Are philosophers today misunderstanding 'emptiness' because of a new metaphysics? From an article about Heidegger,

  The beginning of this story, as told by Heidegger especially in the Nietzsche lectures, is the end, the completion of philosophy by its dissolution into particular sciences and nihilism—questionlessness of being, a dead end into which the West has run. Heidegger argues that the question of being would still provide a stimulus to the research of Plato and Aristotle, but it was precisely with them that the original experience of being of the early Greeks was covered over... For the later Heidegger, “western philosophy,” in which there occurs forgetfulness of being, is synonymous with “the tradition of metaphysics.” Metaphysics inquires about the being of beings, but in such a way that the question of being as such is disregarded, and being itself is obliterated. The Heideggerian “history of being” can thus be seen as the history of metaphysics, which is the history of being’s oblivion.

Is this itself reason to suspect that philosophers like Plato, by which I mean contemporary thinkers who are paid to publish philosophy (including I suppose self help authors and some aspects of psychology) are bound to misunderstand the concept of emptiness? When the Buddha taught, the history of Being, metaphysics, had not yet, it seems, begun.

Are philosophers and people in general misunderstanding the terminology the Buddha used, perhaps because he lived at a time before 'Being' when there was only 'world' -- etc..

Many people in general misunderstand the terminology the Buddha used, including Buddhists & even translators. If these people misunderstand the terminology then what is to be expected of Western philosophers?

About 'being', the Pali scriptures report the Buddha discussed this word at length. For example, in the core doctrine of Dependent Origination, the notion of 'beings' is central to the meaning of the word 'birth' ('jati').

  And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, entering, coming-to-be, coming-forth of the various beings in this or that group of beings based on the appearance ('look'; 'features') of aggregates & appropriation of the sense spheres, that is called birth.

The word 'being' ('satta') refers to an internally generated 'view' of 'self' or 'persons' (see Satta Sutta & Vajira Sutta below).

Although 'beings' in these suttas is described as a mental state or mental view, most Buddhists & people regard 'beings' meta-physically, i.e., as an organism.

Similarly, most people & Buddhists regard the word 'birth' ('jati') meta-physically, rather than the meaning in the Indian languages of 'social & self identity' (see Wiki).

As for 'emptiness' ('sunnata'), it is defined as the absence of "self".

In Pali Buddhism, 'being' & 'emptiness' are opposite things however both can exist in the human experience; 'being' arising from ignorance & emptiness discerned by enlightened clear seeing.

Most crucially, the Buddha was not a philosopher but, instead, a 'Spiritual Doctor'. The Buddha had only one sole concern, namely, the ending or curing of suffering.

For the Buddha, the arising of 'being', i.e., the arising of 'ego' or 'self', is the arising of suffering. For example, a new born child has no idea of 'self' but later develops ideas of 'myself' based on cravings for things (such as food, comfort, love, pleasures, etc). These cravings are sufferings thus the manifestation of 'being' is always from the manifestation of suffering (refer to Vajira Sutta below).

  'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

  Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, feeling, perceptions, mental fabrications &/or consciousness, Radha: when one
  is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

  Satta Sutta

~~~

  Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.

  Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'

  It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be [when 'being' comes to be],
  Nothing but suffering ceases [when 'being' ceases].

  Vajira Sutta

~~~

  And what is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into
  an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of
  anything pertaining to self.' This is called the emptiness
  mind-release.

