Does mahayana believe in omniscience of the Buddha? I read about the 18 characteristics of a Buddha, and the last three say he has knowledge of the past, present and future. Do mahayanists believe this means he has complete knowledge of everything in the past, present and future, or does it rather mean he has some specific knowledge of the past, present and future? As in, he knows some things that happened or that he did yesterday or some time in the past, some things that happen or which he does right now, and some things that will happen in the future.

In Mahayana omniscience refers to prajna-paramita, the perfection of wisdom also known as the knowledge of all modes.

This comes from direct realization of Emptiness, and results in Buddha having no position, not leaning on any dharma or sign. Not assuming anything as the absolute point of reference. (There are many ways to talk about this.)

Having no position, Buddha knows all positions and all modes of cognition. Hence, the knowledge of all modes aka omniscience in short.


Sankhara on a wave, a wood, and a rock? Purpose:

I want to know which sutta is this story coming from.

Background:

I remember that when I joined the 10-day Vipassana course held by S.N.Goenka, he said,
You can carve your Sankhara like an ocean wave. If you keep carving the Sankhara, eventually, it becomes stronger, like carving it on wood. Someday, it becomes like carving it on a rock.
Something like this. It might be incorrect.

Comment:

Does anyone know it?

That sounds like the simile in AN 3.130 below.
This describes three types of individuals and their anger. Anger is a sankhara (volition, mental formation).

"Monks, there are these three types of individuals to be found
existing in the world. Which three? An individual like an inscription
in rock, an individual like an inscription in soil, and an individual
like an inscription in water.
"And how is an individual like an inscription in rock? There is the
case where a certain individual is often angered, and his anger stays
with him a long time. Just as an inscription in rock is not quickly
effaced by wind or water and lasts a long time, in the same way a
certain individual is often angered, and his anger stays with him a
long time. This is called an individual like an inscription in rock.
"And how is an individual like an inscription in soil? There is the
case where a certain individual is often angered, but his anger
doesn't stay with him a long time. Just as an inscription in soil is
quickly effaced by wind or water and doesn't last a long time, in the
same way a certain individual is often angered, but his anger doesn't
stay with him a long time. This is called an individual like an
inscription in soil.
"And how is an individual like an inscription in water? There is the
case where a certain individual — when spoken to roughly, spoken to
harshly, spoken to in an unpleasing way — is nevertheless congenial,
companionable, & courteous. Just as an inscription in water
immediately disappears and doesn't last a long time, in the same way a
certain individual — when spoken to roughly, spoken to harshly, spoken
to in an unpleasing way — is nevertheless congenial, companionable, &
courteous. This is called an individual like an inscription in water.
"These are the three types of individuals to be found existing in the
world."
AN 3.130


If I reach absorption concentration are the hindrances fully gone? I am studying the jhanas and it says you can enter jhana without fully purifying the hindrances. I thought you can't reach the jhana without first fully suppressing the hindrance. How does one do that?

Here's what the book said.

  When a bhikkhu enters upon a jhána without [first] completely
  suppressing lust by reviewing the dangers in sense desires, etc., and without
  [first] completely tranquillizing bodily irritability37 by tranquillizing the body,
  and without [first] completely removing stiffness and torpor by bringing to
  mind the elements of initiative, etc., (§55), and without [first] completely
  abolishing agitation and worry by bringing to mind the sign of serenity, etc.,
  [152] and without [first] completely purifying his mind of other states that
  obstruct concentration, then that bhikkhu soon comes out of that jhána again,
  like a bee that has gone into an unpurified hive, like a king who has gone into an
  unclean park.

It depend on whether you practice Samatha or Vipassana.
In Samatha practice you suppress the hindrances.
They are fully eradicated by Vipassana practice and following Noble Eightfold Path.


Is there some technique to surpass noises when meditating? I'm having a lot of troubles with noises. I try to close my ears with cotton, but it does not works great.
Is a little bit difficult to me try to meditate rounded by noises (here, where a live, people seems to be sensible to noise, and worst, they like to put their automotive stereo system at high decibels despite the fact that it is forbidden by law (here the State does not get to apply its own laws), its like some kind "meat show").
So, is there some technique to surpass noises when meditating?

Noises are going to be a problem if you are just starting out.  This is especially so if they are the abrupt, jarring type of sounds that you seem to be contending with.  I would highly recommend that you do your best to find a quiet place to sit at first - even if this means leaving your home and sitting somewhere else.  You might be surprised to find that many of the more liberal Christian denominations and the Unitarians might offer you some space in their respective sanctuaries to practice.  The same goes for campus chapels.  My own sangha has used everything from a classroom in a Methodist Sunday school to a yoga studio!

If you must sit in a noisy area, my best advice is to treat sound just as you would any other distraction or phenomenon you might encounter on the cushion.  This is going to vary depending on your tradition, but coming from the samatha school that I practice, I'd advise you to double down on your meditation object.  If you are following the breath, continue to watch the whole body of your breathing as closely as you can.  Be with it for its entire duration.  Watch the blankness in the space between your exhalation and inhalation.  Sound is a difficult obstacle to work with, but like pain, agitation, sensual desire, or really any of the five hindrances, it won't be able to gain a foothold in a mind that is closely applied to its object.

Also, for the love of Pete, don't spend your time on your cushion fantasizing about how much better your meditation would be if only it were quieter!  That'll kill your concentration faster than the sound of a truck driving through a nitroglycerin plant!


About svasaṃvedana (reflexive awareness) and having bodhicitta What is your view regarding svasaṃvedana? Do you accept or deny (the
existence of) svasaṃvedana?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svasaṃvedana
https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Svasaṃvedana

Can a Buddhist know whether or not he/she have really genuine and
firm bodhicitta by him-/her- self? If yes, then how? (Does this
question have to do with svasaṃvedana?)

I hold the Prasangika Madhyamaka as the highest and definitive of the Buddhist tenet systems. The prasangika refute the notion of inherently existing reflexive self-awareness. Here you can see Chandrakirti refuting the notion of Svasaṃvedana or rangrig of the Cittamatran school:

The above is taken from a commentary on Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche. Rinpoche is a highly accomplished master of the Rime movement and has studied under all major schools of Tibetan Buddhism. It should also be noted that he is quite sympathetic to the Cittamatran school:

I won't highlight the actual rebuttal arguments that Chandrakirti invokes as you can click on the link above and read them and draw your own conclusions whether they are strong arguments or not. However, this is the conclusion that Chandrakirti draws:

As for your second question... Yes, it is possible to be aware of your own genuine realization of Bodhicitta. However, most ordinary people fool themselves into believing overinflated self-conceptions of their own achievements. Regardless, this self-awareness - whether mistaken or unmistaken - is only conventionally true and does not have one iota of true existence. That's because nothing whatsoever has one iota of true existence.

