ''withdrawal'' without being ''happy''. happiness stems form withdrawal and clarity of perception.

So it is  minduflness and turning minduflness into samadhi, as usual, like so

  Whomsoever it may be, Ananda, bhikkhu or bhikkhunī, living, having got
  by heart the four settings-up of memory — of such a progressively more
  excellently refined self-awareness is to be expected."

  Of what do these four consist?

  Here Ananda, a beggar living in body oversees body ardent, self-aware,
  recollected, disciplining worldly covetousness and depression.

  In such a one, living in body overseeing body, promted by body or
  arising from body, passions[3] of the heart or sluggish externals
  destract the heart.

  Then, Ananda, that beggar should set his heart on the track of some
  happy state.

  In the heart set on the track of some happy state joy is born.

  With enjoyment entheusiasm is born.

  Entheusiastic in mind the body becomes impassive.

  Impassive in body happiness is experienced.

  Happy at heart one is serene.

  He then determines:

  'Such as was the attainment of heart to which I aspired, such
  attaiment has been produced in me.

  In that case, it is now time to withdraw!'

  And thus he withdraws and does not think and does not ponder.

  Understanding:

  'Without thinking, without pondering, internally recollected, I am
  happy.'

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/sn/05_mv/sn05.47.010.olds.bd.htm#p1


Comparing Chinese Agama the ? Bundles of Reeds Simile with Pali Nalakalapiyo Sutta In commenting a post, I have just been introduced to the "two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other" Sutta. The comments have just been moved to chat and I hope it would be kept for awhile since I notice most chats are just rubbish bins to collect "hazardous" information in this forum and later deleted.

From Chinese Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288 it has this verse:

  ...譬如：三蘆立於空地，展轉相依而得豎立，若去其一，二亦不立；若去其二，一亦不立，展轉相依而得豎立。識 緣名色，亦復如是，展轉相依而得生長。

  Translation

  ...For example, three reeds standing on the floor, they
  relying on each other so are able to stand up. If one is removed, the
  other two cannot stand; if removed two, one also cannot stand. [Only]
  by relying on each other they are able to stand up. Consciousness
  correlating to name-form, is also the same, [they] relying on each
  other then are able to develop. ~ Saṃyukta Āgama No. 288

    Remark: Chinese 識 has multiple meanings, depends on the context of the text, it either just refers to consciousness - the faculty of cognizing, or the total of mind

However, Pali Sutta Nalakalapiyo Sutta: Sheaves of Reeds reads:

  "Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other. In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. If the first of those bundles of reeds were to be pulled away, the other would collapse. And if the other were to be pulled away, the first would collapse. In the same way, when name and form cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease.” ~ SN 12.67

The Chinese Agama said three reeds can lean againist each other, but the Pali  Nalakalapiyo said two reeds can lean against each other. My questions are:

Are these two Sutra/Sutta equivalent but different versions?1
If they are equivalent Sutra/Sutta, which is more reliable? Or, more accurate?
They obviously have marked disagreement - can three reeds leaning against each others to stand up, or two reeds?

I welcome non-dogmatic, non-sectarian answers, and thanks in advance. Reminder, this is a professional academic comparison, please appeal to logic, reasons and facts. That would be much appreciated.

Footnote:

1. From my knowledge, Chinese Samyutta Agama has two versions, one is from Ceylon (Sri Lanka). But also from my knowledge, there wasn't any script of Pali Canon being brought back from Ceylon to China by the ancient Chinese Buddhist pilgrims in the Chinese Tripitaka.

1.1 Just excuse me rumbling, the Chinese pilgrims took scripts from other sects in Ceylon, not the Mahavihara sect - called Theravada today, who kept the Pali Canon.

OP: Are these two Sutra/Sutta equivalent but different versions?

Yes, I think so. According to SuttaCentral, SA 288 and SN 12.67 are equivalent. I could find "三蘆立於空地" from your quote inside SuttaCentral's SA 288, so I guess it is the same.

  OP: If they are equivalent Sutra/Sutta, which is more reliable? Or, more accurate?

SuttaCentral links the Chinese agama SA 288 to the Pali sutta SN 12.67 and the Sanskrit sutra SF 155. Only the Pali sutta has English translations from Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Bodhi.

The Sanskrit sutra comes from "TRIPĀṬHI, Chandrabhal 1962. Fünfundzwanzig Sūtras des Nidānasaṃyukta ( = Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden VIII). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag."

Let me quote the other versions below.

From Pali sutta SN 12.67 named "Naḷakalāpīsutta":

  Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other.

  Seyyathāpi, āvuso, dve naḷakalāpiyo aññamaññaṃ nissāya tiṭṭheyyuṃ.