  Mahavedalla Sutta

~~~

  Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty.

  And what is empty of
  a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self
  or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness...
  Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.

  The ear is empty...

  The nose is empty...

  The tongue is empty...

  The body is empty...

  The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty
  of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that
  the world is empty."

  Suñña Sutta


If the literal truth causes confusion, but a lie portrays the truth via a careful misunderstanding, is it really a lie? Sometimes during everyday conversation, you can notice based on someone's subtle feedback, that they may be misinterpreting something you are telling them. For the sake of the question, please suspend doubt in the premise itself:

This literal truth causes confusion and ignorance for them, but our hypothetical lie communicates the truth effectively and even helps gently erode away the delusions they suffer from. (Because our words were exactly what they needed to hear, so that when their delusions distort their understanding, it lands on the truth.)

Is this really a lie, or is it perfect language? (Is it a corrupted compromise between them?)

EDIT: More specifically, is it breaking the precept of false speech?

  I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.

Is a lie still false if it communicates the truth?

As a counter to the other answer, Wikipedia's article on upāya ('skillful means') describes the Parable of the burning house:

  The Lotus Sutra contains a famous upaya story about using the expedient means of white lies to rescue children from a burning building.

There's a similar, modern. non-Buddhist term for this called Lie-to-children:

  Because some topics can be extremely difficult to understand without experience, introducing a full level of complexity to a student or child all at once can be overwhelming. Hence elementary explanations are simplified in a way that makes the lesson more understandable, though technically wrong. A lie-to-children is meant to be eventually replaced with a more sophisticated explanation which is closer to the truth.

Some lineages also apparently have secrets which may be similar to this.

I wonder whether to deduce that it's OK as long there is no intent to deceive. But saying "there are toys" (in the 'Parable of the burning house') seems like an actual deception. It's beneficial/compassionate, at least. And skillful/necessary. Maybe it's not even deceptive (it's hard to tell when it's a parable or metaphor).

So, yes: "portraying the truth via a careful miunderstanding" seems to have a basis in literature (Mahayana and Vajrayāna, even if not Theravada). Upāya is apparently a Mahayana concept.

Havig said this I hope you won't use it as an excuse to deceive people. I think there's some justification for saying that ignorance is a cause of suffering, and that deception goes with ignorance, so I hope you won't be deceiving people.


Memory about the past life As per the scriptures, lower being such as pretha & higher beings such as deva & Brahma remembers their early life. But in case of humans, only rare incidents are reported in remembering the past life. What is the cause of this?

This is a limitation of we who inhabit a three-dimensional world IMHO. We are not aware of other dimensions, and do not have the ability to see past existences because of the limitations of our physical senses. We experience only a very small part of reality, the three-dimensional world of physical forms.  But also we could quite rightly say that we humans live in a four dimensional world; in other words, humans are aware of four dimensions -three dimensions of space plus time.

This is why we see only two realms (human and animal) out of the other realms of existence like that of Pretha, Deva and Brahma. Of the newest scientific theories, the M-theory says that ours is a 11-dimensional universe, even though we can see only four dimensions (including time). So Prethas live amongst us, but they live in a differnet dimensional world.

Our consciousness (vinnana) is not like that of an Arahant. Ours is contaminated by defilements. This our awareness is not pure; it is like looking though a foggy window. But it is not so for some Arahant who got to open the divine eye in them. Twenty five hundred years ago, the Buddha achieved the ultimate state of the mind and became “all knowing” (or “perfectly conscious”). He came to know about the boundless universe, the endless cycle of rebirths, and about the complex process of cause and effect (paticca samuppada) which sustains everything in the universe.


Abhidhamma on Chittas and Chetasikas of Bi-polar disorders, Autism, and many mental disorders Here's what I'm given to understand:

The Abhidhamma manual classifies all possible mental states of a human being into - various different kinds of Chittas and Chetasikas.

Here's what I want to know:

Are the mental states of (what is generally considered to be a) disorder, like say - Bipolar disorder, Autism etc. also considered and classified in this text?
Is there a way out of it? Is there anyway for someone who wants to help those in deeper suffering because of this. Meditation, medication, perspective, world view etc.

I highly doubt you can find a one-to-one correspondence between modern psychiatric disorders and the classification of mental factors in Buddhist Abhidhamma. The two have completely unfamiliar zeitgeists or views of the world.

That said, I think you will find that many of the symptoms or more granular descriptions of the western psychiatric disorders are present or reflective of similar mental factors in the Abhidhamma. One thing you will not find in the latter is a classification of brain states or the physical mechanisms underlying many of the former. That is to say that western psychiatric disorders are - not entirely unwarranted - preoccupied with the workings of the brain as opposed to the workings of the mind. The two are not the same although with neural plasticity the two can lead to change in the other.

So, I think you will find that the efficacy of treating mental factors in Abhidhamma will be non-linear with treating western psychiatric disorders although they will have some effect on one another.

BTW, this is the canonical place where western psychiatric disorders are catalogued and described: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is important to note that although this is the de facto canonical catalogue of western psychiatry that many western psychiatrists themselves view this catalog as subjective and arbitrary and providing only superficial and unreliable classification of disorders.

Hope this helps!


Threefold division of noble eightfold path Right view is the first step in noble eight-fold path as mentioned in many answers here.

Right view
Right resolve
Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood
Right effort
Right mindfulness
Right concentration

Noble eight-fold path is three-folded as moral virtue (sīla), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (paññā). It's mentioned in many suttas that these three are sequential. But when considering this three-fold categorization, right view comes at the end.

Moral virtue (sīla)

Right speech
Right action
Right livelihood

Concentration (samādhi)

Right effort
Right mindfulness
Right concentration

Wisdom (paññā)

Right view
Right resolve

For more information: Noble Eightfold Path

My questions are:

Which is the correct sequence out of the above two?
Which sequence to follow?

The forerunner of the path is right view (MN117) and basically this means that you must understand something about Buddhism correctly before starting to practise.

However, the rest of the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path is not sequential. It's rather, iterative.

Here are some metaphors.

When you first learn to drive a car, do you learn how to start the car on one day, how to accelerate on the second day, how to brake on the third day, how to turn the steering wheel to the left on the fourth day and how to turn the steering wheel to the right on the fifth day? No. It doesn't make sense. You have to learn and develop these steps altogether in tandem, and practise them together.

Another example is this. When you learn to cook, would you learn to cut vegetables on one day, then learn how to wash ingredients on another day, then learn to boil on another day, then learn to simmer on another day and so on? No. Instead, you learn and practise them altogether at once by trying to cook a certain recipe. By practising them together, you slowly deepen your cooking skills. You would then expand to add frying, broiling, baking, steaming, poaching, sauteeing etc. to your techniques, but you would practise them together in one recipe.

Similarly, in the case of the Noble Eightfold Path, you would have to first cultivate Right View (the forerunner of the path) by learning the Buddha's teachings (the Dhamma). Then you would start developing Right Resolve, and decide to take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and practise the five precepts (which form the core part of the virtues - Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood).

As you deepen your progress into Right View by studying more of the Dhamma, you then increase your knowledge of the virtues (Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood) and try to practise them with more fervour. That's more of Right Resolve and Right Effort being applied.

As you deepen your contemplation of the teachings, you start cultivating Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, and then go into the meditation practices. These meditation practices would then lead you to better understanding of the Dhamma through first hand experience, which is improving the Right View once again. If you stumble into the five hindrances during meditation, you may need to deepen your practice of the virtues once again. This of course again is applying Right Resolve and Right Effort towards making progress in meditation and cultivation of wisdom.

So, every step helps the other. You can't practise only one of them at a time. But of course, learning the Dhamma and practising virtues tend to come before meditation, in general. This is just as in the case where you need to start a car and accelerate, before braking, but you would anyway do them in one session of driving, with repetition of all the steps as needed, to take you to your destination.

Even if you have not tried to meditate, if you continually reflect and ponder upon the teachings (that you have studied) and see how they match your experiences in life, you would still begin to understand the teachings from first hand experience. Then meditation could still progressively come later.


Does sutta recitation actually entail understanding of the text? I'm particularly interested in

Chinese morning and evening service
Tibetan sadhanas that a monk recites every day
Theravada Pali suttas and chants

Are these read in modern times by and to an audience that understands the language? I obviously believe some one knows medieval Chinese and Pali or there wouldn't be translations. But is a lengthy period of language study part of becoming a monk, and if it isn't, doesn't that mean that the monks and more so the laity have no idea what is being said?

I have the luxury of reading all the sutras in English translation. It is only dawning on me that possibly for some or most of the time, sutras are akin to a very long dhāraṇī.

This question was prompted by this quote from a Nichiren/SGI book

  Even though you may not understand what you are saying, your voice
  definitely reaches the Gohonzon, all Buddhists dieties, and all
  Buddhas and bodhisattvas over three existences and in the ten
  directions. In response, the entire universe bathes you in the light
  of good fortune.

The Heart of the Lotus Sutra, Ikeda.

To clarify, the question is not "Is mantrayana efficacious?", but if that is the question you want to answer, I already asked that a while back. The question is, as practiced, an in doctrine, do the various Buddhist institutions expect their monks and laity to understand what they chant?

Chanting is an interesting practice and I think each school might have a different take on this.  In my own tradition (Rinzai Zen), the meaning of what's chanted is absolutely irrelevant.  In fact, the liturgy that we use is a Japanese phonetic rendition of a Chinese phonetic rendition of Sanskrit.  Needless to say, no one understands a word of it.  And that includes the folks in our group that speak any one of those three languages.  ;-)


Is moderate drinking acceptable in Buddhism? I have heard a certain interpretation of the 5th precept and I'm curious about it, the person said that for lay people the 5th precept means "not drinking alcohol to the point you get intoxicated or lose control of your actions", therefore it would be ok to drink a glass of wine having dinner for instance. On the other hand, once you start drinking it becomes very hard to know your limits, most of the people don't have this ability.