PS: If you would like to verify with another commentary on the Madhyamakavatara you can look at Ju Mipham's commentary here. If you do you'll find that it is in complete accord with the above.


What is the meaning of uppajjati versus upapajjati? In the Pali there are two terms, which are (generally) used contextually in two different ways:

uppajjati (and its past particle uppanna)
upapajjati (and its past particle upapanna)

What do these terms actually mean and what is the distinction between them? Importantly, how are these terms constructed or derived in Pali to differentiate their meaning?

Of note: the PTS dictionary makes the rather vague comment:

  doubtful whether a legitimate form as upa + pad or a diaeretic form of uppajjati = ud + pad. In this case all passages ought to go under
  the latter. Trenckner however (Notes 77) defends upa˚ & considers in
  many cases upp˚ a substitution for upa. The diaeresis may be due to
  metre, as nearly all forms are found in poetry. The variant reading
  upp˚ is apparently frequent; but it is almost impossible to
  distinguish between upap˚ and upp˚ in the Sinhalese writing, and
  either the scribe or the reader may mistake one for the other

I think there are two rather different words confused here.

One is Sanskrit "utpada"/"anutpada" (to arise / not to arise) and its Pali corruption "uppada" with a past form "uppanna".

Another one is Sanskrit "upaprajati" (something like "offshoot" or "derivative" - meaning something that is born off a family but separate) and the Pali corruption of its past form, "upapanna".

Google dictinary for "offshoot" gives the following meanings:

  a thing that originated or developed from something else.
  "commercial offshoots of universities"
    synonyms: outcome, result, (side) effect, corollary, consequence, upshot, product, by-product, spin-off, development, outgrowth, fallout
    "rap music began as an underground offshoot of disco"
  subsidiary, branch, adjunct, derivative
    "the company now controls several offshoots"

Checking the examples of sutta usages in @ChrisW's answer, I think they all make sense.


Who am I- according to Buddhism What does Buddha say about the question,"Who am I"? Our body and mind perishes with time. If so then who actually attains the Truth?

Buddhism says there is no core which is unchanging and nor an entity with absolute control over anything we call me or mine. Also, the practice is somewhat geared towards eliminating the notion of a permanent controlling self-identity view as this gives you a yard stick to measure yourself against others, which causes misery. So in conventional wisdom, it is you who attains the truth, although the notion of self will eventually be abandoned.


As a Buddhist, how shall we make sense of the notion that there is no such thing as a Soul? The three marks of existence is: Impermanence, Suffering, and No-Self.
If there is no-self, then there is no Soul.

Our cognitive abilities is the result of the physical (Brain organ) and the non-physical (five Skandhas)

In meditation, we are taught to observe the changes of our thoughts, which I presume is the result of the five Skandhas as well.

The question is, if there is no-self and no soul, then who is observing my thoughts? Am I wrong to say they are my thoughts? Who am I? And who is answering my question in this forum?

As a Buddhist, how shall we make sense of the notion that there is no such thing as a Soul?
I'm not sure why you think that "Soul" is a helpful belief.
I think that "soul" is usually taught as being/meaning something permanent, which maybe contradicts the doctrine (or observation) that "things" (or "everything", or "compound things") are impermanent (anicca).
I think that what we do with ("make sense of") the notion (of non-self) is maybe avoid "suffering" views like "I can't get what I want" and "I can't keep what I have" and "I am dying" and so on -- and maybe, instead, develop views that are closer to being true (or avoid "attaching" to any such views).
The question is, if there is no-self and no soul, then who is observing my thoughts?
It's conventional (in life and in language) to assume that there's an agent.
For example if you see some writing, you might assume that "someone" wrote it, to ask "who wrote this?" -- conventionally the existence of "the writing" proves (or implies) the existence of "the writer".
That's a dangerous generalisation though: if you see a creature, can you assume a creator?
Some people use logic like "The universe (also called "creation") exists, therefore God must have created it" -- but perhaps that's not a very provable, testable, and/or useful statement.
If you look at a rock, for example: did someone create it? Buddhism might say that "there were conditions as a result of which a rock exists" ... maybe many conditions including atoms, gravity , heat, time, wind and water ... but that's not the same thing as saying "there's a creator".
In the same way, the fact that there's "a thought" doesn't imply that there's "a thinker".
Am I wrong to say they are my thoughts?
I think this topic -- How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? -- suggests that it's unwise to do so.
Problems (suffering) arise with attachment, with craving, with "I"-making (having wrong views about self).
To some extent, I think that views are a matter of choice. For example perhaps I could choose to believe that my battery-power flashlight gives light because there's a demon or a god inside it, but I prefer not to (I think it wouldn't be a helpful belief).
Who am I?
I think the suttas define this question as the result of unwise attention.
For example here:

A thicket of wrong views
"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and attends instead to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices."

This answer, which uses "a rock" and "a flashlight" as an example, might imply a "materialist" view e.g. "people are only physical"; but I didn't mean that, it's defined as unwise to attach such a view ("this is my permanent Self, my eternal Soul") to anything, including the physical body.
It would also be a mistake to assume the doctrine implies that "nothing matters" -- it's an aspect of the doctrine, not the whole doctrine.


How does Buddhism perceive swearing or vulgarities? Swearing and the use of everyday vulgarity is often part of a conversation whether it be in jest or seriousness e.g. confrontation, frustration,etc

How is swearing or the use of vulgarities perceived in the context of Buddhism?

If you speak words which are (at the foundations) offensive to others, you are not practicing Right Speech very well. However, should you be around friends or alone, the words are just words.

  "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."

— Thag 21

Here's a whole page about 'Right Speech' on Access to Insight.


Buddhas vs bodhisattvas vs arhats vs devas vs brahmas What are differences between these entities? I understand they all are entities that they posses some abilities that normal humans don't have. Are there any other similar entities that might be easily confused?

Buddha is a completely self-enlightened one (without help from another Buddha, direct or indirect).
Bodhisattva (in Theravada) is a being on its way to enlightenment.
Bodhisattva (in Mahayana) is an awakened being who vowed to indefinitely stick in Samsara for the sake of others.
Arhat (in Theravada) is a completely enlightened person (thanks to a Buddha's help).
Arhat (in Mahayana) is person who has attained Peace (of enlightenment) for him or herself, but not willing to give it up for the sake of others.
Deva is a non-human being invisible to the human eye.


Possible for worldling to practice the Ariyamagga, to walk it? People with wrong view often try to practice the Noble path for whatever purpose, but is it actually possible or doesn't it require stream entry first?

