Did the Buddha ever define what he meant by "self"? Added: I am asking this because I am not sure if anything I observe would be considered "self" according to the Buddha. I don't have this problem with craving or suffering because I can observe/experience craving and suffering and it seems quite clear that they can be and are defined as such.

It seems to me I am unable to determine whether there is, isn't, what is or what isn't "self" because I don't know what aspect/s of reality the word "self" is defined as corresponding to.

I am wondering if it is possible to describe what aspect/s of reality the word "self" is defined as corresponding to.

It looks like the Buddha  may have defined the aggregates as "not-self" so if there is a "self" (What is a "self"?) then according to the Buddha it's definitely not the aggregates. In my opinion this cannot simply be a "view for practicality" because then the Buddha would be a liar in that case.

"Self" is this highly childish, simplified, vague, unexamined idea in your mind: "This is me". It's not a concrete thing, it's an overall thing, it's a blob: "I am such, overall". It's an overgeneralization and an oversimplification.

It exists exactly because it's unexamined, and because it exists it attracts all kinds of funny ideas. For example, you may assume that "I am a good person" or "a bad person" or "a horrible person", or smart, or stupid, or ugly and so on. Self is like a Christmas tree on which we keep hanging all these ideas - but if you look carefully, there is no tree. It's all made of the decorations, or ideas - hanging on each other!

That is the point!

We acquire an opinion about politics, or some kind of judgement about the world and we add it to the tree. Then we identify with it so completely that this opinion becomes our second nature. It is natural to us to think that (put some popular controversy here). So once there is self, once there is this Christmas tree of ideas we have internalized and identified with - about ourselves, the world, and everything in between - we begin to see things a certain way, a certain reality arises in our mind.

But this reality is not THE reality. This reality is a projection of the Christmas tree! It's a shadow or a reflection of our conglomerate of ideas.

So when Buddhism talks about no-self in practice it first and foremost means getting rid of this deep fundamental assumption that reality we see is actual reality, and our idea of self is actually a truthful representation of how things are.

To this goal we are instructed to examine our immediate experience (thoughts, emotions, interpretations, perceptions etc.) until we see how the Christmas tree is made.

Then of course we see that what we thought were our "choices" and "actions" were actually knee-jerk reactions and impulses coming from the Christmas tree. We realize that all speak of free-will is nonsense when we are in fact driven by our ideas like sheep, and freedom is only possible when we un-identify from all that and learn to be nothing (yeah, like Arya Stark).

When we are nothing, we are free, because there is nothing one can point to and say this is us. When this happens, the notions of death etc. are no longer applicable - because the object it was supposed to apply to only exists in the unenlightened mind, but we don't have to hold on to that.

This, generally, is the overall context in which these conversations about No-Self happen in (Mahayana) Buddhism. At least, this is how it is from my perspective, but mine is not final of course. For example in Theravada, the no-self talk is primarily ordered around Five Aggregates, which from Mahayana perspective is nothing but a didactic device to provide an alternative functional interpretation of Everything that would not involve a notion of single agent or single observer. So Theravada is slightly more concerned with the low-level phenomenology of observation and action while Mahayana is more concerned about the higher-level (social and psychological) manifestations of the same illusion of a single solid entity.

Anyway, what's important to understand for a beginner is that "self" is this unexamined blob, which seems like you until you start analyzing it. I am this, I am such, I like this, I hate this, This is right, This is wrong - all this stuff bundled together into one "This is who I am and this is why I do what I do" - is the self.


How can the sensations of the meditation object (attention to the breath) be made more noticeable? While practicing sitting vipassana meditation, using the felt sensations of the abdomen rising and falling with each breath as the meditation object, there is the frequent flood of mental images arising and passing away. The mental images seem much stronger, i.e. more noticeable, than the felt sensations of the meditation object. Is there a mind or mindfulness technique to make the felt sensations more noticeable, thus improving concentration on the chosen meditation object?

Being mindful of the rise and fall of the abdomen is what you do when other phenomena are not occurring. If you are seeing mental images, note "seeing...seeing...." When the images fade, return to the rise and fall of the abdomen.

From Venerable Yuttadhammo's booklet, How to Meditate, A Beginner's Guide to Peace:

  It is this rising and falling motion that we will use as our
  first object of meditation. Once we are able to observe the
  motion of the abdomen without difficulty, it will serve as a
  default object of meditation for us to return to at any time.

and:

  In regards to feelings, when a sensation arises in the
  body, one should fix one's attention on it, discarding the
  abdomen and focusing on the sensation. If a feeling of
  pain should arise, for example, one should take the pain
  itself as a meditation object.

  Any one of the four foundations may serve as a
  meditation object, as all four are aspects of reality. It isn't
  necessary to stay with the rising and falling of the
  abdomen at all times.

From Practical Vipassana Meditation Exercises by the Mahasi Sayadaw:

  In short, whatever thought or reflection occurs should be noted. If you imagine, note as 'imagining'. If you think, 'thinking'. If you plan, 'planning'. If you perceive, 'perceiving'. If you reflect, 'reflecting'. If you feel happy, 'happy'. If you feel bored, bored. If you feel glad, 'glad'. If you feel disheartened, 'disheartened'. Noting all these acts of consciousness is called cittānupassanā.

  Because we fail to note these acts of consciousness, we tend to identify them with a person or individual. We tend to think that it is 'I' Who is imagining, thinking, planning, knowing (or perceiving). We think that there is a person who from childhood onwards has been living and thinking. Actually, no such person exists. There are instead only these continuing and successive acts of consciousness. That is why we have to note these acts of consciousness and know them for what they are. That is why we have to note each and every act of consciousness as it arises. When so noted, it tends to disappear. We then go back to noting the rising and falling of the abdomen.

So just note "seeing...seeing..." with your mental images until they fade away then go back to the rising and falling.


Is a monk allowed to receive money? I have seen different answers to that question, so I assume it varies from school to school, is it right?

I am not talking about donations to the Sangha as a whole, like a fund, but giving cash to a monk.

According to the Monk's Sila, they can not accept money, since money is related to sensual pleasures. Therefore when monks have to deal with money, it's better to take help of a lay follower. In Sri Lanka, in the past and even nowadays in some places, there's a lay follower called "abittiya" is residing in the temple or the monastery to intervene in actions like dealing with money in order to help monks. In some occasions the chief donater of the temple too engage in such activities to help monks. So it's better if someone can help monks in such actions because it's a great help and also a meritorious act since it help a monk to protect his Sila.


How to get back to practice after "falling" from it? How to get back to practice after failing ?   i  always try and fail try and fail

meditating for some years- had and have a teacher - did retreats  -  but i never manage to keep meditating for more than a few days  - tried going all in - tried only meditating 5 minutes - or just being mindful ect ect

cause every time i fail i take a month or two break if not more

so how can i get back to practice each time ?   the more i "fail" and take this breaks i feel that its for no use cause i never manage to persevere no matter what i try

Ask your teacher. But my advice would be to just continue trying. Failing is not the problem here, it is the expectation of achieving some results which is the problem, because it causes suffering. Do as much meditation as you can without thinking about the past or future. Also sometimes being frustrated can be useful, because it shows you what kind of approach to meditation works and what doesn't.


Buddhist "code of ethics" on talking about other religions I took a friend interested in Buddhism to a centre. This person is Catholic and doesn't want to change that; she is very satisfied with her religion. However she was curious about Buddhism and specially meditation.

At the end she was a bit disappointed because there were 2 mentions of other religions (catholics and other buddhist schools) that she thought were driven by a big "pride", for example: "Here we don't do this...in other centres they do"; "We value this, catholics don't".

I didn't have the same interpretation, however I agree one should be very careful on talking to an open public about other religions and traditions, as it can be very easily misunderstood. We don't need to use other religions to make a point.

So, the question is: Is there any Buddhist code of ethics on that? In the Vinaya maybe?

What you've described is probably very common in meditation centres, unfortunately.

This isn't from the Vinaya proper, but in the Brahmajāla Sutta, the Buddha goes over many views, starting with superficial views his followers have of him. Here's an excerpt from Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation:

  "It is, bhikkhus, only to trifling and insignificant matters, to the minor details of mere moral virtue, that a worldling would refer when speaking in praise of the Tathāgata. And what are those trifling and insignificant matters, those minor details of mere moral virtue, to which he would refer?
  "'Having abandoned the destruction of life, [omitted for brevity]' It is in this way, bhikkhus, that the worldling would speak when speaking in praise of the Tathāgata.

  "Or he might say: 'Having abandoned taking what is not given, [omitted]'

  "Or he might say: 'Having abandoned unchaste living, [omitted]'
  "Or he might say: 'Having abandoned false speech, the recluse Gotama abstains from falsehood. He speaks only the truth, he lives devoted to truth; trustworthy and reliable, he does not deceive anyone in the world.'