Is there a limit or something regarding drinking alcohol according to Buddhism?

The application of the fifth precept is a matter of controversy even within specific traditions, so there is no simple yes/no answer to this question.

The Tibetan tradition famously incorporates alcohol in the bi-monthly ceremony known as tsog (see Lama Thubten Yeshe's "What is Tsog?"). Lama Palden Drolma's opinion on the matter seems to summarize well the thinking in the Tibetan tradition:

  To refrain from taking intoxicants is one of the primary vows that
  laypeople may take and that monastics have to uphold. One of the main
  reasons for not becoming intoxicated is that this can—and often does—
  lead to breaking other vows or straying from one’s integrity. Another
  reason for not becoming intoxicated is that for many, intoxication
  obscures the clarity of mind— the clarity to understand and rest in
  one’s true nature moment to moment. If one’s mind has stabilized in
  true nature to the extent that its clarity is never obscured, then it
  makes no difference whether one takes in substances or not.

  From the point of view of the dharma training I was given, it is
  permissible, even having taken this vow, as a layperson, to enjoy a
  glass of wine occasionally. A distinction is made between
  intoxication, where one’s clarity is compromised, and simply enjoying
  partaking of a substance. I also do not feel that occasionally
  utilizing a substance for transformational work is an obstacle to
  awakening. It may be helpful—but honest discernment and consultation
  is needed if one engages in this way, so that one does not fool
  oneself and go astray. [Source]


How is 'consciousness' (vinyaana) defined in Buddhist texts? How is 'consciousness' (vinyaana) defined in Buddhist texts? How similar or different is it from the way the word is used these days -- particularly in scientific studies of consciousness ?

'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be
'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It
cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It
cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.' - MN 43

And what, bhikkhus, is consciousness? There are these six classes of
consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness,
nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness,
mind-consciousness. This is called consciousness. - SN 12.2

The six classes of consciousness should be understood. ’ So it was
said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye
and forms, eye-consciousness arises; dependent on the ear and sounds,
ear-consciousness arises; dependent on the nose and odours,
nose-consciousness arises; dependent on the tongue and flavours,
tongue-consciousness arises; dependent on the body and tangibles,
body-consciousness arises; dependent on the mind and mind-objects,
mind-consciousness arises. - MN 148


Killing a Animal to prevent painful of that Animal.Is it consider as a bad thing for me according to buddhism? Note : Sorry for my bad English. If anyone can please edit the question for better meaning.

There is a dog. But dog is spending very painful life after huge burning(just before 10-20 minutes ago). It is very painful. I repeat it it is very very painful.

So if I kill Dog, is it consider as a bad thing for me according to buddhism?

If I do it, I will do it just only stop painful of dog.

So is it consider as a bad thing for me  according to buddhism?

Even mercy killing is considered bad and also breaks the precepts.

The dog is going through its pain due to karma. Say you kill it and goes to a worst hellish state by killing it you are putting to a far worse experience.

If you treat the dog's wounds and try to heal it you are creating good karma for yourself and also easing the pain for the dog. This is be best avenue to consider.


Is homosexuality a sin? "Homosexuality" is a hot topic everywhere in the world now. But is it a sin according to Buddhism? Does it cause a breaking of the third precept? I have heard in a sermon that people are born gay because of breaking the third precept severely in previous births and people are born as females for also breaking the third precept (not as severely I suppose). I know that where I come from if the government accepts gay marriages the monks will be the first to protest even before the church does! Is it because it is a sin?
(PS: I am totally fine with someone being gay)

It is not a sin.

Lust is born out of desire. Desire is one of the root defilements (kilesas).
It can manifest itself in different ways, e.g. sexual preference, body type preferences etc.

Lust is still lust, no matter what object its involved with.


Spoke to the Buddha in my dream-discard? I dreamed that I spoke to the Buddha, seems like it waa Gautama. He told me I should extend my meditation practice to an hour two times a day instead of half an hour as I do now, to reap greater fruits.

I don't think I really spoke to the Buddha. Did the historical Buddha ever speak of such events? Thoughts?

I met many interesting people in dreams or in visions awake: Jesus, my old Zen teacher, some other Buddhist and Hindu teachers and so on.

Some of them have told me very powerful mantras, some have encouraged me in practice or pointed at my mistakes. And of course I practised with them in my dreams, with joy and benefit. In none of those dreams or visions they deceived me in anything.

My old Zen teacher said (when another practitioner asked him) that he doesn't visit his students in dreams. But, he said, it's possible that some local spirit might took his appearance and give helpful advice.

Likewise, in your case it's possible that a local spirit took an image of the Buddha and gave you good advice. And it's possible it was real Buddha.

There are known stories of advanced practitioners who saw awakened teachers in dreams or visions and learned from them a lot. For example, if I recall correctly, Je Tsongkhapa meditated in a temple with a statue of Atisha, and Atisha started to talk to him and elucidated many topics of Dharma, and that allowed Tsongkhapa to write his fundamental Lamrim.

Of course it happens that our mind plays tricks with us, so it's possible to receive ill advice in dreams as well. Bodhisattvas can see Buddhas of Sambhogakaya realm (invisible to regular people), until then we have to decide for ourselves, was the advice good or not.

...Anyway, some people found excuses to not follow advice of real Buddha, when he was in human body...


Can I practice Buddhism without meditating? If it's possible to do it, how should such practice look like? Will it be inferior to the practice of those who meditate?

The Buddhist 3 Fold Training or main parts of the Noble 8 Fold Path are:

Morality,
Mastery over the Mind and
Wisdom.

You can practice 1 without meditation. But need meditation for to develop the other two. Also if you develop the other two your morality also becomes stronger.

Doing 1 itself gives benefit but this is much more if you practice all 3 parts of the Training (the latter 2 parts relating to Meditation and mental development) and with the addition of Giving which in part of the bases of merit with Morality and Meditation being an overlap.

The ultimate Buddhist goal is The Path to Nirvana in which Vipassana plays a great role.


Why choose to attain Nirvana when we can become Brahmas (or Bodhisattvas)? As I understand, once someone attains Nirvana and passes away, there is no more dependant arising, meaning this person no longer manifests as a person or being in any realm. This also means that this person loses his personhood (although this personhood is impermanent and is part of dukkha).

On the other hand, by achieving the first four Jhanas, a person could be reborn in the Brahma realms, which I understand to be the best beings in the universe, besides the Bodhisattvas. Of course, this is still impermanent and part of dukkha, but one could keep trying over and over to be reborn again and again in the Brahma realms.

The other possibility is to become a (Mahayana) Bodhisattva, in which case one maintains his personhood also. Although a Bodhisattva is destined to become a Buddha.

The question is, why should sentient beings choose to end their personhood permanently, rather than trying to be reborn again and again as the best person possible?

"[...] This also means that this person loses his personhood (although this personhood is impermanent and is part of dukkha)."

I wouldn't say "loses". It may be worth reminding that Nirvana should not be considered annihilation. Complementing:

  Bhikkhus, it is impossible that a bhikkhu who considers nibbāna to be suffering will possess a conviction in conformity [with the teaching]. [...] [But] it is possible that a bhikkhu who considers nibbāna to be hapiness will possess a conviction in conformity [with the teaching].

  -- Nibbāna [Bodhi Trans.], AN 6:101

"On the other hand, by achieving the first four Jhanas, a person could be reborn in the Brahma realms, which I understand to be the best beings in the universe, besides the Bodhisattvas."

Personal preferences aside, if we are talking about happiness, Nibbāna is declared to be supreme. A happiness and security from suffering unknown to a Brahma or Bodhisattva.

Also, perhaps is not so surprising the idea of devas of superior realms desiring to be born as humans:

  "It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a heaven named 'Six Spheres of Contact.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable.

  -- Khana Sutta, SN 35.135

"[...] but one could keep trying over and over to be reborn again and again in the Brahma realms."

...and, while trying, out of inattention or forgetfulness or simply ignorance, one may do something foolish -- because that's what we do as ignorants. Foolish enough to open one's mind to darker unwholesome states, perhaps in a chain reaction, and end up in a worse destination (though reappearing as a human during a time with no dhamma, and no condition to develop oneself to become a Buddha might be bad enough). Perhaps you were Brahma before, and now here you are, among humans (again?). I guess, as long as one thinks this endeavor is worth...

"The question is, why should sentient beings choose to end their personhood permanently, rather than trying to be reborn again and again as the best person possible?"

One way of answering is to ask "What's to end?".

Here is an appeal from the Buddha himself as to why one should reach Nirvana:

  "Bhikkhus, this samsāra is without discoverable beginning. A first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving. What do you think, bhikkhus, which is more: the stream of tears that you have shed as you roamed and wandered on through this long course, weeping and wailing because of being united with the disagreeable and separated from the agreeable -- this or the water in the four great oceans?"

  "[...] venerable sir, [...] this alone is more than the water in the four great oceans."

  "Good, good, bhikkhus! It is good that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in such a way. [...] For a long time, bhikkhus, you have experienced the death of a father ... the death of a brother ... the death of a sister ... the death of a daughter ... the loss of relatives ... the loss of wealth ... the loss through illness [...]. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this samsāra is without discoverable beginning ... It is enough to experience revulsion towards all formations, enough to become dispassionate towards them, enough to be liberated from them."

  -- Tears [Bodhi Trans.], SN 15.3


Introductory books to Buddhism I'm looking for some book(s) that are generally regarded as a good introduction to Buddhism. I know very little about Buddhism, having only read one book on it so far (What Makes You Not a Buddhist by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche). I found the book entertaining, but I'm not sure it was the best introduction for someone completely ignorant on the matter.

Are western takes on Buddhism - or at least books on Buddhism by western authors - a good way to start?
Or should one jump right into books like the Tibetan Book of the Dead?

What are some books generally regarded as good for a general introduction on Buddhism?

First off, I wouldn't recommend Tibetan Book of the Dead, since it's not exactly a primer in Buddhism, I don't think. There are lots of introductions from various traditions; the perennial favourite is What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula. He's also written pieces on the difference (or lack thereof) between the various schools, so he's pretty unbiased that way.

Indian Buddhism by A.K. Warder is a great in-depth look at how Buddhism evolved, though like everything by the author it is terribly dense.

Bhikkhu Bodhi is another modern author who has some good resources; his introductions to the nikayas, e.g. in The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, are well-done. He also has an audio series on-line about the same that seems well-received.