  "In a person of wrong view, wrong resolve comes into being. In a person of wrong resolve, wrong speech. In a person of wrong speech, wrong action. In a person of wrong action, wrong livelihood. In a person of wrong livelihood, wrong effort. In a person of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness. In a person of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration. In a person of wrong concentration, wrong knowledge. In a person of wrong knowledge, wrong release.

  "This is how from wrongness comes failure, not success."

  — AN 10.103

[Note, this question is not thought to keep one there where he/she is bond, for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism, but to offer release and go beyond]

I think that to ask "Is it possible for a worldling to walk the path?" is similar to asking "Is it possible for a person to become enlightened?"

I think the usual answer to the latter question is that enlightenment isn't personal and that notions of being a person aren't helpful, they're even a hindrance.

But the way the question is phrased -- "people with wrong view" -- sounds definitive, doesn't it.

I suppose it's useful to distinguish right from wrong view, maybe less helpful to judge people like that, to associate that with people, to condemn people, judge them, to assume they can't learn, and so on.

Imagine being a school teacher at the beginning of the year, and asking "Can these students pass the end-of-year exam?" An answer might be, "No they can't" -- because they haven't learned (haven't been taught) the subject yet, and therefore maybe can't practice properly either -- but that isn't the right way to see people (students).

From there I guess there's doctrine about buddha-nature or the seed of enlightenment, including Joshu's Dog

  Has a dog Buddha-nature?
  This is the most serious question of all.
  If you say yes or no,
  You lose your own Buddha-nature.

The answer might be obvious, but the last line suggests that the question wasn't about the dog.


Nature of dependent origination, and is Buddhism non-duality? Is dependent arising meant for us to understand the arising of suffering -- or is it also meant to describe how phenomena in the outside World arise dependent on other conditions (for instance how water and sun causes a flower to grow)?

I think Nagarjuna says that dependent origination is not only showing how suffering arises, but also how phenomena in the World arises. He uses a sutra in the Pali Canon where the Buddha said that this World is dominated by a duality of existence and non existence, then he continued, "when one sees the origination and cessation of the World existence and non existence do not occur to one anymore".

This seems to confirm what Nagarjuna said: that dependent origination is not only describing how suffering originates, but how phenomena in the World also originate -- isn't that so?

I have another question also: how would you describe Theravada, Mahayana, Vajryana and Tibetan Buddhism -- are they non dual or not? Please describe to me the logic why you answered the way you did also.

Is dependent arising meant for us to understand the arising of suffering

According to the Pali scriptures, yes. Refer to SN 12.2 or AN 3.61.

  or is it also meant to describe how phenomena in the outside World
  arises dependent on other conditions for instance how water and sun
  causes a flower to grow.

No. The Buddha taught about suffering & its cessation (MN 22; SN 56.31; AN 3.61; etc).

  I Think Nagarjuna says that dependent origination is not only
  showing how suffering arises but also how phenomena in the World
  arises.

Nagarjuna has his own philosophy. You are free to follow Nagarjuna rather than the Buddha.

  He uses a sutra in the Pali Canon where the Buddha said that this
  World is dominated by a duality of existence and non existence then he
  continued when one sees the origination and cessation of the World
  existence and non existence do not occur to one anymore.

The above is a misunderstanding of SN 12.15. Its funny how you think one single sutta that uses words (namely, "atthitañceva" & "natthitañca") that are difficult to translate defines what the Buddha taught. Possibly, the discussion of the word 'atthi' at this link can help you.

  This seems to confirm what Nagarjuna said that dependent
  origination is not only describing how suffering originate but how
  phenomena in the World also originate?.

No. When the Pali suttas use the word "world" ("loka"), this does not necessarily refer to the physical world. Refer to SN 12.44 and AN 4.45, which use the word "the world" synonymously with the word "suffering".

  I have Another question also how would you describe
  Thervada,Mahayana,Vajryana and Tibetan Buddhism are they non dual or
  not and please describe to me the logic why you answered the way you
  did also.

The Buddha did not teach "non-duality". Refer to my answer here.


What's the first thing that arises, from which everything else arise? Suppose you completely empty your mind of all thoughts. You go into complete emptiness of mind, where nothing is arising. Suppose that in that state you make a choice to arise a thought. If in that state a choice is made to arise a thought, "choice" is the arising of "this thought". "Choice" must be arisen before "this thought" is arisen. Is there something that must arise before "choice" in order for "choice" to arise?

What did the Buddha say is the first thing that arises that leads to the arising of thoughts?

Is the answer to this question in the twelve nidanas: "'mental fermentations/volitions' lead to the arising of thoughts"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nid%C4%81nas

As I see it, consciousness (vinnana) arises from 'mental fermentations/volitions' (sankhara). Then, from consciousness arise 'name and form' (namarupa), which is constituted of 'matter, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness' (skandhas). I see skandhas as thoughts. Thus, the first thing that arise is 'mental fermentations/volitions', which leads to the arising of thoughts. Is this correct?

Suppose you completely empty your mind of all thoughts

This is what happens when you go into deep sleep. When you don't dream, the mind falls back to the Bhavanga process. This is called the passive state of the mind. It is what keeps you alive, when there's no other thought. This Bhavanga process is the result of your birth Karma.

  Suppose that in that state you make a choice to arise a thought

No, you can't make any choices when you are in Bhavanga state. The Bhavanga process should first be interrupted by one of the sense doors. Volition comes much later in the process.

A complete thought process, occurring through the physical sense doors, is made up of seventeen thought moments (citta kha.na). These are:

A bhava"nga that flows by in a passive state when one of the five physical sense organs comes in contact with its object (atiita bhava"nga).
A bhava"nga that vibrates for one thought moment (bhava"nga calana).
A bhava"nga that cuts off the flow (bhava"nga upaccheda).
A citta that turns towards the object through the sense door that has been stimulated (pañcadvaara-vajjana).
The appropriate sense consciousness; in the case of the eye, for example, eye consciousness (cakkhu viññaa.na).
Next a thought moment — the sampa.ticchana citta — which has the function of receiving the object.
When the object has been received another thought moment, called the santiirana citta, arises, performing the function of investigating the object.
The act (kamma) itself, especially if it was a weighty one.

9 to 15. The object having been determined, the most important stage from an ethical standpoint follows. This stage, called javana, consists of seven consecutive thought moments all having an identical nature. It is at this stage that good or evil is done, depending on whether the cittas have wholesome or unwholesome roots. Therefore, these javana thought moments have roots and also produce new kamma.

16 and 17. Following the seventh javana the registering stage occurs, composed of two thought moments called tadaalambane. When the second registering citta has perished, the bhava"nga follows, flowing on until interrupted by another thought process.