  "Or he might say: 'Having abandoned slander, the recluse Gotama abstains from slander. He does not repeat elsewhere what he has heard here in order to divide others from the people here, nor does he repeat here what he has heard elsewhere in order to divide these from the people there. Thus he is a reconciler of those who are divided and a promoter of friendships. Rejoicing, delighting, and exulting in concord, he speaks only words that are conducive to concord.'

  "Or he might say: 'Having abandoned harsh speech, the recluse Gotama abstains from harsh speech. He speaks only such words as are gentle, pleasing to the ear, endearing, going to the heart, urbane, amiable, and agreeable to many people.'

Also, in the Theragatha (found in the ) we have the verses by Vangisa Bhikkhu (according to ATI, the bhikkhu whom the Buddha designated as his foremost disciple in the composition of spontaneous verse):

  One should speak only that word by which one would not torment oneself nor harm others. That word is indeed well spoken.
  One should speak only pleasant words, words which are acceptable (to others). What one speaks without bringing evils to others is pleasant.
  Truth is indeed the undying word; this is an ancient verity. Upon truth, the good say, the goal and the teaching are founded.[19]
  The sure word the Awakened One speaks for the attainment of nibbana, for making an end of suffering, is truly the best of words.


What are the reasons for and against studying other religions? When I studied Spanish, I better understood my native English language. I wondered if the same kind of thing can happen in the realm of religion.

What are the pros and cons of studying other religions and their practices as a Buddhist?

To be clear, I do mean "studying" (and not "practising") another religion's practices... not that answers about the pros and cons of "practising" another practice wouldn't be most welcome, I just assume that practising another practice would be too confusing. Maybe someone will give an answer that challenges this assumption - Metta

In terms of general knowledge, it can be helpful to be familiar with the religions of the world on a basic level and there are many books which compare the world's religions in an easy format such as The Handy Religion Answer Book. Reading a book such as this gives an interesting glimpse into the vastness of the the world's religious traditions.

Studying all or many of the world's religious traditions on an in depth level however, would take large amounts of time and effort which could take away from Buddhist practice. As people familiar with Buddhism, we can probably easily appreciate that even within a single religion there can be vast difference in practice and beliefs and to study multiple religions in depth would be a major undertaking.

Intention is everything. An intention to add a bit of general knowledge about a subject or to confirm that your current religion and practice is right for you may be wholesome. An intention to compare your own religion and practice against others in a conceited way or to avoid a tough part of your own practice by busying yourself with endless study could be not-so-wholesome.

When preparing to leave the religious tradition I had been born into, I read a general book comparing religions and it was helpful for putting things into perspective. But, using the example of reading about meditation vs practicing meditation, one doesn't get a true sense of what a religion consists of by reading about it.


What does the Pali canon, and other respected work, teach about parenting? What does the Pali canon, and other respected work, teach about parenting, particularly early fatherhood? In particular the many possibilities for dukkha which arise?

It teaches that birth is suffering for the reason that it is like entering into a binding contract:

  One goes through all these sufferings simply because one happens to take a new existence. Accordingly, jāti, re-birth, being the foundation of all the miseries of the whole existence, is defined as dukkha by the Buddha. A careful consideration will confirm the accuracy of this definition. Re-birth is really dreadful like signing a document which later will give rise to complications. Thus jāti is dukkha because of its dreadfulness. To summarise, the physical and mental afflictions are occasioned (arise) because of jāti in each existence. Only when there is no more re-birth will there be total release from these inflections. Thus the Blessed One had taught that the very origination of new existence, jāti is suffering.

  -- Mahasi Sayadaw, Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

It teaches that children have power over their parents:

  Bhikkhus, there are these eight powers. What eight? (1) The power of children is weeping; (2) the power of women is anger; (3) the power of thieves is a weapon; (4) the power of kings is sovereignty; (5) the power of fools is to complain; (6) the power of the wise is to deliberate;"" (7) the power of the learned is reflection; (8) the power of ascetics and brahmins is patience. These are the eight powers.”

  AN 8.27 (Bodhi, trans)

It teaches that a parent has responsibilities towards their children:

  "In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his parents as the East:

  (i) Having supported me I shall support them,
  (ii) I shall do their duties,
  (iii) I shall keep the family tradition,
  (iv) I shall make myself worthy of my inheritance,
  (v) furthermore I shall offer alms in honor of my departed
  relatives.[9]

  "In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion:

  (i) they restrain them from evil,
  (ii) they encourage them to do good,
  (iii) they train them for a profession,
  (iv) they arrange a suitable marriage,
  (v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.

  "In these five ways do children minister to their parents as the East and the parents show their compassion to their children. Thus is the East covered by them and made safe and secure.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html

It teaches that parents are meant to be helpful to their children:

  “‘Brahmā,’ bhikkhus, is a designation for mother and father. ‘First teachers’ is a designation for mother and father. ‘Giftworthy’ is a designation for mother and father. For what reason? Mother and father are helpful to their children: they raise them, nurture them, and show them the world.”

  AN 3 (Bodhi, trans)

It seems to suggest that children might are an impediment to attainments higher than stream-entry:

  Sitting to one side, the lay follower Dhammadinna then said to the Blessed One: “Let the Blessed One, venerable sir, exhort us and instruct us in a way that may lead to our welfare and happiness for a long time.”

  “Therefore, Dhammadinna, you should train yourselves thus: ‘From time to time we will enter and dwell upon those discourses spoken by the Tathāgata that are deep, deep in meaning, supramundane, dealing with emptiness.’ It is in such a way that you should train yourselves.”

  “Venerable sir, it is not easy for us—dwelling in a home crowded with children, enjoying Kāsian sandalwood, wearing garlands, scents, and unguents, receiving gold and silver—from time to time to enter and dwell upon those discourses spoken by the Tathāgata that are deep, deep in meaning, supramundane, dealing with emptiness. As we are established in the five training rules, let the Blessed One teach us the Dhamma further.”

  “Therefore, Dhammadinna, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will possess confirmed confidence in the Buddha … in the Dhamma … in the Saṅgha.… We will possess the virtues dear to the noble ones, unbroken … leading to concentration.’ It is in such a way that you should train yourselves.”

  (Bodhi, trans)


A person of integrity (Sappurisa Sutta) In the Anguttara Nikaya 4.73, the Buddha said that a "person of integrity" possesses these four qualities:

when asked, does not reveal the other person's bad points and when pressed, speaks of the other person's bad points not in full, with omissions.
when not asked, reveals the other person's good points and when pressed, speaks of the other person's good points in full, with no omissions.
when not asked, reveals his own bad points and when pressed, speaks of his own bad points in full, with no omissions.
when asked, does not reveal his own good points and when pressed, speaks of his good points not in full, with omissions.

I have paraphrased here, but the above is basically my understanding of the sutta.  My question is how this can be considered an honest answer, or how someone answering this way could be considered a "person of integrity".  I am thinking about a job candidate that has given a reference.  If the reference answers in the way a "person of integrity" should answer, they would omit vital negative information and would furthermore only reveal that negative information when pressed.

I am having trouble understand how these "shifty" and "slippery" answers are those given by a person of integrity and would appreciate someone clarifying these points to me.

This is an interesting point. My (Asian) teacher explained to me that integrity as a concept has a different meaning in Eastern culture.

We in the west often assume that integrity = honesty. But really if you think about it, integrity is the opposite of corruption. Integrity is being true to the right values. In the Eastern society permeated by Mahayana Buddhism social harmony is such primary value. So integrity in this sense means, being committed to maximizing the social harmony and well-being. Even at the expense of technical scientific honesty.

In the examples from the sutta, Buddha praises a man who deemphasizes other's faults, emphasizes other's virtues, emphasizes own faults, and deemphasizes own virtues. This is part of integrity in the above sense.

In Mahayana, upaya or expedient means is something that can be technically not true but practically of value, and so is preferred to naked truth that is often not palatable or even harmful.

My personal opinion is that The Wheel has rolled too far down this path, and I would like to correct that by being a little more upfront about things, but I still have to recognize that things are not always as black and white as our passion for brutal honesty would like us to believe sometimes.

Your example with job references is obviously not a scenario the historical Buddha had in mind. I'm not in a position to give universal guidance on a topic like this, but when I have to serve as someone's reference, I try to give a balanced response. Meaning, instead of unloading my subjective opinion of the person ("the truth") as if it was final, I try to be cautious with my conclusions, especially the negative ones, and give the person benefit of doubt. Which is sort of what the Buddha said.


Is an 'Existential Crisis' a necessary condition to start on the path of Dhamma? The path of Dhamma is a journey towards the end of all suffering through the attainment of Nibbana. The Buddha set out to find the cure for human suffering, but there are so many people around us today, suffering in so many ways. Most of the people end up still finding a cure in the material world. There are very few people who are suffering might end up starting to think about life itself as suffering for e.g. philosophers like Schopenhauer. But even these intellectuals don't seem to have come to the conclusion of the need to transcend the mind. As against there are those might not be in a lot of suffering but in an, existential crisis seem to arrive at the path of Dhamma.