I guess I'd be careful about modern sources either from the West or East as an introduction, since without a solid background, it will be easy to become swayed by skewed teachings. Reading the words of the historical Buddha himself would most likely help to provide such a background. Again Bodhi's translations are a good choice.


Is this picture of a statue of the Shakyamuni Buddha? I really need help identifying who the below represents... is it
Siddhartha Gautama (Shakyamuni Buddha)?

Thank you.

Yep.  Probably Thai judging by the pointed top knot.


Is there a scientific consensus on meditation? Is there a scientific consensus on meditation? I've seen it said that different parts of the brain are activated during meditation. Is that true for all experienced meditators, all forms of meditation, etc.?

It has to do something, was originally my take on Buddhism -- at the time merely because it has historically thrived: it being pretty obvious that whatever it did was a 'good' thing.

If you are still interested, you can check this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/9dx45g/can_we_please_have_a_pinned_thread_with_all_the/e5qcic6/

It's a comment with about 15 benefits of meditation with links to scientific articles that state them as far as I understand.


Death vs Birth - Birth & Death of what? Death - What dies with death?

Birth - What is born with birth?

Can you provide any Sutta / Sutra references.

I think "death" is often described/translation as "dissolution of the aggregates".

So I suppose it's the skandhas which "die" or come to an end, are impermanent.

This reference includes,

  And, bhikkhus, what is death? The falling away from existence, the passing away from existence, the dissolution, the disappearance, the end of life, the passing away due to completion of the life-span, the breaking up of the Aggregates, the discarding of the body, the destruction of the life-faculty of various beings in various categories, — this, bhikkhus, is called death.


Five precepts and lower realms My understanding is that, although we are practicing five precepts in this life, there is no guarantee we will not be reborn in lower realm, it is possible to take rebirth in lower realm in the next life or many lives after. But according some sources, when one practices five precepts that person will not be reborn in one of the lower realms (in the next life). Which one is the correct one?

Reaching at least the Sotapanna state is the only 100% guarantee of not being born in lower realms ever again.

But if you reach at least the second insight knowledge -Paccaya Pariggaha Nana of the 16 stages of insight towards becoming a Sotappanna, it is said that you will not be born in a lower realm in the immediate next life.

If you are a devout Buddhist who keeps to the five precepts, it is highly unlikely to be born in a lower realm in the next life. But there's no guarantee. It mostly depends on the quality of your precepts. As in how well you keep to them.


Identification with Negative States I have noticed a certain phenomenon.

When I am in a positive mood, I don't identify with the mood. I don't cling to it, I am aware of its impermanence.

When a negative mood occurs -- as anger, or despair -- I completely and absolutely identify with it. I am this state, I believe it. I do not recognize its impermanence: I think about this mood as if it won't end.

Seemingly, negative moods make me unaware of non-self and impermanence, based on what I said.

My questions are:

(1) Is this a question of aversion? How can I avoid being phased by negative states?

(2) More specifically, how do I avoid identifying with such negative states, and how do I recognize their impermanence when they occur?

Basically, I know one ought to observe such states mindfully, but in their immediate occurrence I get caught up, I am motivated to act or speak in a negative way.

Thank you.

There is a good analysis of this, with regards to negative states of mind, in the Uddesa-vibhanga Sutta (MN 138).

Concerning the external scattering and diffusion of consciousness:

  "How is consciousness said to be scattered & diffused? There is the
  case where a form is seen with the eye, and consciousness follows the
  drift of (lit.: 'flows after') the theme of the form, is tied to the
  attraction of the theme of the form, is chained to the attraction of
  the theme of the form, is fettered & joined to the attraction of the
  theme of the form: Consciousness is said to be externally scattered &
  diffused.

And the same applies to the other senses.

This describes how external sensual inputs can trigger a chain reaction resulting in the consciousness becoming consumed and following the drift of the theme. But why does this happen?

  "And how is agitation caused by clinging/sustenance? There is the case
  where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for
  noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has
  no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. His form changes
  & is unstable. Because of the change & instability of form, his
  consciousness alters in accordance with the change in form. With the
  agitations born from the alteration in accordance with the change in
  form and coming from the co-arising of (unskillful mental) qualities,
  his mind stays consumed. And because of the consumption of awareness,
  he feels fearful, threatened, & solicitous.

And the same applies to the other aggregates.

For example, deep within you, you take the form to be your self. If you get a minor injury like a splinter in your foot, this would trigger despair and agony in you, because you take your foot (which is essentially part of the form) to be your self.

Another example is, you may take the mental fabrication of your ethnicity, to be your self. You may strongly associate yourself with your ethnicity. So, when someone insults you with a racial slur, it goes in through your ears, and triggers anger and rage in you, because you take your ethnicity (which is essentially a mental fabrication, specifically a mental concept) to be your self.

So that makes complete sense. Agitation is caused by clinging/ sustenance.

Now if you become angry as in the second case, as I'm sure you have previously experienced multiple times in your life, did you assault or kill someone? I guess not. Somewhere along the way, you came to your senses and gained control of yourself. You just need to ponder this chain reaction and how you gained control of yourself.

The method to control yourself here, is by practising heedfulness (or appamada), to watch your mind carefully. Please see this answer for details.

I'm trying to convince you here that you have managed to control your anger before in your life, so you surely can do it again. And the same applies to other negative states of mind.

There are details regarding the use of heedfulness (appamada) in the Vina Sutta (SN 35.205) as follows:

  "Monks, in whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion,
  aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to forms
  cognizable via the eye, he/she should hold the mind in check.
  [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown,
  a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed
  by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity.
  It's not worthy of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with
  regard to forms cognizable via the eye.

  (and the same applies to the other senses)

  "Suppose that corn had ripened and the watchman was heedless. A
  corn-eating ox, invading the corn to eat it, would intoxicate itself
  as much as it liked. In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill
  person, not exercising restraint with regard to the six media of
  sensual contact, intoxicates himself with the five strings of
  sensuality as much as he likes.

  "Now suppose that corn had ripened and the watchman was heedful. The
  corn-eating ox would invade the corn to eat it, but then the watchman
  would grab it firmly by the muzzle. Having grabbed it firmly by the
  muzzle, he would pin it down by the forehead. Having pinned it down by
  the forehead, he would give it a sound thrashing with a stick. Having
  given it a sound thrashing with a stick, he would let it go.

  "A second time... A third time, the corn-eating ox would invade the
  corn to eat it, but then the watchman would grab it firmly by the
  muzzle. Having grabbed it firmly by the muzzle, he would pin it down
  by the forehead. Having pinned it down by the forehead, he would give
  it a sound thrashing with a stick. Having given it a sound thrashing
  with a stick, he would let it go.

  "As a result, the corn-eating ox — regardless of whether it went to
  the village or to the wilds, was standing still or lying down —
  wouldn't invade the corn again, because it would recall the earlier
  taste it got of the stick.

  "In the same way, when a monk's mind is held back, thoroughly held
  back, from the six media of sensory contact, his mind settles
  inwardly, grows steady, unified, & concentrated.

Disconnecting the chain reaction above by watching your thoughts heedfully is one solution, but the other, is to gain compassion out of empathetic understanding or empathetic insight. Why did someone insult you? It's because he did not have control of his mind, because he is deluded. This way, you can grow compassion towards other people and tolerate their shortcomings. However, this method is only applicable when there are other people or other sentient beings involved. You cannot grow compassion towards a splinter.


The time between kalpas When a world system has gone through devolution and is in statis, before the next evolution, where are all the beings from that world system? I've read some of them are born into brahman realms, but surely not all of the trillions of different beings alive on earth are born there during this time? So what happens to them while there are no lower realms to be born into?

My understanding is that, that's the only world available until new world system starts forming, and they start falling down again.

So you can say we all have a little bit of respite but once in a kalpas, not much isn't it.


Why do Bodhisattvas postpone enlightenment? I've read that one understanding of Bodhisattvas is that they postpone their enlightenment until all sentient beings have entered Nirvana? That's always struck me as odd. Why would this be necessary? Surely the Buddha was enlightened and he worked for the benefit of all beings too. Or is that an incorrect understanding of what a Bodhisattva is?

This question (more or less) was asked a year ago. I recently gave a fairly fully answer to it.


Scientific Reincarnation Research Buddhists often cite the research of people like Ian Stevenson or Jim Tucker in support of their views on rebirth. My understanding however is that these researchers consider their evidence supports the idea of reincarnation - i.e. that they believe in a strong form of body/mind or matter/spirit dualism which allows for the same spirit to inhabit a series of new bodies and thus retain their memories (which are perforce not stored physically in the brain, but psychically in some as yet unknown medium that is available to beings whatever body they happen to be in).

Doesn't this approach contradict Buddhist doctrines on rebirth and dependent arising?
Given that it conflicts with our fundamental doctrines, how do we explain the popularity of such reincarnation research amongst Buddhists?

As far as I'm aware, experiments of Dr.Ian Stevenson are referred to by Buddhists to convince materialists & the followers of monotheistic religions that there's a Samsara. There's no intention of getting them to believe in a soul. The approach isn't perfect as you have pointed out. But it could be effective for monotheists and those who refuse to accept anything other than what scientists say. Putting Anatta into the mix can make it too confusing for newbies. So as long as the emphasis is put on Samsaric existences, it should be ok.
A question related to memory and persistance is answered here.


how do we know about parts of Buddha's life where he was clearly alone? for example, when he was being tempted by Mara, he said "the Earth bears witness." how do we know this? he was clearly alone, right? no one was there witnessing this to write about it. did Buddha just tell it to everyone later? not just that, there are so many instances in his story where he was clearly alone. no one else could've known about those moments to write about them.

Some of it is in suttas, see for example Buddha meditation under the bodhi tree

The detail you mentioned come from the introduction to Jataka -- Where is the description of the vow and the Bodhi tree?

Parts of the Jataka might be described here as "a charming story" -- see also Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories?

See also Why did the Buddha touch the earth at his enlightenment? -- people understand that as instructive.