As you can see, decision making starts at the 8th stage of the process.

  Thus, the first thing that arise is 'mental fermentations/volitions',
  which leads to the arising of thoughts.

The first unit of Paticca Samuppada is given as ignorance. But that doesn't mean it started from ignorance. There's no real starting point. It's like asking the starting point of a circle. It's wherever you hold it first. The standard Paticca Samuppada teaching spans over 3 consecutive lives. The past, the present and the future.


What is the water filter of Koṇāgamana? No matter how many different ways I search, I seem to get this exact/ALMOST exact phrase:"These relics include the staff of Kakusandha, the water filter of Koṇāgamana, a piece of the robe of Kassapa, and eight strands of hair from the ..." But I cannot find an explanation for it. This supposedly belonged to the "grandfather" Buddha to Gautama, aka Koṇāgamana (all according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_named_Buddhas), and Siddhartha  supposedly lived in the 6th century BCE. If there are 1,000 Buddhas per kalpa and 4.32 billion years in a kalpa, that means they average 4.32 million years between appearances. So, what could this "water filter" possibly consist of? Thank you for your input.

To be specific, I am interested in the history and historicity of this artifact. For example, when was it first mentioned? From where did it originate? How did it come to Shewdagon Pagoda? Etc...

It is believed there are relicts from the previous Buddhas' in the Shwedagon Pagoda. This is possible that such artifacts survived since it is within the world cycle Maha Kalpa.

All monks should carry a water filter to filter out insets from the water. I would believe this will not be any different. It will be a basic piece of cloth.


Cause, condition and effect in Buddhism If the result of one's karma is the combination of cause and condition, how does one account for all variables in the culmination of an effect?

If one is unable to include all variables, isn't that simply a limited view of the effect?

As others have mentioned it's not recommended to attempt to account for all the variables in karmic effects. Here is the basis for this. It's the third on a short list of what is called the Four Imponderables or Unconjecturables:

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas1 is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...2
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

From Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable
But while pondering the precise effects of karma is not something a person working toward Nirvana should do, as it's a distraction; a fully enlightened Buddha would know such effects.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile the Noble Ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

From Dvedhavitakka Sutta: Two Sorts of Thinking


Liberation is possible because of the transcendent quality of awareness beyond the Five Skandhas? I have been inquiring about the teachings including translations of scriptures with regards to 'Awareness that knows' here, here , here..

Specifically, in reference to the explanations given by most of the forest tradition, Ajahn's from Thailand and Translations by "Thanissaro Bhikkhu" who is also from the same tradition and has translated the bulk of pali cannon...

It seems to me that the illustrations given by the forest tradition have a somewhat distinctive view about this, for example, In this talk Ajan Amaro said Liberation is possible because of the transcendent quality of awareness beyond the Five Skandhas.

He said ...That which knows the five Skandhas is not intrinsically tied to the Five Skandhas. that which knows is not part of the five Skandhas / i.e. the five aggregates or heaps: form (or material image, impression) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana).

Could you please expound or explain further, how is this Awareness lokuttara and beyond the Skandhas?

Many thanks

There is no awareness beyond the khandhas.

There is no such thing as the "Thai Forest Tradition" having a uniform set of teachings. The "Thai Forest Tradition" is just a variety of different jungle gurus who made up their own versions of Buddhism.

Ajahn Amaro has wrong view when he said: "that which knows the khandhas is not part of the khandhas".

SN 22.48 refers to two types of five khandhas. Five khandhas without clinging and five khandhas with clinging.

SN 22.85 describes the end of the life of a Buddha as the ending of the five khandhas. Therefore, there are pure undefiled liberated khandhas.

  SN22.85:13.1: If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what would you answer?” “If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends, form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.” “Good, good, friend Yamaka!

"Lokuttara" means "beyond the world"; which means the mind not attached to the khandhas. SN 20.7 says "lokuttara" is "sunnata" ("emptiness"), which means "empty of self & anything pertaining/belonging to self". It is the mind that does not regard aggregates as "self". "The mind" is also a khandha. A khandha does not attach to the khandhas.

For example, the Buddha called liberation "cetovimutti" or "cittavimutti" (MN 30). Or Dhammapada 154 says the mind "citta" of the Buddha attained the unconditioned. "Citta" ("mind-heart") originates from nama-rupa (SN 47.42) therefore is part of the khandhas.

Or MN 43 says wisdom & consciousness are cojoined. Wisdom is required for liberation. SN 22.53 describes liberation in terms of freed consciousness. Consciousness is a khandha.

The Buddha never said liberation is possible because of the transcendent quality of awareness beyond the Five Skandhas. The Buddha did not even use the word "awareness", which is too broad or vague to correlate with a specific Pali world.

The Buddha said liberation was possible because the element of Nibbana exists (Ud 8.3). Nibbana is not the khandhas but is a sense object (ayatana; Ud 8.1) known by the khandhas.


Do meditation or chanting make one less agitated? Understand that meditation helps to calm one's mind and does it also helps one get less agitated and less affected towards the unnecessary?

What about chanting? Does it also have the same effect?

If one is patient and he/she naturally will not get frustrated easily and not easily irritated by minor stuffs. That does not mean he/she meditated or chanted to achieve such state of mind?

I'm actually asking for myself.

I'm not much of a patience person, short-tempered at times. I don't meditate but i do brief chanting occasionally. I used to do chanting when I was little and looking back, I feel like life was a little better back then and possibly less frustrated, not sure if it has anything to do with chanting.

Growing up, I felt as if life was so injustice and merciless and often got angry at myself and things around me.

Probably I care too much, i'm not sure. Things may not get on somebody else nerve but to me, it was so easy!

At work, at home, my surrounding, everything just seems so tough on me.
So I don't know what helps.

No, chanting does not make you less agitated. on the contrary, chanting makes puthujjanas more agitated and the buddha says it is a mistake for the bikkhus to chant, but the buddha allows ''intonation''.

The problem with chanting is that puthujjanas love to get carried away by the chant and as usual being carried away by the senses is the biggest mistake a puthujjana who wants to stop being unhappy can make.
So the bikkhus must avoid that in order for the bikkhus to stop creating suffering for the bikkhu and for and for the audience, so that the puthujjanas are not carried away by their words, which means preventing suffering in lay people. This is how somebody cares for oneself and for others, typically from having metta and doing karuna.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/vp/03.cv/vp.03.cv.05.03.horn.pts.htm

  Having given reasoned talk, he addressed the monks, saying:

  "Monks, there are these five disadvantages to one singing dhamma with
  a long-drawn plain-song sound:

  he is pleased with himself in regard to that sound, and others are
  pleased in regard to that sound,

  and housepeople look down upon,

  and while he is himself striving after accuracy in the sound[2] there
  is an interruption in his concentration,

  and people coming after fall into the way of (wrong) views.[3]

  These, monks, are the five disadvantages to one singing dhamma with a
  long-drawn plain-song sound.