I am asking, is existential-crisis a pre-requisite and more fundamental human need than wanting to end suffering to start the journey towards Nibbana?

AN 3.38 describes Gotama having an existential crisis.

  Even though I was endowed with such fortune, such total refinement, the thought occurred to me: 'When an untaught, run-of-the-mill person,
  himself subject to death, not beyond death, sees another who is dead,
  he is horrified, humiliated, & disgusted, oblivious to himself that he
  too is subject to death, not beyond death. And if I — who am subject
  to death, not beyond death — were to be horrified, humiliated, &
  disgusted on seeing another person who is dead, that would not be
  fitting for me.' As I noticed this, the living person's intoxication
  with life entirely dropped away.

Also, the traditional biography of Sariputta & Mogallana shows them having an existential crisis:

  Now at Rajagaha there was an annual event called the Hilltop Festival. Seats were arranged for both youths and they sat together to
  witness the celebrations. When there was occasion for laughter, they
  laughed; when the spectacles were exciting, they became excited; and
  they paid their fees for the extra shows. In this manner they enjoyed
  the festival for a second day; but on the third day their
  understanding was awakened and they could no longer laugh or get
  excited, nor did they feel inclined to pay for extra shows as they had
  done on the first days. Each of them had the same thought: "What is
  there to look at here? Before these people have reached a hundred
  years they will all have come to death. What we ought to do is to seek
  for a teaching of deliverance."

  It was with such thoughts in mind that they took their seats at the festival. Then Kolita said to Upatissa: "How is this, my dear
  Upatissa? You are not as happy and joyous as you were on the other
  days. You seem now to be in a discontented mood, What is on your
  mind?"

  "My dear Kolita, to look at these things here is of no benefit at all. it is utterly worthless! I ought to seek a teaching of
  deliverance for myself. That, my Kolita, is what I was thinking,
  seated here. But you, Kolita, seem to be discontented, too."

  And Kolita replied: "Just as you have said, I also feel." When he knew that his friend had the same inclinations, Upatissa said: "That
  was a good thought of ours. But for those who seek a teaching of
  deliverance there is only one thing to do: to leave home and become
  ascetics. But under whom shall we live the ascetic life?


Buddhist Holidays & Gifts Are any Buddhist holidays associated with gift giving? If so, which holidays and what types of gifts are customarily given?

In Theravada Buddhism, there are two holidays I can think of that are related to giving: the kathina robe making and the day after the rains is over, called in Thailand devorohana (descending of the lord).

Kathina

Kathina refers to the frame used to make a robe in the time of the Buddha. After the rains, the monks would gather together cloth they had found or received as a gift and give it to a specific monk; any monk who has a worn or tattered robe is an eligible candidate to receive the kathina robe cloth or, if no such candidate exists, the robe may be given to any monk who is skilled in the making of the robe. Once it is determined who will receive the robe cloth, the community gathers together and offers the cloth. They then have twenty-four hours to complete the making of the robe. If they succeed in the communal effort, the entire community receives certain privileges that last for the next four months.

More information about kathina can be found here.

Devorohana

After the Buddha spent the rains in the Tavatimsa heavenly world teaching the Abhidhamma, he is said to have descended to the city of Samkassa on a mystical staircase. In celebration of this event (and the ending of the rains retreat), a ceremonial alms-giving with a Buddha statue leading the way is often performed on this day, often descending from whatever staircase happens to be handy. E.g.:

Other than that, pretty much all Buddhist holidays (Theravada, anyway) are traditionally seen as occasions for special attention to charity as well as morality and mental development.


Does MN9 imply a cyclic causation? How does it work? The Nanamoli and Bodhi translation of MN9 states in 2 excerpts:

  With the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance. With
  the cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. .....

  With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints.
  With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of the taints.

The same 2 excerpts from the Thanissaro translation of MN9 reads:

  From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of
  ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of
  ignorance. .....

  From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of
  fermentation. From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of
  fermentation.

When I took a look at the Pali version of Sammaditthi Sutta (MN9), I'm guessing that these phrases refer to:

  Āsavasamudayā avijjāsamudayo, āsavanirodhā avijjānirodho .....

  Avijjāsamudayā āsavasamudayo, avijjānirodhā āsavanirodho

How does this logic work?

When A arises, B arises. When A ceases, B ceases.

When B arises, A arises. When B ceases, A ceases.

Does this imply a cyclic causation (similar to chicken and egg)? Why is this the case? How does it work? How can the cycle be broken?

Yup, it's a vicious circle. On one side we have Ignorance/Confusion/Delusion and on the other Stress, Negative Emotions, and Bad Karma.

It is like being born in a poor uneducated family: because you are poor, you can't get education, and because you can't get education you are poor.

When you are stressed, you don't have time to stop and seek solution, you keep rolling day after day, never acting as per your plan, but only reacting to your issues. Because you keep rolling uncontrollably, very stressed, your head is not clear, your will is damaged, your perspective is skewed, so you keep sowing seeds for future trouble.

This is called "bewilderment", or as my teacher said:

  One misstep begets another, begets another, and on, and on.

Imagine someone walking on a trail of rocks in the middle of a swamp, carrying a heavy backpack. Once you lose your balance and misstep off a rock, you're at a danger of falling in the swamp, so you have to compensate by making another sharp step sideways, but it does not end there - the inertia of the heavy backpack keeps carrying you on, so you have to keep making these sharp steps. You are lucky if you can stabilize yourself, but very often you end up running out of rocks and falling in the swamp.

The opposite of this, as often portrayed in suttas, is the good cycle of Sila/Samatha/Vipashyana. The more you fix your karma, the calmer you get, the more clearly you see, which allows you to further optimize your physical and mental action, which leads to even more peace, and even more clarity of vision and so on.


Is playing computer games an unwholesome activity? Recently I've slipped back into playing computers games. This morning I had a moment of clarity and realised that for me it is not a good activity and I've uninstalled them and I feel a lot better.

But generally from a Buddhist perspective is playing computer games an unwholesome activity? If so what aspects of it make it so. Or could one be a committed practitioner and still do a bit of gaming on the side. I appreciate we have discussed the impacts on violent games on Karma before but I would like to know if computer games of any description are unwholesome.

(Note - I'm not looking for my own computer game playing habit to be legitimatised so I can start it again. I'm satisfied that for me it is something best avoided. I am just wondering if it is something that Buddhists generally should avoid and if any modern teachers have discussed the issue).

There are different degrees of unwholesome activity. The term akusala (lit. unskillful, unwholesome) is a broad term that in addition to referring to 'bad' deeds (e.g. killing, stealing, adultery etc...) can refer to any kind of action that doesn't lead to the highest happiness. In this broader sense, all types of sensual indulgence such as food, sex, entertainment, wanting good clothes, etc... are akusala.

By teaching that sensuality is akusala the Buddha wasn't teaching that everyone must abstain from them or else they are being bad Buddhists, but rather that they don't lead towards Nirvana, and that renouncing them is superior, and that in the end when one becomes Enlightened, one will give up the desire for them. That doesn't mean that as practicing Buddhists we cannot enjoy sensual pleasures within moderation, but giving them up is in the long run a much better way of finding happiness.


Father-Son relationship I have a father who left me when I was 5. He moved out of state when I was 7. We saw each other once every year or two. He returned to my area when I was 13. By the time I was 21, we still had a very limited relationship. He was/is an alcoholic and considering my own mental illness (I’m bipolar) and his own admission to the likelihood of him having something of the sort, he likely has a mental illness as well.
Through my 20s, we tried to get closer but it was not very successful. I was in and out of mental health facilities and he was stagnant in his own life, not really doing anything to change his behavior.
About two years ago, I was 29, we began talking on the phone every couple of days, attempting to establish a relationship. It was going well for a few months, until one night, when out of nowhere (it began with him criticizing how I ate a tostada) he berated me and told me vile things for over an hour that was amongst the most traumatic experiences of my life. Referring to my past suicidal tendencies, he was shouting at me that “he wouldn’t care if I killed myself” as I sat in meditation trying to calm myself from the painful attack.
After that night, we didn’t speak for over a year.
I forgave him, but I needed my space for a while.
As a Buddhist, I have always read that is important to love & deal compassionately with our parents, because we are not separate. My love is his love. His pain is my pain.
He has been living with my grandparents for the last year and now I see him quite a bit. I try and stay cordial as best I can. He’s only attacked me verbally a few times since. I thought things were getting better, but tonight he sent me a text message that makes me feel uncomfortable to respond to. He complains that I don’t treat him like he’s my father and I’m too casual with the way I talk to him. He says he’s been feeling that way for a while and is afraid of exploding on me again.
I’m having a tough time with what to do because I love him, truly. But trying to navigate our relationship is difficult for me and my mental health. I feel somewhat helpless in this situation and was hoping there was a perspective from this community that could help me understand how to handle this situation with guidance from a Buddhist perspective.