Losing in thought and autopilot kicked in Every day I ride my bike from home to office. It takes 1 hour journey.
During that hour, many times I found myself somehow teleported to certain distance. It is not magic, I simply lost in thought when that happened. I am so absorbed in my own thought that I am clueless to my surrounding, although my autopilot will guide me safely during that teleportation.

that is only an example of many activities where my autopilot kicked in.

Problem is, I feel that it is a mistake to be lost in thought. I feel it is not supposed to happen. I feel I supposed to being in present moment. So to counter it, I try to being aware of my body movement, such as opening/closing gas, shifting up/down gear. I recite the word in my mind when the body move. After doing so, I came to realization that my body movement/reaction is faster that my mind.

the questions are:

Is it really a mistake to be lost in thought?
Is my way of countering have bad effect?

Is it really a mistake to be lost in thought?

When Satti is absent you create fabrications hence future misery. Therefore, it is a "mistake" to be lost in thought.

  Is my way of countering have bad effect?

You are doing Kayanupassana hence this is one of the solution is being mindful, i.e., mindfulness of the body. In addition be mindful of the bodily sensation when moving like the fabrics touching your body, the wind sweeping over your skin, etc. Also look at muscular pains and pain and pleasure in changing postures.

Ultimately what you have to work with is to realise 4 Noble Truths and Dependent Origination this you can realise through any experience you perceive as good, bad and neutral and this leads to sensation which are pleasant, unpleasant and neutral and even the pleasant and neutral are unsatisfactory due to 3 Characteristics while unpleasant is unsatisfactory on its own and neutral opens us for further existence and it can still give unpleasantness in the future.


Thoughts in Daily Life I try to maintain mindfulness in daily life and I find that most of the time my thoughts keep wandering and I often find myself regurgitating on some random topic which is not at all useful at the moment. Is there any sutta in which Buddha talks about thoughts - which thoughts are useful to dwell on and which are not?

This is restlessness, or the mind being scattered by many thoughts coming and going. Refer to the suttas on the hindrances, e.g.: (Nīvarara) Sangarava Sutta, Nīvarana,pahana Vagga. This is aggravated by Vipallasa (see Vipallasa Sutta). (These could lead to wrong conclusion and views hence keep the Samma,ditthi Sutta in mind.) Also see: Nīvaraṇa an essay by Piya Tan

Thoughts are generally not good to dwell on unless they are directed at maintaining properly executing our daily activities and also perhaps some planning the activities and future. This cannot be avoided if you are householder. Also keep your thoughts on on what can be considered compatible or at least not contrary to Right Thoughts (Samma Sankappa). Thinking lead to concept proliferation and verbal fabrications which is at best avoided when possible at least during a formal meditation sitting.

With regard to concept proliferation the following essay highlights how thinking leads to fabrication: Papañca-Saññā-Sankhā, Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought by Bhikkhu Nanananda. Also Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta covers the topic: perception and mental proliferation. Also Mindfulness in Early Buddhism, by Tse-fu Kuan contains though proliferation in the context of Vipassanā which might be an interesting read.

With regard to Verbal Fabrication the following Suttas deal with the subject: Mahā Vedalla Sutta, Cūla Vedalla Sutta, Kāma,bhū Sutta 2


How do your thoughts appear to you? (asking for mechanics) Since a couple of weeks I'm stuck in meditation with something that's unclear. I hope that answers will help me get some inspiration and ideas.

So, how do the thoughts appear to you? As words, as pictures, as a far away voice? Is it always the same way, or do they sometimes appear as pictures and sometimes as words?

I have asked a couple of people already, and nobody seems to be able to tell me. Everyone responded with 'I don't know'. Which is kind of weird, since we all think.

Anyway, in my case: thoughts appear to me as a distant voice. Just to share my bit of experience. :)

To me, thoughts appear as relationships or associations. When I think of something, I remember something else related to that, and then the next thing, or several next things. All these memories are at first very vague - more like feelings - and then if I give one of them attention, it becomes more specific. Now, if I look more carefully at a single thought - it is not a solid thing, it is just a pointer to more memories related to it. So to me all thoughts are empty connections with one another.

I can also visualize objects as images, and sometimes these visual images float from memory all by themselves - so some of my thinking is visual. Or sometimes I remember sounds or tactile sensations. But those are more like "memories" than "thoughts".

I also have inner dialog at times, but by now I have mostly learned to stop it when needed. So when I think I mostly don't think in words, but in those connections I described above. When I do have an inner dialog it sounds like memory of my own voice, i.e. like I'm talking very quietly to myself, or rather remembering how my voice would sound if I said those words.

When I think about something complex, organically (i.e. not reasoning step by step), I may have some kind of complex interconnected structure appear in my head. It's like a mesh of interconnected wires, each wire being a thought connected with other thoughts. Sometimes I look at the entire mesh from afar and try to see high-level patterns, or a particular way seemingly unrelated things are connected. This entire structure is multidimensional, not 3D. Sometimes two thoughts may appear as two separate thoughts, but if you trace them into another dimension you will see that they are in fact two projections of the same one thought and that's how you see they are connected.

Working with these thoughts-as-connections requires using feelings. Feelings are like queries you can send to the mesh, to find relationships, or to find a particular thought.


SN 35.116 - Is "the world" ("loka") an objective reality perceived via the senses? I read the following on the internet:

One perceives 'the world' through the senses - however the senses
themselves are in the world (lokasmiṃ). That does not imply the world
is a state of mind, but that the mind is in the world.

Also:

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and
conceive the world is called the world in the training of the noble
one. (Yena kho, āvuso, lokasmiṃ lokasaññī hoti lokamānī) And through what in the world do you perceive the world and
conceive the world? Through the eye in the world you perceive the
world and conceive the world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body …
mind in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. - SN
35.116

Can "the world" only be "perceiving the world" (lokasaññī) without "conceiving the world" (lokamānī)?

It depends on the context.
This sutta has a play on both meanings of loka - the objectively real world and the inner world of mental formations in this statement:

Mendicants, I say it’s not possible to know or see or reach the end of
the world by traveling. But I also say there’s no making an end of
suffering without reaching the end of the world.

This second meaning is explained in this statement (which also has both meanings of the word):

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and
conceive the world is called the world in the training of the noble
one.

The "world" in the training of the Noble Ones, refers to the world of mental formations through which we perceive (based on what is sensed of) the objectively real world and conceive the mental model of the world, which is the result of concept proliferation/ reification/ objectification-classification or papanca.
This is also found in the Rohitassa Sutta:

The end of the world can never
be reached by traveling.
But without reaching the end of the world,
there’s no release from suffering.
So a clever person, understanding the world,
has completed the spiritual journey, and gone to the end of the world.
A peaceful one, knowing the end of the world,
does not hope for this world or the next.”

So, the end of the world is the end of papanca (reification, objectification-classification, concept proliferation).
Piya Tan's commentary on the Lokantagamana Sutta:

2.1 In the Lok’anta Gamana Sutta,the Buddha, in simple words with profound senses, explains what it really means to “save the world.” We
need to first understand what “world” really means. In the Sabba Sutta
(S 35.23), the Buddha declares that all that there is are our 6
sense-faculties and their 6 respective sense-objects: these are the
“all” (sabba). This is the world, the universe, we have created for
ourselves. Nothing is meaningful for us beyond this.
2.2  The Buddha has never exhorted us to “save the world,” as this ultimately refers to all our senses, from which we liberate ourself.
Even when taunted by the wanderer Uttiya, who asks, with all the
Buddha’s attainments and teachings, “Is the whole world liberated by
this, or only half of it, or a third of it?” The Buddha remains
silent, because the question is wrongly put.
2.3 In an important sense, we can say that the Buddha’s teaching is about
“saving ourself” from the world. The world is what we make of
it: we create our own world. Hence, it is within our power to change
our “world,” that is our own self. This is the spirit of “renouncing
the world,” of letting go of the world so that we are free of the
falseness and unwholesomeness we have created for ourself. The save
the world, then, we need to renounce it.
2.4  In the Lok’anta Gamana Sutta 1 (S 35.116), the Buddha
declares what kind of “world” that we can really save or liberate. First, the
Buddha shows us what kind of world needs“saving”: Bhikshus, the end of
the world cannot be known, seen or reached by going, I say. Yet,
bhikshus, I also say that without reaching the end of the world there
is no making an end to suffering.8(S 35.116,2), SD 7.4 The first
mention of “the world” refers to the physical universe, which is with
neither beginning nor ending in terms of time and space
(okāsa,loka). It also refers to the world of beings (satta,loka),
simply put, the cycle of births and deaths (saṁsāra) itself, which
is external to us, so to speak. However, within us are the world of
formations (saṅkhārā,loka), the self-created and self-centred
“world”—this is our real prison of craving and ignorance, what we need
to awaken from and so be liberated.
2.5 The Lok’anta Gamana Sutta further records the Buddha as declaring,
“That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a
conceiver of the world—this is called ‘the world’ in the noble one’s
discipline.”11(S 35.116,22). This refers to the workings of the 6
sense-bases. Then, the Buddha famously declares in the Rohitassa Sutta
(S 2.26):

In this very fathom-long body, endowed with perception and mind, I
declare the world, the arising of the world, the ending of the world,
and the way leading to the ending of the world.”12(S 2.26,9), SD 7.1


As a disciple of the Supreme Buddha, what would you do with an animal that is in severe pain? You may get to see someone or an animal is sick and suffering in pain. You may be able to give that person or animal a medicine that helps relieve the pain somewhat. But sometimes there’s so much pain that it goes beyond the reach of any morphine, any opium, any painkiller at all. At  such moments what would be your thoughts? Being well informed of the Dhamma, you know in the back of your mind that it is our responsibility for what we are. We were the ones who chose to be born here. It was because of our desires and our cravings that we took birth as human beings or animals for that matter. When you’re responsible for your birth, then you also have to be responsible for how you handle your aging, illness, and death. They all come as part of the same package. So how could you be of help to self and the other in such a situation?

My mother and I saw a cat today by the side of the road, which had probably been hit by a car. Its back legs were outstretched, it didn't walk, I guessed its lower back was broken. It miaowed to us.

We went to find the owner of the nearby house, I told him that I had the regret to inform him that etc., he said that it sounded like his cat and we went to find it. He talked to it (saying, "Oh my poor Fifi") picked it up (it miaowed again) and he told us that he'd take her to the vet, which seemed to me like a good idea. I was glad for the cat's sake that she now had her human companion/friend with her.

My mother told him that (in her opinion) the cat wll probably want to be euthanased (a.k.a. put to sleep or put to death) but I think that Buddhist doctrine denies that and says not to kill, even in that situation.