  Monks, dhamma should not be sung with a long-drawn plain-song sound.

  Whoever should (so) sing it, there is an offence of wrong-doing."

  Now at that time monks were doubtful about intoning.[4]

  They told this matter to the Lord.

  He said:

  "Monks, I allow intoning."


What exactly is happiness, moods and states of the mind? Buddha mentioned that happiness is the greatest wealth. When going through the TED Happiness Topic, The habits of happiness, Depression, the secret we share, The struggle of mental health, All kinds of minds, How does my brain work?, What makes you happy?, etc. this left me wondering what exactly is happiness, moods and metal states in a Buddhists perspective. So what exactly is happiness? How is it the greatest wealth? How can happiness analysed using the Suttas and the Abhidhamma? How can this be extended to analyzing all moods and states of the mind?

I was always under the impression that happiness was our default setting, our buddha nature. If we remove "blow away or extinguish" all the labels, bindings, and habit energies that collect what is left is happiness. True Happiness is the default state we experience when we extinguish the fires that cause suffering. This cessation of suffering can also be described as complete peace.

It is a great wealth because it is the only thing that can bring us true liberation.


What is the relation between Astrology and Buddhism? Is there a relation between Buddhism and Astrology? Is Astrology present in all Buddhist traditions? Did the Buddha or his disciples make use of Astrology?

In terms of horoscopes, it is definitely not a Buddhist practice to explain one's future or decisions based on some external forces (planets).

However, phases of the Moon have some importance in Buddhism. Many significant events in Buddha's life coincided with the Full Moon - birth, giving first teachings or death, to name a few. Full Moon is also considered to be the Amitabha Buddha Day (Buddha of Limitless Light and the principal Buddha in Pure Land Buddhism). One can find full lunar calendars where different Moon phases are associated with various Buddhas, practices etc. One example of observance days based on the lunar calendar is Uposatha when practitioners intensify their practice and make conscious effort to keep the 5 precepts.

One may wonder why bother with the Moon. In the simplest terms, the reasoning behind it is that our body is mostly composed of water and just like the oceans, the body (with its energy channels) does react to the Moon phases.

The main point is that the Moon phases are not used to predict one's future but rather to mark favourable or auspicious days for specific practises. One could coordinate one's practise with the Moon so that in different days one could focus on specific Buddha forms or teachings. So the Moon should be considered as a support and not an oracle of some sort. It might be helpful but it is not necessary to follow it.


Are actions in computer games bad for karma? What if I play a bad person in a computer game, cheating people. Or I play an assassin who kills people. Or my character in a game belongs to some evil cult. Or I roleplay a thief and steal. Or my character has an affair with a woman without being married.

How are all these actions in a virtual reality close to actions in a real world from a buddhist point of view? Yes, I do not do them for real, but I still make these choices using my free will. So is it the same if I did all this in real life from? Are they bad for my karma?

There are two parts to karma: 1) external forces/energies you set in motion with your action and 2) latent tendencies and inclinations in your psyche - that later become your action and reaction, that then sets external forces in motion.

If you step away and look at it from a distance, there is really no hard line between "external" and "internal"; karma is a network of subtle potentialities.

Some of the potentialities are pretty subtle, yeah - like the ones involved in playing videogames - but they are still real. Very few of them translate 1:1 to analogous actions in real life though.

For example, mass-shooting in games is not even remotely the same karma as real murder, but you still separate "yourself" from "others", and you still desire good for one's own character at the expense of everyone else's. Amassing golden coins in game is not real, but you still go after "fruits", get frustrated when things you like a taken away and so on and so forth. Guess what kind of latent potentialities, however subtle, all this creates/reinforces?

Actually, when it comes to karma, "subtle" does not mean "weak". Some of our deepest hung-ups come from our subtlest preconceptions.

So I'd say in general the games you play may not create a lot of new karma, but they certainly reinforce your inner tendencies and preconceptions that keep you chained in samsara.


Is Buddhism in conflict with manliness? Is Buddhism in conflict with manliness?

I don't mean macho manliness but being a real man. To be man we have to compete, obtain resources and protect our families.
Could it be all achieved reasonably and with compassion? Could a man following Dhamma be a real, good man?

This is a question I ask myself for a very long time.
Thank you for your responses :)

OP: To be man we have to compete, obtain resources and protect our families. Could it be all achieved reasonably and with compassion?
  Could a man following Dhamma be a real, good man?

What you describe here is basically known as a householder or the head of a household in old times, and maybe even today.

The Sigalovada Sutta has plenty of good advice:

  The wise endowed with virtue
  Shine forth like a burning fire,
  Gathering wealth as bees do honey
  And heaping it up like an ant hill.

  Once wealth is accumulated,
  Family and household life may follow.
  By dividing wealth into four parts,
  True friendships are bound;

  One part should be enjoyed;
  Two parts invested in business;
  And the fourth set aside
  Against future misfortunes."

  "In five ways should a wife as the western direction be respected by a
  husband: by honoring, not disrespecting, being faithful, sharing
  authority, and by giving gifts.

  "And, the wife so respected reciprocates with compassion in five ways:
  by being well-organized, being kindly disposed to the in-laws and
  household workers, being faithful, looking after the household goods,
  and being skillful and diligent in all duties.

From the Dighajanu Sutta:

  "And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
  the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
  wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
  penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
  my outflow will not exceed my income.' Just as when a weigher or his
  apprentice, when holding the scales, knows, 'It has tipped down so
  much or has tipped up so much,' in the same way, the lay person,
  knowing the income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood
  in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus
  will my income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my
  income.' If a lay person has a small income but maintains a grand
  livelihood, it will be rumored of him, 'This clansman devours his
  wealth like a fruit-tree eater.' If a lay person has a large income
  but maintains a miserable livelihood, it will be rumored of him, 'This
  clansman will die of starvation.' But when a lay person, knowing the
  income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune,
  neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my
  income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my income,'
  this is called maintaining one's livelihood in tune.

From the Anana Sutta:

  "And what is the bliss of having? There is the case where the son of a
  good family has wealth earned through his efforts & enterprise,
  amassed through the strength of his arm, and piled up through the
  sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained. When he
  thinks, 'I have wealth earned through my efforts & enterprise, amassed
  through the strength of my arm, and piled up through the sweat of my
  brow, righteous wealth righteously gained,' he experiences bliss, he
  experiences joy. This is called the bliss of having.