Your question is written with admirable/praiseworthy composure. The impression is you have practised the Dhamma very well; particularly from an originally challenging place.
I have previously answered a question at this link about the attitude towards authority figures found in the early scriptures.
Related to this, the scripture Iti 74 refers to the kind of son that is spiritually &/or morally superior to their parents.
In summary, the early scriptures are all about mutual obligations in relationship. While your compassion towards your father appears admirable, in Buddhism, there is an expectation a father must also abide with appropriate conduct before receiving full respect.


How concentrated is access concentration and how would one recognise it? A meditation teacher I once had said that access concentration (the stage before the jhanas) is the same level of concentration that one has when reading a good book or when fully engaged in conversation. However when I've read about it in other places it makes it seem like it is a more special level of concentration, perhaps one that you wouldn't ordinarily experience in your day to day life. Which point of view is more correct? How concentrated is access concentration and how would one recognise it?

The Visuddhimmagga defines upacāra samadhi in IV 32-34:

  Now concentration is of two kinds [access and absorption]. [...] The difference between the two kinds of concentration is this. The factors are not strong in access. [...] just as when a young child is lifted up and stood on its feet , it repeatedly falls down on the ground. [...] The arousing of the counterpart sign, which arises together with access concentration, is very difficult.

The process of concentration as described in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha (IX 17, 18):

  When that sign has been throughly aprehended and enters into range of the mind door just as if it were seen by the eye, then it is called the learning sign, and that meditation becomes concentrated. When one is thus concentrated, one then applies oneself to meditation by means of that preliminary [parikamma] concentration  based on the learning sign. As one does so, an object which is the counterpart of that (learning sign) becomes well established and fixed in the mind -- (an object) which is freed of the flaws of the original object, reckoned as a concept, born of meditation. Then it is said that the counterpart sign has arisen.

  Thereafter, access [upacāra] development is accomplished, consisting in concentration of the sense sphere in which the obstacles have been abandoned.

Fast forward to our current century:

  Access concentration is characterized by the significant reduction or complete dropping of the five hindrances and the arising and strengthening of jhāna factors. [...] It is easy to confuse momentary concentration with access concentration. One difference is that with access concentration, the meditator's continuity with the object is much longer and more stable over time. Another difference is that with access concentration, the object is much more energized and "bright". [...] In access concentration, the jhāna factors are present but insufficiently strong for full absorption into jhāna.

  -- Stephen Snyder & Tina Rasmussen (Practicing the Jhānas)

or more broadly speaking:

  The Buddhist tradition has introduced the term upacāra samadhi [...] to refer to a non absorptive experience of concentration that begins with the arising of the counterpart sign and endures until consciousness enters into full absorption. Upacāra samadhi implies concentration that is in the vicinity of jhāna [...] and describes the experiences that precede absorption, but it does not necessarily leads to jhāna. It may refer to the conditions that precede jhāna; it may refer to experiences that are reminiscent of first jhāna mental factors, but without the seclusion of absorption; and it may describe the mature concentration that accompanies those meditation objects (such as discernment of the body parts, and various recollections) that do not have the potential to reach full absorption. [...] Some meditators use the term upacāra samādhi so loosely that it merely describes the feeling of being concentrated and a mind that is stable and happy during meditation.

  -- Shaila Catherine (Wisdom Wide and Deep)


Can I say that this question exists but no questioner is found? Anatta is beautifully described here. The following quote sums up the idea of no self:

  "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no
  doer of the deeds is there; Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters
  it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."

Extending the above analogy, can I say that,this question exists but no questioner is found?

Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no choice maker will be found?

If you answer the above questions then haven't you yourself made the choice ?

EDIT: Some people have raised doubt over the validity of the quote above saying that this is not the mainstream Buddhist thought.

To further support the argument that there is no sufferer I quote from the book
 Buddha: His Life ,His Doctrine ,His Order BY Dr. Hermann Oldenberg(page 253):

  A seeing,a hearing, a conceiving, above all a suffering, takes place :
  but an existence, which may be regarded as the seer, the hearer,the sufferer, is not recognized in Buddhist teaching.

can I say that, this question exists but no questioner is found?
I think that people can say anything they like: but that merely "saying" it isn't enough to make it arya or wise, useful in practice.
Saying "no questioner is found" reminds me of this Zen story, Nothing Exists -- which I recommend, because I think it's a good illustration of this topic:

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another.
He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no choice maker will be found?
Maybe not. The Buddha famously found a house-builder (Dhammapada Verses 153 and 154):

I, who have been seeking the builder of this house (body), failing to attain Enlightenment (Bodhi nana or Sabbannuta nana) which would enable me to find him, have wandered through innumerable births in samsara. To be born again and again is, indeed, dukkha!

Oh house-builder! You are seen, you shall build no house (for me) again. All your rafters are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed. My mind has reached the unconditioned (i.e., Nibbana); the end of craving (Arahatta Phala) has been attained.


Choosing Between Mindfulness and Compassion Meditation Basically, I have tried for some time mindfulness meditation. I have also tried compassion meditation.

In mindfulness meditation, my mind becomes very still, with few thoughts, but outside of meditation the mind remains so. My thoughts outside of meditation are quite abstract, but I am perhaps stunted emotionally and in terms of visual images. I don't feel my mind wanders too much though.

In compassion meditation, I visualize loving-kindness and compassionate images, and I usually end up crying or feeling positive affect in my body. It is nevertheless quite difficult for me to visualize vividly.

How does one decide which type of meditation to engage in? Would both mindfulness (focused attention) and compassion generate some type of meditative concentration?

In so far as your quesstion is about Meditation, I cannot say anything.
But if you were to mean Buddhist meditation, then I can say the following-
The meditation technique which Buddha taught, which is the teaching of the Buddha and the basis for all philosophical schools, is Vipassana. Other techniques serve as efficient and helpful techniques, depending on the individual. So for example, if someone is unable to meditate because they cannot concentrate their mind, they would be suggested some technique (like anapana or samatha {which in fact is considered as a pre-requisite for Vipassana by many schools}) or a skill in daily life (such as reciting a particular mantra or counting the number of beads in a mala) that would develop some concetration, which will allow them to practice vipassana. Or if a person were too obsessed with physical beauty, with lust- so much so that they cannot practice vipassana, they would be advised to meditate near the dead bodies.

Vipassana involves not only the establishing of the four-fold awareness and the insight gained from it, but also leads to one becoming more compassionate and more aware (mind-fullness). What I mean to say is that, the two aspects you have asked about, comapssion and mind-fullness are not seperate- they go hand in hand- one helps in developing the other which helps in developing the first. But it is possible that one may have some problem in developing mind-fullness or practicing compasssion. Therefore, in such cases, as per the understanding of the teacher (spiritual guide, elder monk) certain technique of meditation (like verbalization or visualization) which is not Vipassana, would be suggested in that particular case, so that the meditator can continue making progress.

Only you would know where you are in your progress and only you would know what problem you have with regards to you meditative practice. I suggest you read further literature so that you can understand in your own way of thinking and continue practicing. Do not get involved with questions to the extent that you stop meditating at all. Neither ignore the questions that have occurred to you- and if you cannot answer them, then consult a senior monk, or your guide.


Is arguing and coming to conclusion is better, or ignoring the conversations is the new normal? Every now and then we (close friends) start some discussion on some topic, then we put our sides, but unfortunately, this conversation takes a path towards argument, where both the sides want to prove that they are correct. This is forcing me to not to start any type of conversation among us in future because I don't want to hamper my peace of mind.
What should be the right suggestion over here? Shall we dig deeper into the conversations more and more, and until the conclusion does not comes up, just don't stop. Or, just tell your friend that you are right, and try to wrap the conversation over there itself. Or is there any other good way to reaching out to a pleasant end?

If it gets out of hand i consider whether they are fit to talk to. If they are unfit to talk to, not up to sutta standards i don't talk to them at all or i narrow the range of communication.

"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, doesn't give an analytical (qualified) answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, doesn't give a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, doesn't put aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, gives a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, and puts aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn't stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn't stand by teachings known to be true,[1] doesn't stand by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, stands by what is possible and impossible, stands by agreed-upon assumptions, stands by teachings known to be true, stands by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't wander from one thing to another, doesn't pull the discussion off the topic, doesn't show anger or aversion or sulk, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't put down [the questioner], doesn't crush him, doesn't ridicule him, doesn't grasp at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as drawing near or not drawing near. One who lends ear draws near; one who doesn't lend ear doesn't draw near. Drawing near, one clearly knows one quality, comprehends one quality, abandons one quality, and realizes one quality.[2] Clearly knowing one quality, comprehending one quality, abandoning one quality, and realizing one quality, one touches right release. For that's the purpose of discussion, that's the purpose of counsel, that's the purpose of drawing near, that's the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind through no clinging. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.067.than.html

It is my impression that some people aren't used to a formal format of discussion but do come around embracing the due process.
In general if people want to discuss something i evaluate whether they actually want to get to the bottom of it, if they are willing to have their views challenged and whether they will respect my time and the process.
These things are non negotiable. I do my best and expect others to do their best but if it's too stressful and is not yielding worthy results, then i just don't engage them.
If people appreciate talking to you and your demands are reasonable then  losing access to you is a more or less of a bad outcome for them, if they realize this they might try harder. If otherwise you let people argue they are likely to just keep at it, it's my general impression.
Other aspects of this is our own behavior and the choice of topics. Some things are hard to express correctly and the timing for the expression is crucial.
It is very hard to get these things right, to make one's point step by step and in due time. Therefore one shouldn't just cut people off hastly and one should take responsibility to improve what can be improved.