From Sanskrit sutra SF 155 named "Naḍakalāpikasūtra":

  tadyathā dvau naḍakalāpāv ākāśe ucchṛtau syātām anyonyaṃ niśṛta

I don't really know Sanskrit, but I guess that the two bolded terms above in Pali and Sanskrit mean TWO in reference to the bundles of reed.

So, the Pali and Sanskrit versions agree with each other, but not the Chinese version.

Based on the above evidence, I would say that most likely the Chinese agama version was modified from the original version which was probably in Sanskrit, or otherwise, in Pali. So, the Pali version is likely to be more accurate and reliable than the Chinese version, in my personal opinion.

But then again, I'm not a professional scholar of Buddhist Studies. So, I should quote the opinion of one. Prof. Dr. Bhikkhu Analayo is not just a monk, but also an academic scholar in the field of "comparative studies of Early Buddhist Texts as preserved by the various early Buddhist traditions" (according to Wikipedia).

Prof. Analayo wrote the following in the book "Three Chinese Dīrgha-āgama Discourses without Parallels". While this is not related to the Bundles of Reed Sutta/ Sutra, it definitely proves that there has been a precedent for the Chinese Agama to add to or modify the original version.

  The  three  discourses  in  the  Chinese  Dīrgha-āgama that  are
  without  parallels in other early discourse collections appear to be
  later additions  to  the  collection.  They  share  in  common  an
  attempt  to  map  doctrinal  terminology.  While  the  Discourse
  Increasing  by  One  (DĀ11)  and  the  Discourse  On  the  Three
  Groups  (DĀ  12)  still  seem  to  belong to an early stage in the
  developing of such maps, the Discourse On a Record of the World (DĀ
  30) appears to reflect a later stage.  The circumstance that all three
  discourses in the Chinese Dīrgha-āgama that are without parallels
  appear to be later additions should not  be  taken  to  reflect  a
  general  rule,  however,  assuming  that  any  discourse without
  parallels must be a later addition. It is always possible that a
  discourse is now extant from only one textual lineage due to  the
  vicissitudes  of  transmission.  An  example  would  be  the
  Jīvaka-sūtra  of  the  Sarvāstivāda/Mūlasarvāstivāda Dīrgha-āgama.
  Until  the  recent discovery of fragments of the Jīvaka-sūtra, only
  the Majjhima-nikāya version  of  this  discourse  was  known.  This
  was  because  the  Sarvāstivāda/Mūlasarvāstivāda  reciters  had
  allocated  this  discourse  to  their  long  discourse  collection,
  whereas  the  Theravāda  reciters  placed  their  version  of  this
  discourse  in  their  middle  length  collection. So lack of a
  parallel may simply be the result of differences in the  distribution
  of  discourses  among  the  four  discourse  collections,  transmitted
  by various Buddhist schools.

Whether name-and-form should be together or separate I think is out of the scope of this question and could be asked in another question.

  OP: They obviously have marked disagreement - can three reeds leaning against each others to stand up, or two reeds?

Maybe two reeds cannot lean on each other, but surely two bundles of reed can lean on each other just like these two cards below. It just depends on how the bundles of reed are tied together.

Here are two books leaning on each other:

EDIT:

I removed the statement that the Pali Suttas do not separate nama from rupa. There is actually such a separation in DN 15:

  ‘Name and form are conditions for contact’—that’s what I said. And
  this is a way to understand how this is so. Suppose there were none of
  the features, attributes, signs, and details by which the category of
  mental phenomena is found. Would linguistic contact still be found in
  the category of physical phenomena?” “No, sir.” “Suppose there were
  none of the features, attributes, signs, and details by which the
  category of physical phenomena is found. Would impingement contact
  still be found in the category of mental phenomena?” “No, sir.”
  “Suppose there were none of the features, attributes, signs, and
  details by which the categories of mental or physical phenomena are
  found. Would either linguistic contact or impingement contact still be
  found?” “No, sir.” “Suppose there were none of the features,
  attributes, signs, and details by which name and form are found. Would
  contact still be found?” “No, sir.” “That’s why this is the cause,
  source, origin, and condition of contact, namely name and form.

Nama and rupa is also separated in AN 10.27:

  “When it was said: ‘A question about two, a concise statement about
  two, an explanation of two,’ with reference to what was this said?
  When a bhikkhu is completely disenchanted with two things, completely
  dispassionate toward them, completely liberated from them, completely
  sees their delimitations, and completely breaks through their meaning,
  in this very life he makes an end of suffering. What two things? Name
  and form. When a bhikkhu is completely disenchanted with these two
  things … in this very life he makes an end of suffering.