  "And what is the bliss of [making use of] wealth? There is the case
  where the son of a good family, using the wealth earned through his
  efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of his arm, and
  piled up through the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously
  gained, partakes of his wealth and makes merit. When he thinks, 'Using
  the wealth earned through my efforts & enterprise, amassed through the
  strength of my arm, and piled up through the sweat of my brow,
  righteous wealth righteously gained, I partake of wealth and make
  merit,' he experiences bliss, he experiences joy. This is called the
  bliss of [making use of] wealth.

  "And what is the bliss of debtlessness? There is the case where the
  son of a good family owes no debt, great or small, to anyone at all.
  When he thinks, 'I owe no debt, great or small, to anyone at all,' he
  experiences bliss, he experiences joy. This is called the bliss of
  debtlessness.

From the Adiya Sutta:

  'My wealth has been enjoyed,
  my dependents supported,
  protected from calamities by me.

  I have given supreme offerings
  & performed the five oblations.

  I have provided for the virtuous,
  the restrained,
  followers of the holy life.

  For whatever aim a wise householder
  would desire wealth,
  that aim I have attained.
  I have done what will not
  lead to future distress.'

  When this is recollected by a mortal,
  a person established in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones,
  he is praised in this life and,
  after death, rejoices in heaven.

By practising the five precepts and other things, the householder can achieve stream entry. Please read the Gihi Sutta for more info on this.


Seven 10-day and one 20-day Goenka Course but no "good results" I have attended seven 10-day and one 20-day Goenka course, but never experienced either the "subtle sensations" or the "free flow."  I have stopped going to Goenka retreats because I get frustrated hearing about how after the first day I should be experiencing such and such, etc.  I still practice anapana for a couple of hours a day and study the Dhamma, and am resigned to being apparently incapable of having these experiences, which they also say are not important, lol. However, Goenka talks about them over and over in the courses and about how various people get "good results." I wonder if others have this experience also, and how they have dealt with it.

I would suggest you try another vipassana lineage. Goenka goes for body sensations only (AFAIK, later they add mind objects, but I only have 2nd-hand knowledge about it). Use a technique where all 4 foundations (body, feelings, mind, mind objects) are used from the very start could be useful; I am personally doing Chomtong-style practice (Ajahn Tong, a variant of Mahasi, dry-vipassana with lower concentration) and being exposed to e.g. difficult feelings and learn to acknowledge them and let go is extremely valuable for me. What I also find very useful is to have regular interviews with teacher on the retreat.

Meditation has good results if you have more clarity, understanding or yourself and others etc; in short, if your life is better. Experiences come and go and have little long-term relevance (despite the mind trying to persuade us this is it in that moment).


Does "dhatu" in Pali refer to "elements of experience"? I read the following on the internet:

  I think that in Buddhism the word refers to elements of experience --
  and that the words represent subjective or perceived qualities of a
  thing. For example, I don't know, ice might be hard and wet and
  not-hot so it seems to be composed or (or is perceived as having)
  those two elements.

Does "dhatu" in Pali refer to "elements of experience"?

As it was explained to me, dhatu means something like "aspect" or "tier". Meaning, it's a cross-cutting principle found in a whole that's delineated when you analytically disect the whole in a particular way.

So, when you analyze experience, you may delineate "the visual aspect" - present across many rather different experiences. When you analyze external dharmas, you may delineate "the aspect of solidity" present across many very different objects etc.

Today we could delineate e.g. the electromagnetic aspect, the chemical aspect, the  informational aspect. All are elements or principles of the whole observed as different "analytical planes".

ChrisW is not wrong to explain it as he did for the purpose of contrasting dhatu with the chemical elements of the periodic table. They are subjective inasmuch as it takes an act of analysis to delineate and "focus" on one dhatu at a time. Of course they are also objective because they are actual aspects of an ontological whole.

As part of the gradual instruction, Buddha taught basic phenomenological analysis, delineating dhatus such as "the seen", "the heard" etc.

The culmination of his teaching, though, is the notion of amrita-dhatu aka dharmadhatu, the most fundamental aspect of everything. Seeing this dhatu is seeing Nirvana. This dhatu can be described as the absolute reference point, substratum of all fluctuation.


why i have to resist itching/tingling sensations what to do with these sensations,these happens all day,why i have to resist to itch   i am wondering when i can simply itch that move on.

The point is not to resist the urge. The meditation is in observing the effect the itch has on the mind. Satipatthana meditation is defined with three qualities: Ardency, Alertness, and Mindfulness. Let us focus on the first quality here. Though note that all three apply.

"Ardency means being intent on what you're doing, trying your best to do it skillfully. This doesn't mean that you have to keep straining and sweating all the time, just that you're continuous in developing skillful habits and abandoning unskillful ones." - Thanissaro Bhikku

So in this context, we would want to itch in a skillfull way.
How does "Simply itching and moving on" effect us? How does giving into our urges when they come about serve us?
Does giving into the minds urges immediately lead you towards the goal or away from it? Each moment you are conditioning your mind (your kamma). Conditioning your mind to reactivity can lead to unskillful qualities if not done with headfulness.
I encourage you to scratch the itch and observe how your mind reacts. Then don't scratch it and observe it. Does there need to be discomfort because of the itch.
Recall the Five Subjects of Frequent Recollection:

Kammassakomhi kamma-dāyādo kamma-yoni kamma-bandhu kamma-paṭisaraṇo.

I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and live dependent on my actions.

Yaṁ kammaṁ karissāmi kalyāṇaṁ vā pāpakaṁ vā tassa dāyādo bhavissāmi.

Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.

Evaṁ amhehi abhiṇhaṁ paccavekkhitabbaṁ.

We should often reflect on this.


What is the Buddhist point of view of the Law of Attraction? I've been practicing it and it seems to work well.

It seems that I can explain this in terms of nash equilibrium. I tend to see it that all of us are already physically able to achieve much and paying attention to some topic will subconsciously allow us to manifest what we want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_attraction_(New_Thought)

Buddhism teaches that there are laws that govern human nature. There are laws of living objects. There are laws of karma.

Is the law of attraction one such law?

By the way, I tend to see Buddhism as a way to understand life instead of as a religion. I am not Buddhist but I see that there is some truth in what Buddha taught. So that's my background.

My understanding of the Law of Attraction is that it is a way to affect what happens to you by thinking about what you want to have happen. If you want to receive money; you think about receiving money.

In Buddhism, the goal is to understand reality as it is. Understanding reality as it is, involves accepting reality as it is. Manipulating circumstances to provide material benefits for oneself would not really be a part of this. The teachings of the Buddha would guide one to giving up many desires rather than chasing after them; as I understand it.