Is it possible to become UNenlightened? Is it possible for i.e. an Arhat to become unenlightened after he reached the state of Nirvana?

What if an enlightened being gets a severe brain injury by some cause leaving him with amnesia.
Could it affect one's enlightenment in any way?

No! Once you attain Nibbana, the defilements are annihilated without the possibility of return. Just like uprooting a tree instead of chopping it down or trimming it. So it can never grow back from roots. Nibbana does not depend on the condition of the body or any other thing. It is uncaused, unborn and permanent. Venerable Moggalana was beaten up by thugs until his bones were pulverized. Still his mind was at perfect peace. One Arahath thero in Sri Lanka was thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil by the order of a King. That even caused a Tsunami in sri Lanka. But he was still at perfect peace when his life ended.

Take a Sothapanna person as an example. He can die 6 times before attaining Arhathship. If death itself is not going to affect his attainment, how can brain damage affect it?


Is it useful to meditate upon hunger? I have read that even hunger - a physical sensation in the body - is useful for an object of meditation. Given the fact that I am often hungry and am quite aware of this sensation in my body...and given the fact that I easily gain weight when I allow my hunger to dictate my actions (i.e overeat or eat without thought)...I thought it would be useful for me to see what insight I might get into examining this sensation more deeply.

I was wondering what others' experiences were with using hunger itself as an object of meditation. Normally I just try to focus on the breath (I am still attaining to the 1st level of concentration practice) but thought this might make for an interesting deviation. Assuming that this is a reasonable object for concentration practice, how do I actually go about it?

Absolutely... this is an important topic for new monks and intensive meditators alike. As the Buddha himself said in the Sabbasava Sutta:

“What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by enduring? Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, bears cold and heat, hunger and thirst, and contact with gadflies, mosquitoes, wind, the sun, and creeping things; he endures ill-spoken, unwelcome words and arisen bodily feelings that are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, distressing, and menacing to life. While taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who does not endure such things, there are no taints, vexation, or fever in one who endures them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by enduring.

Reflecting wisely means, of course, with sati, hence meditating.
Relevent, I think, is the Mahasi Sayadaw's discussion on self-mortification:

A wrong interpretation as to what constitutes self-mortification is being made by some teachers in contradiction to the teaching of the Buddha.
According to them, earnest, tireless effort required for meditation amounts to self-mortification. This view is diametrically opposed to the exhortation of the Buddha who advised strenuous, unrelenting exertion (labour) even at the sacrifice of life and limb to attain concentration and insight.
"Let only skin, sinew and bone remain. Let the flesh and blood dry up. I will exert incessantly until I achieve the Path and Fruition I work for." Such must be the resolute firmness of determination, counseled the Buddha, with which the goal was to be pursued.
Thus strenuous, relentless efforts in meditation practices for achievement of concentration and Insight should not be misconstrued as a form of self-torture. Leaving aside meditation practices, even keeping of precepts which entails some physical discomfort is not to be regarded as a practice of self-mortification. Young people and young novices suffer from pangs of hunger in the evenings while keeping the eight precepts. But as fasting is done in fulfillment of the Precepts, it does not amount to mortification.
For some people, the precept of abstaining form taking life is a sacrifice on their part; they suffer certain disadvantages as a consequence, but as it constitutes the good deed of keeping the precept, it is not to be viewed, as a form of self-mortification. In Mahādhamma Samādāna Sutta of Mūlapaṇṇāsa, the Buddha explains that such acts of sacrifice at the present time is bound to produce beneficial results in the future. The Buddha said; "In this world, some people abstain from taking life, causing some physical and mental sufferings to themselves. They take up the right view (of not killing) for which they have to suffer physically and mentally. These people, thus voluntarily going through suffering, to keep; the precepts, at the present time, will after passing away, attain the higher abodes of the devas. These ten meritorious deeds are known as good practices, which produce beneficial results in after life through suffering for the present.
Thus any practice which promotes Sīla, Samādhi and Paññā is not profitless, not self-mortification which is not to be indulged in, but beneficial and is in line with the Middle Path which should certainly be followed. It should be definitely noted that only that practice which does not develop Sīla, Samādha and Paññā but results merely in physical suffering constitutes self-mortification.
(from Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta)

As for a means to practice, it does depend on whether you are practicing samatha or vipassana. Practicing samatha, you would bear with it by ignoring it in favour of the main object of focus, e.g. the breath. Practicing vipassana, you would focus on the hunger as physical and mental aspects of experience, perhaps noting it as "hunger, hunger" or "feeling, feeling", as well as any associated mental and physical phenomena that arise surrounding the hunger.
Hunger, being an existential phenomenon, would not make a proper object of samatha meditation.


Is ritual described in the Pali canon? There are a great many Buddhist rituals which vary across Buddhist schools and traditions. Did the Buddha describe any rituals which were  to be done as part of practice in the Pali canon? Or are the rituals we see today later additions perhaps emerging from specific cultural or historic contexts.

I do not know of a sutta where the Buddha suggested ritual. (There may be one; I just don't know of it.) But I do know of a sutta where the Buddha guided a follower to understand that ritual is ineffective. In SN 42.6, Paccha-bhumika Sutta: [Brahmans] of the Western Land the Buddha gave 4 examples of crowds trying to affect an outcome with rituals. Here are two for example:

"Very well, then, headman, I will question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: There is the case where a man is one who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit sex; is a liar, one who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle chatter; is greedy, bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong views. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world!' What do you think: would that man — because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people — at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world?"
"No, lord."

and also:

"Suppose a man were to throw a jar of ghee or a jar of oil into a deep lake of water, where it would break. There the shards & jar-fragments would go down, while the ghee or oil would come up. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'Sink, O ghee/oil! Submerge, O ghee/oil! Go down, O ghee/oil!' What do you think: would that ghee/oil, because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people sink, submerge, or go down?"
"No, lord."

The sutta ends with the only effective "ritual" that I'm aware of from this time; which is the listener going for refuge.

"I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life."


Is Meditation And Concentration Mutually Exclusive? I'm relatively new to mindfulness meditation and I've been having trouble focusing / concentrating during my sessions. Even thought my meditation sessions are around 10 - 20 minutes, I feel like my mind is just wandering. I've tried to really focus on my breathing but after a while I notice myself thinking about something else. I've read this article: How A Few Simple Things Helped Me Meditate Without Losing Concentration and it has helped me a bit.

But I'm reading around other websites and people are saying that meditation is the opposite of concentration and if you're concentrating then you're not meditating. That meditation is expanding the mind while concentration is narrowing it and that the two are mutually exclusive.

I feel lost on what I should be practicing.

It's should be the other way around. One needs concentration for meditation and one can't attain concentration without diligently meditate. It's also a common misconception that insight/vipassana and serenity/samatha are 2 mutually exclusive practices. Furthermore, insight and serenity by themselves are still not sufficient. Various other factors are also needed to make progress in meditation: observing the precepts, diets, surrounding environment, etc. For further details, please see Ven. Buddhadasa's  http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/anapanasati.pdf and Ven. Nanamoli's http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf1/MindfulnessBreathing.pdf . Some introduction to meditation in general from Ven. Gunaratana's http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html


What exactly is svabhava? What exactly is svabhāva in Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka?

It is translated as inherent nature or inherent existence or inherent substance. But what does that really mean?

Does it carry the same meaning as being unconditioned? If yes, then Nirvana and the Buddha's Dharma, being unconditioned, must have svabhāva. But they don't, according to Madhyamaka.

Why does a chair or a photon or empty space or concepts or the Dharma (teachings) or Nirvana have no svabhāva?

From the Wikipedia article on Madhyamaka, it sounds like something that is unconditioned has svabhāva. But that's not right according to Madhyamaka.

  Nagarjuna's critique of the notion of own-nature
  argues that anything which arises according to conditions, as all
  phenomena do, can have no inherent nature, for what is depends on what
  conditions it. Moreover, if there is nothing with own-nature, there
  can be nothing with 'other-nature' (para-bhava), i.e. something which
  is dependent for its existence and nature on something else which has
  own-nature. Furthermore, if there is neither own-nature nor
  other-nature, there cannot be anything with a true, substantial
  existent nature (bhava). If there is no true existent, then there can
  be no non-existent (abhava).

Svabhāva stands for inherent existence.