Here are some references for how to behave with someone who is terminally ill:

There are many other references at A Buddhist Guide to Death, Dying and Suffering (the author is or was a chaplain at a medical centre).
And What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care and dying (registration required) might be helpful.
Also page 82 of this commentary on the Vinaya describes the words a bikkhu might say during the dying process to inspire a patient.

The answers to these questions might be helpful if dying is accompanied by pain as well:

Experiencing physical pain
Buddhism view on mercy


Should I do reflection before eating if I don't plan to keep it Should I do reflection before eating if I don't plan to keep it?

There is an issue I'm aware of that you shouldn't say stuff you won't be able to do  - I mean sometimes you can but that its better not to promise stuff you probably will fail doing (I don't want to give examples but it is a thing in Buddhism I hope some will know what I'm talking about)

So my question is should one say a reflection on food ("I use this almsfood not for beautification but for supporting the holy life etc etc...")   when he knows he probably isn't going to keep it? What about when he thinks there's a tiny chance he will?  What about most likely will keep it?

So my question is should one say a reflection on food ("i use this almsfood not for beautification but for supporting the holy life etc etc ...") when he knows he probably isnt going to keep it ?

As a lay person: Probably not..

As a monastic: Definitely not!

Reflecting on Alms food belongs to the The Four Requisites, namely:

  "Properly considering almsfood, I use it: not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on weight, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival and continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the chaste life, (thinking) I will destroy old feelings (of hunger) and not create new feelings (from overeating). Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, and live in comfort."

As explained in the footnotes/commentary - then a monk should make use of offerings properly and not do anything with them which will make the donors faith decline.

  What about when he thinks theres a tiny chance he will ?

If his intentions are wholesome, then yes of course.
Even a small amount of wholesome intention, serves to strengthen the Adhiṭṭhāna (resolution) pāramī.

  What about most likley will keep it ?

Yes of course.

Actions that reduce distance to Nibbana should be undertaken.


Do we have conventional knowledge of the present? I read the discussion between Bhavaviveka and Buddhapalita, and there's a reference to "no cognition" (anupalabdhi) of emptiness, as liberative, though I forget which one of the two were supporting it.
e.g. Garfield and Westerhoff in Madhyamaka and Yogacara:

The cognition of the ultimate nature of things—their all being empty
of intrinsic nature—is nonconceptual because, there being nothing to
cognize, no cognition arises.

Or Eckel in To See the Buddha:

And obviously the heart sutra includes (emphasis mine):

No suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
also no attainment with nothing to attain.

Does anyone say that there is "no cognition" of the present, either at all times, or that only this "no cognition" has conventional validity?
Or, can we have conventional knowledge of the present?

The quote you give:

  The cognition of the ultimate nature of things—their all being empty
  of intrinsic nature—is nonconceptual because, there being nothing to
  cognize, no cognition arises.

Refers to wisdom directly realizing emptiness. Such a wisdom realizes emptiness in a non-dualistic manner. It is non-conceptual and explicit, since it realizes its object (emptiness) by way of emptiness appearing to it. Conceptual consciousnesses realize their object by way of a mental image appearing to them. Cognition arise (this wisdom is a cognition) but there is no acertainment of conventional truths (such as time, a table, persons, the basis of emptiness, and so forth).

By the way, Garfield is not the safest source.

Chandrakirti (same view as Buddhapalita) also talked about "non-seeing" and "non-cognition" or "non-perception." He does not mean that a buddha is free from cognition (that would contradict the typical Mahayana claim hat he is omniscient) but simply that non-existent do not appear to a buddha. A buddha is free from the appearance of true existence. It is not so much about "no cognition" as it is about "no cognition of something in particular."

It is explained in
Chandrakirti's Commentary on the "Supplement to Nagarjuna's Treatise on the Middle'.

Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen said:

  When said that they perceive it in the manner of non-perception, it
  does not mean that a buddha does not see anything at all. It means
  that he is not seeing any phenomenon arisen due to ignorance, that is,
  together with a false appearance of the conventional - an appearance
  of true existence. It is the omniscience realizing the final reality
  that perceives the emptiness, the absence of true existence. Since a
  buddha does not perceive what does not exist and knows all existing
  phenomena, when a truly existent conventional phenomenon were to
  exist, it should appear to a buddha, but it does not. What is not
  perceived by him is a non-existent. If it were existent it would
  appear to the Buddha. True establishment does not exist and therefore
  does not appear to the wisdom of a Buddha realizing the final reality.


Why is Buddhahood attained only by males? Is there a particular reason(s) for a Buddha to be only of male gender?

I'm interested in any explanation in scriptures as well as your interpretations and opinions.

The question is a bit unclear, so here's an answer to what I think your question is.

I believe anyone -- regardless of gender -- can reap the same fruits of the path.  It's all about diligence in practice; gender has nothing to do with it.

Now I recall some misogynistic passages and early injunctions against nuns, but I ignore all that.  I don't think Buddhist scriptures or personalities (including The Buddha) are unerring.  I think that despite having some profound things to say, Buddhism still was a product of its time and place and often failed to transcend those prejudices.

Fortunately, since Buddhist practice pays off in short order, there's no need for faith, so I don't have to rely on The Buddha being this or that, or claims that a transmission was preserved or any other claim that strains credibility.  I simply see what works and use it.

With that said, Buddhism has some strong females.  The one that comes to mind is Quan Yin (Guanyin), the archetype of compassion.  My local Buddhist Temple gave more prominence to her than to the Buddha, even to the point of stressing her ideal (Bodhisattva) as the goal of practice. Furthermore, in all the Buddhist temples I attended, the Quan Yin statues were much more prominent than the Buddha ones; in fact, there's a nearby Buddhist Temple with a 50 foot tall statue that dominates the grounds.  Who's on that statue? Quan Yin.


Does false self = no self? My new understanding (based on this post) is that the self is not permanent and is always changing. However, I still can't make the logical assertion that the self does not exist at all. At this point, it makes more sense for me to say: "there are multiple versions of the self that pass through time, each of those selves being slightly different than the ones before. So, I am self version 1.0.1, self version 1.0.2, self version 1.0.3, etc".

In short, here are my present assertions:

a configuration of energy and matter intersects with the 4th dimension of time over and over again, producing the by product is what we understand as self.
if some version of self did not exist, then the subject of knowledge could not be observed. Example: without a self, there would be no one to respond to this post.

Are my assertions correct? Does Buddhist philosophy teach that the self does not exist or merely that it is impermanent?

Imagine a river flowing over some rocks. At one point where the river bed makes a sudden turn, the flowing water forms eddies - little spinning whirlpools of water.

Does an Eddy exist? Well, yeah. Is it permanent? No. But it gets more interesting than that.

Does an Eddy exist intrinsically, as an entity? -- now, this is a more interesting question...

The water an eddy is made from is different every second. And yet it looks like the same eddy stays in place for minutes or even hours.

Looking at one particular Eddy - what is it, really? What is its real identity? Is the water = Eddy? No! Is this bank = Eddy? No! Is that bank = Eddy? No! Is this section of the river bed = Eddy? No! But if you take exception to the water, to this bank, to the other bank, to the river bed - where can you find the Eddy?

It is exactly thanks to the water flowing, thanks to this bank, thanks to the other bank, thanks to the river bed - that here emerges a little whirlpool, an eddy.

In Buddhism we call this "samskara" (Pali "sankhara") - an assembled phenomenon or simply an assembly. Assemblies are not just impermanent - we say they are "empty of identity" or "coreless". Meaning, if you deconstruct any one of them, like I just did with this eddy - you will not find any core, any "main thing" that is responsible for its existence and for it staying itself. Assemblies emerge from interplay of multiple causes and conditions.

According to Buddhism (both Theravada and Mahayana) "self" as well as all other phenomena are assemblies. They are not just impermanent, they are empty of core, empty of identity. They are not entities, they are patterns of behavior emerging from interplay of causes and conditions.

Because self is an assembly, a different self can get assembled in different circumstances. For example, when you visit your parents, the self assembled with them is probably different from the self assembled at work, or the one assembled at the bachelor party. The feeling that self is the same entity that has continuity from moment to moment is a perceptual illusion, just like with Eddy. In fact, both our perceptions as well as our actions come from interplay of causes and conditions, with identity overlayed on top by the imputing conceptual mind (which is itself an interplay).

This is why when Buddha was asked whether Tathagata exists after death, he said, Tathagata cannot be identified even when alive, it's an assembled phenomenon emergent from an interplay of factors, including such factor as the presence of students imputing the label "Buddha" on the teaching situation.


What is the difference between Dhamma Diksha and Dhamma Parivarta I need your kind suggestion regarding different terms in our Buddhism. I wanted to know:

What is the difference between Dhamma Diksha and Dhamma Parivarta?
If a person from Hindu religion is getting Buddha Dhamma Diksha then will he be Buddhist on documentary basis? Or is Dhamma Diksha a kind of vidhi that the person needs to go through?

I think that Diksha and Pravartan both mean something like initiation or commencement.

Diksha apparently means "preparation" and "initiation" (and may be used ceremonially).

Pravartan is used in the Sanskrit name of the Dharmacakrapravartana Sūtra which is translated as "The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of the Dharma".

How the words are used might vary depending on the school.

I think the phrase is used in the Dalit Buddhist movement:

  Twenty-two vows of Ambedkar

  After receiving ordination, Ambedkar gave dhamma diksha to his followers. The ceremony included 22 vows given to all new converts after Three Jewels and Five Precepts. On 14 October 1956 at Nagpur, Ambedkar performed another mass religious conversion ceremony at Chandrapur.

  He prescribed 22 vows to his followers:

  I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara, nor shall I worship them.
  ...

The "Three Jewels" (also called "Refuge") and the "Five Precepts", which are mentioned in the quote above, are the traditional Buddhist initiation ceremonies -- taking refuge (and various numbers of precepts) are common to all schools of Buddhism, and are one of the definitions of "being a Buddhist".


Did any Indian Mahayana Buddhists have non-cognition as a goal? I have found a page in which a sravaka seems to object to a mahayanist that, if those that aren't ordinary people have no cognition, then it's ultimately correct to have sexual relations with a forbidden woman

  If he says: Madhyamikas make statements such as the following:
  "[Cognition] is not in the eye, it is not in form, and it is not
  between them or in both of them. Wherever it might be present, it
  neither exists nor does not exist". So no cognition is apprehended.

The footnote says that the source of the quote is unclear, and not from MMK or Aryadeva. Bhavaviveka then seems to explain that the sravaka's conclusion, that forbidden women would then be ultimately correct to have sex with, is not proven, because it is no different to saying that all women can relieve desire: both are examples of improperly denying all things.