One thing in Buddhism that might be similar is when some Buddhists take a vow to become a Boddhisatta/Boddhisatva. This vow sets their mind and intentions upon becoming a future Buddha . But my understanding of the Law of Attraction is that it is more in the here and now while a vow to become a future Buddha might have to be kept for many, many lifetimes to come to fruition.


Buddhism and fornication Most of the people follow the 3rd precept of lay buddhism without knowing the actual meaning of it. Personally, even I don't know the actual meaning of it. Most of the people including me understand it as, "not practicing adultery outside marriage". But I know there's more than that. I simply don't know what.

Can you give a clear answer for this two questions.

What is the actual meaning of the 3rd precept?
What does it(the 3rd precept) say about "fornication"?

There are four conditions for wrong conduct in sexual pleasures.

There must be a man or woman with whom it is improper to
have sexual intercourse.
There must be intention to have sexual intercourse with such a
person.
Action must be taken to have such an intercourse.
There must be enjoyment from contact of the sexual organs.

With reference to the first condition, there are twenty kinds of
women with whom men should have no sexual relations. They can
be divided into three groups, namely:

women under the
guardianship of parents, family members, relatives and authorities
charged with their care;
married or betrothed women;
bhikkhunis and religious women observing the Holy Life.

For all women,

a man forbidden by tradition or
under religious rules

is prohibited as a partner.

If someone is an unwilling partner, who is drugged or forced to
have sexual intercourse under threat of violence or coercion,
conditions (2) and (4) exclude them from having violated the precept.

Source: FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA) - urbandharma.org

It is also sexual misconduct when one engages a partner at an inappropriate time, such as when a woman is pregnant, or when she is nursing. It is unethical to take the mother away from the baby for sex. It is also misconduct to have sex at inappropriate places, such as at places of worship.

Source: The Third Precept: Abstain from Sexual Misconduct

Also it is sometimes considered Poya / Uposatha is in appropriate time to have sex.

In addition, outside the bedroom is considered an inappropriate place in some interpretations.

As for the question about fornication: if the partner belongs to a category you should not have sex with, then you break the precept.


Are social interactions always helpful in solving problems? Whenever there is a problem we socialize. When we are sick we go to a doctor. When we are hungry we go to a cook. When we want to laugh we go to a movie.

My question is : are these social interactions always helpful in solving our problems ? Is "if problem then socialize with right people" formula always helpful ?

Not always:

If you're sick and go to someone who's not a doctor, who's incompetent or a thief, that won't help (except perhaps as a placebo)
If you're sick with an incurable (untreatable) illness and go to a doctor, that won't help (well it might help with managing symptoms and explaining what's happening)

The Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) details long lists of examples and differences, between "good socialising" and "bad socialising" for lay people.
I think Buddhism includes two themes:

Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
Maha-parinibbana Sutta (DN 16)

and:

As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.
Upaddha Sutta (SN 45.2)


Meditation techniques for beginners? As a beginning meditator, the techniques I typically use are:

Counting breaths, restarting at 10 (learned in Japan).
Envisioning, with warm feelings, all of my friends and family around me in a large circle (learned in Florida).
Attempting to feel the minute sensations from each different part of my body (learned in Florida).
Focusing on identifying as many distinct sounds as possible, particularly when in nature (my own).

Are there any other techniques recommended for beginning meditators?

Counting breaths on phalanges (with thumb) - up to 12*12=144.
"Tonglen": breathing in all the suffering of the world, breathing out happiness.
Gladdening one's mind through "noble" posture and facial expression.
Zen-style. Just sitting, no matter what happens. "Don't go with the thoughts, don't go against the thoughts".
Energy. Identify blobs of emotional energy on and around body and dismiss.
Minimizing the amplitude. Watch the diaphragm when breath reverses direction and keep reducing the tension/effort.
Bowing meditation (aka half-prostration).
Bamboo meditation. Stand up with eyes closed and slowly rock back and forth while focusing on the centers of the feet.
Dahnmu (energy dance). Stand up with eyes closed and move freely as your body wants expressing yourself.


Sunday-question: Learning Dhamma at working time, on other recource It might be the case that someone uses to engage into entertaining with Dhamma reads and talks in his working time, or uses resources of other for such, yet not really given, just like one may chat or do whatever private while in the office.

What might be the effects of such deeds? Would it be possible to get long term benefit from doing so? Possible to gain good while thinking, acting, like a thief?

[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism or other entertaining that keeps one caught but for liberation.]

Bad kamma. The Buddha said:

  The servants and employees thus ministered to as the Nadir by their
  master show their compassion to him in five ways:

  (i) they rise before him, (ii) they go to sleep after him, (iii) they
  take only what is given, (iv) they perform their duties well, (v) they
  uphold his good name and fame.

  DN 31

But if a person is self-employed and their work day does not require 8 hours work per day then its no problem. If the self-employed person has free time during their work day in their office then discussing Dhamma is good kamma.


Difference between buddhasasana and buddhadhamma Is it correct to say that the buddhasasana (the teaching of the Buddha) is conditioned and impermanent in contrary with Dhamma itself which is unconditioned and permanent.

Is it correct to say that the buddhasasana (the teaching of the Buddha) is conditioned and impermanent in contrary with Dhamma itself which is unconditioned and permanent.

No.

Sasa = verb (Teach)

Sasana = noun (Discipline&Doctrine;teaching)

Dhamma = Discipline&Doctrine

BuddhaSasana = Discipline&Doctrine of the Buddha

Sutta. Tī. Pā. Udumbarikasuttaṃ:

  Let a sensible person come—neither devious nor deceitful, a person of integrity. I teach (aham-anusāsāmi) and instruct them doctrine (Dhamma). By practicing as instructed they will realize the supreme end of the spiritual path in this very life, in seven years.

  Ahaṃ  pana  nigrodha  evaṃ  vadāmi etu viññū puriso asaṭho amāyāvī   ujujātiko   ahamanusāsāmi   ahaṃ   dhammaṃ  desemi  yathānusiṭṭhaṃ tathāpaṭipajjamāno     yassatthāya    kulaputtā    sammadeva    agārasmā anagāriyaṃ   pabbajanti   tadanuttaraṃ  brahmacariyapariyosānaṃ  diṭṭhe  va  dhamme sayaṃ   abhiññā   sacchikatvā   upasampajja   viharissati   satta  vassāni .