From an early Madhyamika viewpoint, there are two types of dependent-arising:

Causal dependence
Dependence on parts

While impermanent phenomena depend on both causes and parts, permanent phenomena do not depend on causes and conditions but they do depend on parts. For instance, a chair is impermanent and depends on causes (if it is made of wood, wood is a substantial cause, etc) and depends on its parts (the legs, etc). Permanent phenomena such as space, emptiness, cessations, etc. depend on parts. For instance, emptiness is emptiness of something on which it depends (not causally, but in terms of part). Therefore, even emptiness, a permanent phenomena, is empty of inherent existence because it is a dependent-arising.

From a Madhyamika-Prasangika viewpoint, there are two types of dependent-arising. The third level is the most subtle:

Dependence on name.

We say that the meaning of something being empty of svabhāva is that, if you look for it with a mind analyzing the ultimate, you will not find it. Now, if you ask yourself "is the chair its legs... is it the material it's made of... etc" you will find that the chair is merely labeled upon these without being any of these. We say that it is "merely labeled".

This presentation is incomplete and cartoonish because there are various Madhyamika [sub]schools, some for which inherent existence and true existence are synonymous, some not.


Meditation on floor vs bed Before I would meditate on floor in Burmese position 30 min in morning, and 30 min at night. My mind was very busy, but when it would calm down, I would get few "Creative Attacks"

For the past week, I felt a supernatural force make me meditate sitting on bed with back straight, leaning against pillows and legs straight (right after I wake up and right before I go to sleep). While I meditate in this position I have noticed myself inhaling and exhaling most of the time. I could even feel my chest expand and contract. And I barely get any noisy thoughts compared to meditation while sitting on floor in Burmese position.

I am missing those "Creative Attacks", but the reason I started meditation is so I can have deepened awareness in my surroundings (I'm called Absent-Minded)

Is my approach ok. I mean, these "Creative Attacks" are helping me endure some rough patches right now (almost to the point that these patches are slightly dry skin).

Can I hear from novice and experienced meditators alike.

It depends on why you are meditating. However, since you are posting to a Buddhist group, look at it from the Buddhist perspective.

Meditation supports the Buddhist way of viewing the world, with non-attachment, that sees the impermanence and lack of essence of all things, especially one's "self".  As such, "Creative Attacks" are not relevant to this practice.

Further, if you are going through rough patches (or creative attacks), then the application of meditation is to look into this rough patch (or creative attacks), to see the characteristics mentioned above, but especially the illusory nature of the "you" who is suffering these rough patches (or creative attacks).

That is, instead of trying to combat feeling with feeling, work on seeing the illusory nature of the source. When confronted with suffering, look for the one who suffers, and when that is seen to be an illusion, the suffering becomes a non-issue.

Having said that, the posture to adopt to meditation should be one in which you can be alert (nothing that will lull you to sleep) while minimizing your discomfort.  Certain postures may make some bodily sensations more noticeable than others, so I'd recommend the one that reduces those.  Beyond that, you're free to pick a posture.


Why are they called "old kamma"? The sutta below states that eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are old kamma.
Why are these called old kamma (purāṇakammā)?
Is it because of rebirth? Or could there be other reasons?
If rebirth is the only reason, then I feel that this explanation seems too simple.
From SN 35.146:

And what is old kamma?
The eye is old kamma. It should be seen as produced by choices and
intentions, as something to be felt.
The ear … nose … tongue … body … mind is old kamma. It should be seen
as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt.
This is called old kamma.
And what is new kamma?
The deeds you currently perform by way of body, speech, and mind.
This is called new kamma.

(I replaced "action" with "kamma")

Piya Tan says, though I'm not sure this is clear,

“Old karma”
here refers to the six senses. The theme of “old karma” (purana,kamma) is applied to the body (synonymous with the six senses) in the (Kaya) Na Tumha Sutta (S 12.37/2:64 f), where the Anguttara Commentary explains that the body is not “old karma” but because it arises from old karma, it is referred to in
terms of its conditions. It is seen as “put together” (abhisankhata) since it is created by conditions. It is
“thought out” (abhisañcetayita) because it is based on volition (the will), rooted in volition. It is “to be
felt” (vedaniya) because it is basis for what is to be felt [ie the basis and object for feeling] (SA 2:70,
402).

Perhaps the idea is that people are born of (heir to) their kamma.
The summary on this page (I'm not sure who's the author, perhaps Ven Sujato) summarises this sutta as,

The six interior sense fields are not yours, but are old kamma, generated by choices in past lives. This is explained in terms of the four noble truths.


References for not receiving alms in exchange for Dhamma teaching According to this comment:

  I think that monks and laypeople are meant to depend on each other
  (e.g. as described in Iti 107) however monks must not sell their
  dhamma talks for food. So there are monastic rules about food and
  dhamma talks: they're separate transactions ... a quid pro quo is
  forbidden -- having given a dhamma talk (i.e. after his speaking) the
  Buddha was no longer willing to receive food, because that would
  appear as if he were receiving food in exchange for or as payment for
  talking.

Please provide references from the Vinaya and/or Patimokkha for "there are monastic rules about food and dhamma talks: they're separate transactions ... a quid pro quo is forbidden".

An extended answer would probably result in getting aware that there are very, very less who do not maintain just a livelyhood in using the tripple Gems. Less who are actually not in the whole of a serious transgression, with less hope to find a way to get reconciled. While such would formally just touch those "bond" to Vinaya, from a kammic view it touches all of the many, regardless of their clothes.

An that is why even laypeople have been taught the matter, only traceable for those looking sometimes inwardly.

  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

One would even find the message in the Jatakas, that not even Gods and Devas practice generosity in exchange.

One should also not underestimate that there are four kinds of nutritions in this regard.

Turn on satipaṭṭhānā and you may face corruption and how it arises in one self, and then is no more need to seek Dhamma-Vinaya outside. Till there one is wise to listen and follow the Elders and those ahead in regard of letting go.

(furthermore: Read Iti 107 as what it actually says, without assuming anything in addition)

[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for any worldly trade and exchange]


Difficulty with Posture I am noticing some pattern in my recent practice. I find that mental exertion, as directing attention to the breath, is quite easy for me; yet, when it comes to devoting an amount of time to formal practice, or even sitting formally and upright, I have trouble. For example, I will tend to meditate in a slouched or even lying position.

EDIT: There is no pain, or specific problem when I meditate upright, just a sensation of general discomfort, or an unpleasantness. But, I feel maybe it is more of an aversion towards sitting upright than an actual physical problem.

My question is: How can this resistance best be explained? What is the best way to counter it?

Thank you.

The experience of discomfort and unpleasantness themselves can be great meditation objects, and it is mindful that you are distinguishing them from pain. Some traditions and buddhist communities expand their conception of formal sitting to include sitting in chairs with back support and lying down, so if it is of interest, know that there are paths that provide such options.

As to how the resistance can be explained, it may be fruitful to consider how your mind and body have been conditioned to relate to sitting and the time you are devoting to sitting (i.e. saṅkhāra meditations can help). For many people, such explorations illuminate habits and valuations that can themselves be fruitful meditation objects.

In terms of counter acting the experience, you'll probably find most teachers encouraging you to grow more curious about the experience. For example, if discomfort is arising from the experience of the stillness, you can examine the nature of the stillness. For instance, you might begin to noice that the posture is not really a static pose, even when you remain quite still. Blood is coursing through your veins. Air is moving in and out of your lungs. Electrical impulses are happening throughout your body. I would encourage you to examine the nature of your discomfort and allow that to guide some portion of your meditation practice.


Is there a kind of "pop Buddhism"? Similarly to pop psychology, do we have the same effect for Buddhism? I have a feeling that many people subscribing to Buddhism because it seems to explain psychological phenomena that they (unfortunately) can't explain. It is also said that the Buddha taught the disciples in three levels, and in level 1 the goal is just to help the students overcome their problems in life, so I think this level is indeed pop Buddhism.

Therefore I think pop Buddhism is a version of pop psychology. I wonder if my understanding is correct.

I don't know what "pop Buddhism" means exactly but I guess yes -- I suppose I could assign  one or more of the following definitions to the phrase.