Bhavaviveka and his Buddhist Opponents p129

So, I think the general argument is that ultimate reality does not deny conventional reality. Even if distinctions do not ultimately exist, but do conventionally, that does not mean ultimate reality denies the truth of conventional distinctions. The difference is about being and not truth.

It may be worth noting that "non conceptual cognition" crops up a lot in the book, I think as the goal of Buddhist practice.

I'm not sure if I've misinterpreted the argument: did any Indian Mahayana Buddhists, such as Bhavaviveka, have non-cognition as a goal? And, would that mean they do not seek knowledge, or just that cognition is empty of svabhava?

Apparently that was Candrakīrti's position.

From Mario D'Amato's "Why Buddha Never Uttered A Word", quoting J.D. Dunne's study of Candrakīrti and Vose's study of Candrakīrti's commentator Jayānanda:

  ...As Dunne points out, for example, “Candrakīrti [c. 600–650 c.e.] holds strong views on the impossibility of a buddha having conceptual knowledge” (1996: 540). While, according to certain Buddhist thinkers, such as Dignāga (c. 480–540 c.e.) and Dharmakīrti (c. 600–660), perception is without conceptual construction, according to Candrakīrti’s view, “even raw sense data are in some sense conceptual,” so “at the highest state of understanding where one’s knowledge is completely nonconceptual, nothing appears at all” (ibid.: 544). Dunne goes on to specify that, according to Candrakīrti’s account of buddhahood, for buddhas “the fluctuations of mind and mental functions” have “completely ceased” (ibid.). Jayānanda (c. 1100), the only known Indian commentator on any of Candrakīrti’s works, affirms Candrakīrti’s account and “explains that enlightenment is a process of ‘not knowing’ and is characterized by the elimination of the knowing instrument, the mind” (Vose 2005: 191–192). (Footnote: Jayānanda writes, “Since enlightenment is by way of not knowing  (anadhigama) at all, we assert that the activities of mind and mental factors— feeling and so forth—[all] having the character of experiencing, have ceased their engagement”.) But how can a mindless buddha teach the dharma? Dunne states that, according to Candrakīrti, “the dharma-kāya causes a didactic sound to emit from a buddha . . . [but] the production of this sound does not at all mean that a buddha is cognitively active” (1996: 549).
  Being mindless, a buddha is unable to use language in any ordinary sense; on this view, a buddha only appears to use language—what is actually occurring is that certain sounds emanating from a buddha are interpreted by unenlightened beings as words and language.

You can read the entire paper on academia.edu and it's included as a chapter in Mario D'Amato, Jay L. Garfield & Tom J. F. Tillemans (eds.), Pointing at the Moon: Buddhism, Logic, Analytic Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 41--55 (2009) - from where you can get the references to bibliography for Dunne and Vose works.

D'Amato has quite enough to say on "non conceptual cognition". If you are interested in that topic I suggest you check his this and other works. He provides interesting references too.


What is the Buddhist definition of "Atta"? There are many discussions about Anatta or Not-Self in Buddhist communities, but the definition of Atta or self is uncommon and not clear. People often misunderstand or superficially translate it, using the definition of the English word "self", which means "internal of individual being", or "colloquial personal point of view of individual being", just differentiation of other individual being.

My question here is, other than just this colloquial definition of Self or Atta, is there any more insightful definition of Atta in human being, for example does it imply some "essence" (closer to Hindu or Brahmanist definition of 'Attaman').

If 'Atta' is physical body?

What happen if a person died and leave physical body behind (in cemetery)

If 'Atta' is mind (Citta)?

Buddhism definition of mind (Citta) bodies are transitional and conditional factors (depending on or composed with contact, feeling, memorizing, judging etc). So it seems in a sense to process by just following Citta Laws (Niyamas) than being essence, core or Atta. (Process than essence).

If rebirth is a footprint of 'Atta'?

Rebirth seems continuity and information/karma/effects carried over but statistically we do not have enough proof (there should be many Einsteins if we have studied mathematics or physics many lives but instead we have only a handful of geniuses on particular study, information/karma/effects carried over is somehow lost or continuity is weak and/or broken).

If wholesome acts is 'Atta'?

Vipasana wholesome acts are as well not 'Atta' because I heard that during meditation or Vipasana "Only Sankhara dhammas are observing Sankhara dhammas (Sati, Samadhi, Panna are also encouraged by Cetana, initiated by Sanna and many more supporting factors). The observings are effects of efforts to happen at the same time the observants are not 'Atta'.

So in conclusion, when we are saying self or 'Atta', which particular entity is defined to be called self or 'Atta'. If not a single entity, which collective entities are defined to be called self or 'Atta' and why can it be called self or 'Atta'?

From the viewpoint of Buddhist practise, as explained in SN 22.81, 'atta' ('self') refers to an ignorance created 'thought formation' (sankhara) that ignorantly assumes self-identity & ownership in relation to any of the five aggregates.

This ignorant assumption of self-identity & ownership is central in the generation of suffering, as explained in SN 22.1 and as explained in Dependent Origination (SN 12.2).

Therefore, in Buddhism, the primary importance of 'atta' is it is a central cause of suffering that is ever-present in the mind of the unenlightened person ('uninstructed worldling').

  Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling ... assumes form as self (attato). That assumption, bhikkhus, is a formation (saṅkhāro). That
  formation — what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born (jatiko)
  and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a
  feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises: thence that
  formation (of 'self') is born. SN 22.81

  There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — assumes form (the body) to be the self or the self as possessing
  form or form as in the self or the self as in form. He is seized
  with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with
  these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress & despair over its change & alteration.

  There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed &
  disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is
  well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be
  the self or the self as possessing form or form as in the self or
  the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form'
  or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form
  changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress or despair over its change & alteration.

  SN 22.1

  And what, bhikkhus, is attachment? There are these four kinds of attachment: attachment of sensual pleasures, attachment of views,
  attachment of rules and vows, attachment of words of
  'self' (attavādupādānaṃ). This is called attachment.

  And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings (sattānaṃ) into the various orders of beings (sattanikāye)...

  SN 12.2

Note: 'Satta' is a synonym for 'atta', in 'satta' is also a view about 'self'. Refer to SN 5.10 & SN 23.2.

  Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever ... Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine (mama), this I am (asmi) not, this is not my self (atta).’ SN
  22.59

  It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty? Insofar as it is
  empty of a self (attena) or of anything pertaining to a self
  (attaniyena): Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty Suñña
  Sutta


What is the Buddhist approach of admitting a mistake? I just did a mistake while commuting. I told sorry to the person and wished him well in my mind. This brought me to think,

  Are there any suttas staring how to go about a mistake done which resulted in hurting another person?

Confessing and pardon are very importand matter, as for monks there are even many formal ways to do, which can be appopted by good other communities patly as well.
Generally the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone might be useful.

And in regard of the added related question by Chris, no, addmitting and apologize will not easen or even make deeds and their results undone but it straightens your view and thoughts and allows you to walk on, aside the fact that such is nessesary for any good relation or community.

Something people seldom practice any more, caught in wrong views of having primaly rights and feeling independent.

How ever, it is needed to know what is a wrong deed. If somebody is hurt does not mean that you made something wrong. Such a desire for apologise is then merely founded in ones desire to be liked or in certain ways estimated by others.

So admit should be not used for politics, since such causes confusion of what is right and wrong in communities and relations in long therms.
Feel free to ask more here

  Ravindranath Akila in addition:
  I just read the sutta. It is useful to reflect ones own mistake. I'm looking at how I can apologize and make amends. Is there such a way?

Not always. And as told, sometimes its merely a desire in regard of relation to a person. Such desire is human, of coures, but not nessesary skillful. Sometimes beings are no more interested at all. There aversion is theirs. For you it good then to practice good will, not love or desire. A good talk on: Reconciliation, Right & Wrong

While most believe that unity is the highers, Buddhas account was not so. Nothing is worthy to give up real benefical things and he told clearly its better to loses relations, wealth and even health for such things as right view and withdraw from anything else. Why? With the break apart of the body, one would not fall into low existences. The lose of others will come anyway, sooner or later.

We can say that there are three kinds of desire for reconciliation:

Unskilfull: connected with (wrong) fear, desire (for wodlily gain), aversion (caused by desire), not-knowing (that a reconciliation is urgend, for example)

Skillful: connected with (right) fear of wrongdoing, desire (for skillfulness), aversion (of unclear situations and hindrences to walk on), knowing (of what is skilfull and unskilfull)

Beyound: no more desire for any lose or gain and therefore no more seek for reconciiation actively, but accepting apologize.

The skillful can be divided into:
Wordly: to maintain one world an relations
Contuctive for the path to liberation: to maintain a good relation in regard of those worthy to associate.

Of course, in each case, one should always confess mistakes and accept the "punishment" accordingly, and of course one should always investigate ones own actions first and propably seek for advices from admirable friends for certain cases (See talk to Rahula) and Bala-pandita Sutta: Fools & Wise People

Wothy to note! (Since often overseen) There is no need of confessing or reconciliation for mental deeds. Here being ashamed for yourself and lso determination to do not again is enought (is't not part of Sila/Vinaya).

(Good for now, there is no reconciliation with the team here as well as no such as an invitation to share Dhamma, so its just an short fly by.)

An extended and modified answer, builded up on this, can be found here: What is the Buddhas approach of admitting a mistake?

Seeing the necessarity: One may fight lifetimes, spend lifetimes to justify ones deeds, will win and lose for lifetimes again and again, as long there is no real admiting one will not realky progress and do it again and again. Think of how long Devatata and his fellow still turns around and will "win" for many lifetimes birth again and again, and Verdrängen ist nicht Verzeihen (German, you may translate it if you feel inspired)

Requesting Forgiveness

Usually chanted after having made merits:

  Kāyena vācāya va cetasā vā, Buddhe kukammaṃ pakataṃ mayā yaṃ,
  Buddho paṭiggaṇhatu accayantaṃ,
  Kālantare saṃvarituṃ va buddhe.
  Whatever bad kamma I have done to the Buddha
  by body, by speech, or by mind,
  may the Buddha accept my admission of it,
  so that in the future I may show restraint toward the Buddha. (Same for Dhamma and Sangha)


Are there any prohibitions on participating in other religion's practices? Does any Buddhist tradition have an explicit prohibition on participating in the rituals and practices of other religions? Are there any rules about entering other religions' holy places?

No, if we are talking about what the Buddha teaches in the Pali Suttas but one has to keep the precepts and practice in line with the Buddha's Teaching while participating in the other religion's practices.