"Pop Buddhism" is:

Any reference to Buddhism that I might encounter in a not-explicitly-Buddhist context -- for example:

This CBC article is "pop" Buddhism because the CBC isn't explicitly Buddhist -- but it is popular i.e. it is a national broadcaster though of a not-explicitly-Buddhist country
The word "zen" is now used colloquially in France -- in phrases like rester zen and être zen (i.e. "to remain zen" and "to be zen") -- as an adjective meaning something resembling calm or detached or serene or even engaged (or whatever you imagine the word "zen" might mean as an adjective) in everyday life
Anything like "Fake Buddha Quotes" e.g. if you see someone reposting them on Facebook, would probably have to count as "pop"

Any popular (though explicitly Buddhist) book, which appears to be aimed at a general non-Buddhist audience, and (especially) written by a modern author. I'd include e.g. books by the Dalai Lama (e.g. the Art of Happiness) or by Thich Nhat Hanh -- maybe also books by Alan Watts or Philip Kapleau or Daniel Ingram (not saying that all these authors are the same, nor their books).
I'm inclined to privilege a book like In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon as being a slightly different category -- perhaps it's aimed at a naive but interested audience (and therefore popular), but it's based on (or is nothing but, little more than) a translation of and anthology from the canon of a Buddhist school and therefore it's not exactly a "modern author". Other translations of or introductions to any canonical works might belong in this same category.
A comparative term ("pop" versus "non-pop"), therefore e.g. a term or form of conceit (e.g. "They practice pop Buddhism, I practice the real Buddhism")
There are professional (or whatever the opposite of "pop" is) psychologists -- e.g. licensed therapists (e.g. psychotherapists, or people advising schools and parents about difficult children/students), and academics (e.g. professors, researchers), not to mention any commercial and other applications. So analogously "non-pop" Buddhism might be whatever is studied and practised by some monks, perhaps studied by academics, and "pop" Buddhism is anything/everything else e.g. what is known to lay people.

I think that (some) Buddhist doctrine states that there is such a thing as properly understanding Dhamma (or the Dhamma) -- that's called the "Dhamma eye", or the arising of the Dhamma eye or something like that, and associated with "stream entry".

The Kalama sutta includes a phrase (some other suttas do too),

  explained the Dhamma admirable in the beginning, admirable in the middle, admirable in the end

An interpretation of that phrase is that "pop" or "beginner" Buddhism is good and not bad (see also this answer for example).

Topics like the following might be relevant too:

How to explain what Buddhism is?
Did the Buddha teach the four noble truths to laypeople?

The above two topic are based on Buddhism as it's described in the Pali suttas. Perhaps there's another form or school of Buddhism, called Mahayana (which may or may not include Vajrayana, depending on your taxonomy) -- and perhaps Mahayana deserves to be called (though not as a term of disrespect) "pop" Buddhism.


Automatic body scanning? What is happening here? This has happened to me a few times  on Goenka retreats.

When I have been practicing mindfulness of breath and body scanning for a while, near day 7 or so my attention will be moving quite quickly, rapidly, performing a scan of several points in the body every few seconds in a set pattern. By this point in the retreat my attention is flowing smoothly like water so it only takes a second or two for every cycle, which is very fast even if it can get quite tiring.

At some point after this suddenly my attention gets hijacked by some autonomic process, and my attention will hit points in my body in a super complicated but precise pattern (I think it draws a mandala) that I can never hope to consciously replicate. It is ridiculously fast and precise, covering 50 or more  points in the body in under a second.

It happens only once, so a second later it is over, and now I note that my habitual set pattern I used to follow to scan the body is now in cruise control mode. I can actually sit back (metaphorically speaking) and let the body scan itself, or so it would seem. My mind will now go do other things, like contemplate dhamma or whatever, and when I return to attention of my body I would find it is still going strong, doing the auto pilot body scanning.

This will usually last a few days, even after the retreat. The funny thing is the attention is spatial. If I get up from the half lotus, the body scan still happens, but it is now hitting empty space near my hip where my thighs and legs used to be folded.

Often this means when I go to my room I won't lie down until I absolutely have to because it feels weird to have the body scan happen only to my upper body and not my knees and toes when I am lying flat.

If I wake up from sleep the body scan is still happening.

After day 13/14 slowly this auto scan will grow less and less pronounced until I can't sense it anymore.

What is happening here?

This automatic body scanning that you mentioned is your ego playing games with you. During meditation, your Self or ego is becoming weaker and weaker. When the ego sees he is dying, ego will do everything to not die. You could hear sounds, vibrations, gain supernatural powers, travel to distant galaxies, predict the future, read minds, gain magical powers, fly through walls, visit astral planes, talk with devas, have out of body experiences, etc.

Ego wants you to cling onto something. Ego wants you to crave. That's why he gives you weird experiences. If you show fear to such experiences, ego will give you experiences that you'll be afraid off. If you show attachment to such experiences, ego will give you experiences that you'll be attached to.

The important thing is not to get attached to these experiences and get beyond them. Don't worry, if the experience arises, just go with it, enjoy, relax, have fun and don't intellectualize. The most important thing: never, ever be afraid. If a bad experience arises, smile, don't worry, just go with it, enjoy, relax, have fun and don't intellectualize.

The closer you will be to liberation, the less such experiences will arise.


How would Buddhist monks organize countries and the world? I can't help myself not to find Buddhism utopic. A concept that can only exist for a small group of people. What is the long term plan of the Buddhism?

How would Buddhist monks organize countries, world?

e. g.:
Imagine you got 95% Buddhist countries, but ISIS pops up, how would Buddhist countries react, given that non-violence is preached?

I can't help myself not to find Buddhism utopic.

If one assumes that it's purpose is to make the earth a place with no violence, or to make peaceful beings not die from life-threatening attacks, it is utopic. But that assumption is incorrect.

  What is the long term plan of the Buddhism?

Buddhism is not an abstract view of society. It does not put forward any grand vision of what an ideal society should be.

But within a society (a real one), it offers useful principles to guide human affairs. The utility of these are always within the theme of decreasing suffering of people.

  How would Buddhist monks organize countries, world?

A monastic person is one who put aside most wordly matters, which include governing. Having them organizing countries, the world, would be to put back on their plate what they specifically put aside.

For a historical understanding of how buddhism have being put to use on government affairs, I suggest as a starting point of research the emperor Ashoka.

  Imagine you got 95% Buddhist countries, but ISIS pops up, how would Buddhist countries react, given that non-violence is preached?

This is a very speculative question, which not only is something that buddhists are taught to avoid, but the policy of this community also does not promote developing such discussions. However, if this question's subject is reduced to an individual instead of countries, the dilemma might be preserved and maybe a satisfying answer can be given. So, to the reformulated question:

  how a buddhist person reacts to a life-threatening situation, given that non-violence is preached?

...while it's hard to say how buddhists reacts (any attempt in my part would be factually wrong), the Buddha taught abandoning ill-will. Note I'm not saying buddhists react with non-violence. I'm saying that the Buddha drew a very strong line on this matter1 (and its up to each one to decide to live by it):

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching." (MN 21).

To conclude, Buddhism is not something that needs the agreement of everyone (or from a large group of people) to operate satisfactorily. It's not about society. It's a road for an individual to decide if that is the kind of person he or she wants to be.

1 this is not without it's nuances and polemics, say, when it comes to the use of violence in self-defense or helping others by means of harming. Without going into detail, what seems generally accepted is if the state of mind that manifested violence came from greed, hatred or ignorance, it is blameful.


How to understand a second order Karma? If a person B does an intentional harmful action on person A, and so B does a bad karma.

As a result of that karma, it happens that a person C ends up hurting person B, intentionally or unintentionally.

So what is the result of the action of person C?

Does her action account for Karma?

Does she even have any choice to hurt B or not hurt B?

If C hurts B intentionally does that account for bad karma, but C did in because she had to as it was B's karma?

If this continues, this whole sequence will never ever end.

In Buddhism, kamma and its fruits is not a system of universal justice. It simply is cause and effect. An individual's intention is the most important thing in kamma.

If a person has evil intentions and commits evil acts, then he may end up in unhappy destinations. Even if he comes back as a human being, he may be sickly or short-lived or ugly or poor etc. Please read the rest of MN 135 for details. If based on his intentions, he harmed others, then in future, he becomes sickly. If based on his intentions, he was miserly and did not donate to others, then he may become poor in future.

According to MN 135:

  The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or
  man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to
  killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having
  adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after
  death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body,
  after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the
  bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human
  state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn. This is the way
  leading to a short life: to be a killer of living beings, brutal,
  bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living
  beings.

  "But then there is the case where a woman or man, having abandoned the
  killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings, and
  dwells with the rod laid down, the knife laid down, scrupulous,
  merciful, & sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings. Through
  having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the
  body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination, in the
  heavenly world. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead
  of reappearing in a good destination, in the heavenly world — he/she
  comes to the human state, then he/she is long-lived wherever reborn.
  This is the way leading to a long life: to have abandoned the killing
  of living beings, to abstain from killing living beings, to dwell with
  one's rod laid down, one's knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, &
  sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings.

  "There is the case where a woman or man is one who harms beings with
  his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives. Through having
  adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after
  death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead
  he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is sickly wherever
  reborn. This is the way leading to sickliness: to be one who harms
  beings with one's fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.

  "But then there is the case where a woman or man is not one who harms
  beings with his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.
  Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of
  the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If
  instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is healthy
  wherever reborn. This is the way leading to health: not to be one who
  harms beings with one's fists, with clods, with sticks, or with
  knives.

However, not everything we experience is caused by kamma according to SN36.21:

  "There are cases where some feelings arise based on bile... phlegm...
  based on internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors...
  from the change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from
  harsh treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know
  how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is
  agreed on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any
  brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever
  an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."