In other words, the other religion's practices need to be compatible with the Dhamma.

In other words the other religious practice has to be dhamma.

I would say that in general, the various traditions usually frown on one practicing anything outside the tradition.

I would say that in general, teachers usually frown on it too because it can cause a lot of doubt, wrong view,  misunderstandings and interference in the teacher's particular technique.


What is "stillness" or samatha? Is a "still" mind: a mind without any thoughts; or a mind without a certain style of thoughts; or a mind which has lost a certain way of connecting to thoughts?

I assumed it was a lessening of conscious habit rather than thought per se.

All thought is movement and a still mind is one that has no movement in it except when required.

When you need to use the memory - "what's 1+1" or "where's my car keys" - the mind provides the answer. It's only the innecessary thinking that stops. Innecessary thinking is thinking that isn't required by the immediate situation.

This also means thoughts don't have the same energy anymore - the energy to make you feel emotional for example.

99.9% of thoughts in a normal undisciplined mind are created by habit, circumstances and old emotional pains.


Is it OK for a Buddhist teacher to charge their students an hourly rate for their time? Charging money for teaching time seems like it goes against the spirit of the dharma. I’m asking because I was looking for a teacher and came across one that did charge money.

It's not OK.

  “It’s not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ānanda. The Dhamma
  should be taught to others only when five qualities are established
  within the person teaching. Which five?

  “The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak
  step-by-step.’

  “The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak
  explaining the sequence (of cause & effect).’

  “The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak out of
  compassion.’

  “The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak not for
  the purpose of material reward.’

  “The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, ‘I will speak without
  hurting myself or others.’
  (AN 5:159)

.

  One

  should not make an effort everywhere,

  should not be another’s hireling,

  should not live dependent on another,

  should not go about

  as a trader in the Dhamma.
  (Ud 6:2)


How important is patience in buddhism? I've heard that patience has a big place in Buddhism. It is especially very important for monks. I can think two ways of patience.

When we get angry, we have to have patience to avoid bad consequences.
Most of practises in buddhism don't give us a result immediately. So we have to have patience to see a result. (Delayed gratification)

What are the teachings of the Buddha about patience ? I can think of case 1. But I want to know about case 2.
If a person is unable to delay gratification (not only in Buddhist practises), does it means that the person has excessive clinging? (Is it a characteristic of that kind of person ?)

Khanti/patience is indeed a very important virtue to cultivate. It's listed in Sn 2.4 as among one of the greatest protection for a practitioner. Also refer to many other related suttas.

Patience, compliance,
seeing contemplatives,
discussing the Dhamma on timely occasions:
This is the highest protection. ~~ Snp 2.4 ~~


What is eradication of the fetter of identity-view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi)? I'm asking this question based on this comment and this question.

It is well known that the goal of Buddhism is to end suffering.

However, it is popularly mistaken (as seen in the cited comment and question) that Buddhists have to rush towards destroying their sense of self, skipping over the balanced wholistic practice of the Noble Eightfold Path. I think this is not correct.

The ten fetters have the eradication of the identity-view or belief in a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) as a lower fetter, that has to be done in order to become a sotapanna or stream winner.

However, a stream winner, has still not yet eradicated the fetters of sensual desire, ill will, material-existence-desire, immaterial-existence-desire, conceit and ignorance.

I take it that total eradication of the sense of self happens with the eradication of the higher fetters, especially ignorance (avijja).

After all, if the sense of self has been totally eradicated by the stream winner, it does not make sense that he could still have conceit, right?

So, my question here is, if eradication of the lower fetter of identity-view or belief in a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) is not the complete eradication of a self, then what is it really?

Is it an intellectual understanding of not-self? Or is it more?

Is it an opinion? Is it a belief? Is it an experience?

How is the eradication of the lower fetter of identity view different from total eradication of the sense of self?

The ten fetters have the eradication of the identity-view or belief in
  a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) as a lower fetter, that has to be done in
  order to become a sotapanna or stream winner.

It's actually the other way around, meaning becoming a stream enterer will be 'done' before the belief in a self is eradicated.

After becoming a stream enterer you'll realise that you are nothing more than a process (for the lack of words).
Before becoming a stream enterer the mind will pick and observe one of the three characteristics: anicca, dukkha or anatta. And when this characteristic is understood/seen completely the mind will release and let go.

And even though the stream winner knows then, from experience, that (s)he is nothing more than a process it doesn't mean that (s)he also experience everything impersonal. Awareness itself for instance will still feel as 'I am aware of this or that'. The difference is between deeply knowing from experience (entering the stream) and experiencing or feeling, or sense of self as you put it.

That sense of self will be eradicated with the uprooting of conceit.


Is there a Buddhist equivalent to Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations"? What I mean by equivalent is in significance and style. Marcus Aurelius was an extremely important man and was forced to deal with specifically difficult problems in life. This adds weight to his words.

Is there any very famous Buddhist diary? One which is mostly just a person talking to themselves about dealing with their own issues, with philosophical (or religious) insight and vigor? (It's important to note that Marcus Aurelius' Meditations cover very intense stoic philosophy. Serious stuff that is often hard to penetrate without understanding stoic logic and concepts.)

So, in short, a diary kept by a monk which covers many important Buddhist concepts.

It must be a diary, as such, things like the Dhammapada aren't what I'm referring to.

It is not a diary, but There are the letters by Nanavira thera, where he tries to understand the dhamma.
https://www.nanavira.org/pre-sotapatti-stp

he is a famous bikkhu who claimed to have reached stream entry, then commited suicide. SO his letters are seprated according to the date of the alledged stream entry.


Why don't teachers just tell us the answers? 'Those who speak don't know, those who know don't speak.' (Zen aphorism)

Lots of posts on SE Buddhism seem to hover around the question 'what is your original face', or 'what is Buddha' etc. It shouldn't be so difficult to answer these questions straightforwardly with a sentence or two, so why is it that teachers (who supposedly know) tend not to?

Because the question is supposed to "point directly at your mind" like the finger pointing at the moon. The answer could not do better. In fact, you learn more from trying to solve an apparent contradiction. If anything, you learn at least that you are frustrated over not getting it. What matters most is not the object (a koan, a hua tou) but how you hold it in mind, what it does to your mind, how you try to make sense of it, etc.

The funny thing is that we are so habituated to run after external objects and dive into them that it is difficult to look inward. A proof is that we are more concerned with the object (the koan) than we are with our mind. We forget to pay attention to what our experience tells us, not of the object we experience, but our mind that experiences. Because of this, we know little of the mind, including our own. It is easy to recognize a tree when we see one; it is way more difficult to recognize attachment, anger, belligerence, spite, etc. when they arise in our continuum because we seldom look inward, we are not familiarized with it.

As far I understand, the point with Hua tou and Koan is rather to stay with it and learn from how you relate to it. For instance, why is it that contradictions make you unsettled? How do you relate to frustration? Does frustration even arise when you try to solve a case? What makes you think it has to be solved? How do you try to make sense of things?

In Vipassana, some do what they call "meditation with an anchor" (the anchor often being the breath). Here, it is quiet similar. You learn a great deal by trying to stay with an object such as a Hua Tou. You learn why it is difficult to stay with it, why you lose it over and over again, etc. So it is not the answer that matter much.

Kazuaki Tanahashi 's introduction to Dogen's Shobogenzo is quiet informative and very enjoyable. But then, I am not that qualified when it comes to anything different from Tibetan Buddhism.


What happens in the state/non-state of Nibbāna? When a ‘person’ walks the path and reaches the goal of Nibbāna, ‘who’ actually reaches it?
‘Who’ walked the path and where did 'he' go when Nibbāna was reached, to be more exact?
We as unenlightened beings see an arahant from the ‘outside’, as it were. Maybe we find him to be a holy, compassionate and wise being, but what is it like to be an arahant from ‘inside’? What is the nature of his personal being?

Conventionally, we say that the Buddha was this person who lived in this place and this time, and this is the story of his life. Similarly for arahats. We see this below.
From the Bhara Sutta:

"And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be
said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is
called the carrier of the burden.

But if we look closer, who was the Buddha really? Who are the arahats?
Can you pin down an exact person? No.
It's more like a reified concept. It's not an absolute standalone identity. In this answer, this is explained as an emergent phenomena:

What is an emergent phenomena? If you arrange pebbles on a beach to
look like a human face, then from the sky you can see the emergent
phenomena, which is the form of a human face. But if you look closely,
it's just an arrangement of pebbles.

This is supported by the sutta quote below.
From the Yamaka Sutta:

"How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as the
Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?...
Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In
perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?...
Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than
consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as
form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without
feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without
consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a
truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to
declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a
monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"
"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
Dhamma."


Is there a Buddhist term for a lack of self identity? Is there a Buddhist term for a lack of self identity?

I don't (of course) mean a radical acceptance of the anatta doctrine, but whether the Buddha or any Buddhist scholar or writer, talks explicitly about being unable to take one's own personal identity seriously enough: even to the extent of becoming quite thirsty for one.

Thank you for your compassion :-)

If I understand this question, this might be a diffuse perception of the skhandas, as these are the groupings that might better translate as the identity constructs (in the modern sense).

In that case, i'm not sure there is a word or discussion of identity disorders (if that is what you're referring to) -- i've never seeing this being discussed in any text.

I have seen (modern) people talk about supposed risks of mindfulness meditation for people with specific mental disorders who already have difficulties with making sense and perceiving or associating (or too inclined to disassociate) certain things. But whether these are real risks of what specific practice and to whom exactly i'm not sure (e.g. some researchers do advocate mindfulness meditation to people with specific identity disorders). This is the closest link to buddhism and this lack of self identity i've heard of.