So it is pointless to assume that if somebody hit you, it must be caused by you hitting someone else in the past. It may not have any kamma-related cause. In the quote above, "harsh treatment" is separated from "result of kamma". So, they are separate causes. "Uneven care of the body" and "change of seasons" are also other separate causes. So, if somebody hit you and it caused pain, then it may well be just "harsh treatment" from someone else.

How to alleviate one's karma is explained in the Lonaphala Sutta or the Discourse of the Salt Crystal.


Why talk and think about self as noun? We always talk and think about self as a noun. When reading Buddhist philosophy, I have never seen exceptions to this. Both "common sense looking" and "metaphysical looking" is looking for the self.

For me, it has been helpful to think about the word 'self' as a verb. Something like this: Self is action, even the sheer directedness of mind is an action. "I" self therefore "I" am. Apart from that, "I" am not. There is no looker apart from the looking, no self apart from the selfing. To me, the question "what/where is the 'I' doing the selfing?" is redundant.

The self is the (dependently arisen) selfing. If, and only if, the causes and conditions for selfing is present, there is selfing. If they're not present in the first place, or removed, there's no selfing.

Why even assume or presuppose that there could be the slightest possibility of finding this “thing” self? Why look? It’s not helpful at all, in my opinion.

Does anyone know thinkers/writers explicitly talking and thinking about self as action/verb?

I think it's conventionally useful to identify 'the agent' of an action, for example, "Whose turn is it to wash the dishes?" implies there's a someone who'll be doing that (more or less reliably).
People (or people's feelings) are also nouned when they're used as the object of a sentence, for example, "I hurt him."
Personal identity (including family) are also important (in law/jurisprudence) in assigning ownership of property, for example, "Who owns this land?", and inheritance etc.

Having nouns in sentences is partly grammar. For example, Chinese sentence structure allows sentences without verbs (Wikipedia calls it "to some degree pro-drop or null-subject language"),

Today hike up mountains, tomorrow camp outdoors.

Perhaps similarly, a nounal subject is optional/implied/unecessary in Latin, where the suffix of the verb is conjugated to indicate the person. So for example amo, amas, amat is (or must be) translated into English by adding pronouns (required by English grammar) as "I love", "You love, and "He or She loves"; but maybe you can think of it without a noun (or with less of a noun) as "first person loving", "second person loving", and "third person loving".
I might have heard that linguists have theorized that there's a correlation between grammar and reality, but I haven't heard any details about that.
I don't know Pali well enough to include it in this answer, but look at an example of some Pali at the top of this page (which starts with the Pali atta for "self", from which we then get anattā or "non-self").

I found a comment about Sanskrit -- Jayarava said,

There’s nothing wrong with creating new verbs from nouns. We do it all the time. There’s even a technical term for such verbs: denominative. We also go the other way and create verbal nouns.
And it’s not just English that does this. Sanskrit is full of denominative verbs and verbal nouns.


Is lazyness a killer? If so, in how far is it a killer, a quality that harms?

How does it arises, when arising? How does it vanish?

[Note that this isn't given/asked for trade, exchange, stakes or other layziness supporting means but for liberation]

Once the Exalted One spoke to the Venerable Maha-Moggallana thus: "Are you drowsy, Moggallana? Are you drowsy, Moggallana?" — "Yes, venerable sir."

(1) "Well then, Moggallana, at whatever thought torpor has befallen you, to that thought you should not give attention, you should not dwell on it frequently. Then it is possible that, by so doing, torpor will disappear......................

AN7.58

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html


Mental Fabrication and Empathy Is there a difference, in terms of mental fabrication, between creativity and imagination (which seem to rely on imagining what's not there) and empathy and mentalizing (which understand how someone's mind/mental affinities are)? Are empathy and mentalizing more 'mindful' and produce less mental fabrication?

As your question implies, creativity, imagination, empathy and mentalizing all have their root in our ability to think abstractly (among other things).

However, I’m not sure that the psychological constructs of empathy and mentalizing corresponds directly to buddhist theoretical concepts, but they can surely be interpreted as components of the brahmaviharas virtues. They are wholesome, since they ameliorate aversion/dosa.

I don’t know, but I suspect that one can’t consider brahmaviharas an actual decrease in mental formations (if one could ever count/measure formations at all), as much as a replacement of unwholesome formations into wholesome ones (according to the principle of  right effort).


Symbols of mercy in Buddhism? What are the possible symbols of mercy and/or compassion in Buddhism? As always answers with supporting references are appreciated.

Take a look at the 8 auspicious symbols,

The
Auspicious Drawing, sometimes refereed to as the infinite knot
represents the intertwining of wisdom and compassion.

The manji (Japanese Buddhism) is said to represent love and mercy, in certain situations.
This symbol should not be confused with the swastika, which is completely different.


How to get rid of hate? I have a friend that I met few years back. He always look polite, look decent, and look helping others a lot. I did him a lot of helps that no friend would do to him. Later, when I needed helps he really, replied me with very bad words, which I never thought he can even talk like that. This thing really becoming something that I cannot forget. It seems I suffer it a lot. I was thinking how to get rid of this for a long time now. What are the practical measures in Buddhism to get rid of such hate inside one's inside. Thank you.

There is a solution given in Buddhism for the exact matter.

I think you may have heard about the meditation called "Maithree / Meththa" (Metta). There is a certain variation of that to prevent such hate.

So the solution is simple: do this meditation, specially targeting this person and the memory that you are trying to get rid of.

After doing it for about 10 minutes move to the following way of focusing without stopping your meditation.
The next step is to focus on bad effects of anger and hate:

How it effect badly to the path
How it gives you births in lower realms (like among animals)
How it will ruin your appearance in next lives
How it could reverse you accomplishments in meditation
How you will not be able to reach jaanas (Also known as Dyana)
And so on....

You should also add these:

How that person's anger and bad words would affect badly to his path
How it could give him births in lower realms (like among animals)
How it will ruin his appearance in next lives
How it could reverse his accomplishments in meditation
How his will not be able to reach jaanas (Also known as Dyana)

This is done to get your mind to feel sorry for him and pity him.

(The very second your mind comes to this phase it will no longer have anger for the incident or the person that made you angry).

Now you should focus on how your thought are generated and how they were generated in that moment.
Try to recite these with your mind:

What I hear does not contain anger or hate: I make it in my own mind
If I hear something i like i start to like it,and i start to like
that person who said it
If I hear something i do not like i start to hate it,and i start to
hate that person who said it
So this hate and love is also a product of my thoughts, nothing in the
world ever made me love or hate anything.
So like this every feeling I have is a bundle of thoughts,mind's
creations
Everything that made me happy and sad has always been a thought in my
mind
But without seeing this I was foolishly blaming others for my anger
There is a functioning body and a thinking mind
I looked everywhere there was no "Me", only thoughts
But I thought there is someone called "Me"
It was this mind that made this reality and all the feelings I have
felt
I am not the only one who is fooled by this, everyone is!
If there is no "Me", then there is no "Him" or "Her"
Only bodies and minds that made them work
It is foolish to have a grudge with anyone
I give up this anger, there is no point carrying this foolish burden.

I guarantee you in one sitting you will be a different person. This
   would take about 15 minutes. If that is too long do the two parts
   separately (don't leave too much time in the middle). I have done this
   and it is instant in giving results.


How do you decide when to stick up for yourself and when to let things go? I'm trying to apply Buddhist principles to the way I lead my life, but right now I'm struggling with an issue.
In short, the problem is that someone caused damage to our home and refuses to acknowledge this and pay the damages. The problem is that I'm having difficulty deciding whether to stick up for myself and my family and pursue this matter, or to simply let things be and go on with our lives.

I think there are 2 conflicting Buddhist principles that apply here (or perhaps more, but I just don't see them?):

One shouldn't attach him/herself (to material matters).
One should move toward truthfulness in all things and correct harm.

I guess what decision to make is somewhat subjective and depends on the exact circumstances, but I'm very much interested in what Buddhism in general has to say about making decisions like this. When should you stick up for yourself and when should you let things be?

you said:

  One shouldn't attach him/herself (to material matters).
  One should move toward truthfulness in all things and correct harm.

but... the second one does not sound like a Buddhist principle... where did you get that from?

The first one (nonattachment, dispassion) is a universally valid Buddhist principle. As a rule of thumb I would stick with this one.

However, according to training I received, there are two places detachment can come from: 1) from strength or 2) from weakness.

when detachment comes from strength -- it comes from the idea of freedom, of independence, of being one's own island, of needlessness and emancipation, from wisdom, from compassion.
when detachment comes from weakness -- it comes from fear of confrontation or involvement, from laziness, from doubts, from incomplete understanding, from "spiritual materialism", from attachment to private peace of mind.

So you should look inside and see where your detachment comes from. If it comes from weakness then, while on the surface it looks like detachment, it really is a form of attachment.

If that is the case then you should definitely engage with that "someone" - not as much for the sake of what you see as "truth" from your side - as for the practice of overcoming your (hidden) attachment.