Dhamma in your context is a part of Buddhasasana. To consider abot it, the  Buddha taught in Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūḷasaccakasuttaṃ:

  'Form is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant. Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. All conditioners are inconstant. All phenomena (Dhamma) are not-self.' This, Aggivessana, is the way in which I discipline my disciples; this part of my instruction is generally presented to my disciples."

  rūpaṃ  bhikkhave aniccaṃ   vedanā   aniccā  saññā  aniccā  saṅkhārā  aniccā  viññāṇaṃ aniccaṃ   rūpaṃ   bhikkhave   anattā   vedanā   anattā   saññā  anattā saṅkhārā    anattā   viññāṇaṃ   anattā   sabbe   saṅkhārā   anattā sabbe   dhammā  anattāti  evaṃ  kho  ahaṃ  aggivessana  sāvake  vinemi evaṃbhāgā ca pana me sāvakesu anusāsanī bahulā pavattatīti.

By above Sutta:

All aggregates are conditioners (each others) because they are same inconstant.
All aggregates are Dhamma because both of them are same not-self.
So some Dhamma, Nibbāna and Sammati, is not conditioned and not inconstant.

-Nibbana is not conditioned, not constant, and not-self. It is reality which never arising, no aggregates at all. It's real because it is the opposite of all aggregates, not based on any aggregates. People can access Nibbana by the complete Vipassana, Magga.

-Conception, Sammati, is not conditioned, not constant, and not-self. It is unreal and never arise, just imagination based on aggregates. Every people can access Sammati. Some people can use Sammati in meditating Lokiya-Jhāna to avoid craving in aggregates, but it is impermanent avoidance because minds create Sammati from thinking of aggregates, therefore it is possible to crave aggregates again in the future, so Sammati is not the perfect opposite of aggregates. However Lokiya-Jhāna is still important for Vipassanā meditation.


Does any modern Buddhist sangha still support slavery? Also, in the ordination rules ceremony slaves are excluded from the possibility of ordaining. ref. Has any modern sangha made a point of allowing current or former slaves to ordain?

Historically landed Buddhist monasteries have owned slaves. ref At least this appears to be over.

UPDATE: Ancient slavery and modern slavery look different. Modern slavery generally is tolerated, but officially illegal. Example include prostitution in Japan, where immigrant women often can't quit or flee their "employeers" because the police won't assist illegal immigrants or "guest workers" trying to do something else on a guest visa.

Also, a theme in ancient restrictions in joining the sangha was that someone who owed someone something (not necessarily full on slavery) wasn't allowed to join (e.g. need to get permission from parents and spouses). So would a modern sangha turn away a soldier who had deserted or dodged the draft?

Or even further down the spectrum of slavery-- what if someone was just heavily in debt to their boss, bank and so on?

I'm particularly interested in what the modern institutions are doing. I'd google it myself, but I'm mostly find references to how the situation was long ago.

Following are some of the requirements for ordination which are relevant to this question.

Must never have committed any grievous crimes.
Should be of good reputation.
Should not be in debt.
Not subject to government service.
Having permission from parents or guardian.

So prostitutes may not be accepted as they are not of good reputation.
Immigrant workers who are unable to find other work may not be accepted, if they are just looking for a means of getting free food and easy life. People who are in debt won't be accepted as per conditions mentioned above. A deserter may not be accepted as he can be seen as still subjected to government service or someone who is evading the law of the country. But he might be accepted in a different country. A child will not be accepted without the consent of parents. A wife may not be accepted if she is still legally married to someone and does not have his permission.

Buddhist society recognises only four groups. Monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen. Lay people can never be slaves to the Sangha as whatever support they provide is alway voluntary. Also, the Sangha would not recommend slavery, even if it's an accepted practice in the society. Ex: Prostitution is an accepted practice in some countries. But not ordaining a prostitute doesn't mean that the Sangha recommends prostitution.


Barriers to Compassion I think most would say that anger and prejudice are the main obstacles to compassion, but I'm wondering on the topic of sympathetic joy. If everything is empty, and suffering, and impermanent, how can we be happy for the joys of others which are empty, and ultimately suffering? I feel like being happy for a joy which is in fact suffering is like being glad someone took poison. I would like to develop compassion for other's joys--the real joys that will further their lives--but I find most of the things people are satisfied by detrimental things. Any thoughts?

EDIT: Also, I wonder how, since everything is intrinsically empty, one can truly be happy for events occurring to someone else since they have no absolute effects. This would imply one would have to be happy for the happy emotions others have in themselves rather than what occurs, but once again, but Buddha explained these as suffering, even the most blissful states.

With practice, you can be content by reflecting on the good karma of others rather than joy or happiness. It is very close, if not the same, to praise. For example, if someone you're showing compassion to is now able to feel happy, then you can think "Now this person has the opportunity to practice dhamma since his problems are lesser. This is good". Maybe you can go further and help the person practice dhamma even for a second. This way, you don't cultivate thoughts that nurture attachment, nor do you appreciate any wrong joy or happiness in the other person you helped (such as thanha).


What are the elements (Mahābhūta) references in the Sarvastivada Satipaṭṭhāna? According to Satipatthana Mula (By Sujato Bhikkhu edited by Piya Tan) Dharmaskandha references 6 elements that the traditional 4 elements in Theravada. They are not explicitly mentioned in the text. What are these elements? What are the citation for this in English? Does this coincide with the 6 elements in the Theravada Abhidhamma?

I'm not sure if there're English versions out there. Anyway, Chapter 9 of the Dharmaskandha's Chinese version, the Foundations of Mindfulness, refers to the same Mahabhuta as the Pali version: earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness. ("唯有種種地界水界火界風界空界識界。如是思惟諸界相時。")


Specific sutta in the Tipitaka: Where did the Buddha compare leaves in the forest to his knowledge? I'm trying to find the sutta in where the Buddha is walking through a forest with his disciples. He then picks up a handful of leaves and says that what he teach is comparable to the leaves in his hand and what he did not teach is comparable to the amount of leaves in the forest.

Help would be much appreciated.

Lanka

You are probably after the Simsapa Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html


Growth, increase, landing, establishing of consciousness The following quotes talk about consciousness. Through relishing, intending or having underlying tendencies, consciousness would grow, increase, mature, land, establish.

What does growth, increase, maturing, landing and establishing of consciousness mean in this case?

Are these simply different ways of talking about craving and clinging?

Or is there another interpretation?

When it comes to relishing, it sounds like the craving and clinging of sensual pleasures (kama) based on sensations that are cognized (based on SN 22.79's statement that consciousness is that which cognizes).

When it comes to intending, it sounds like the craving and clinging of becoming (bhava) based on mental ideas that are cognized (based on SN 22.79's statement that consciousness is that which cognizes).

From SN 22.53:

  As long as consciousness remains, it would remain involved with form,
  supported by form, founded on form. And with a sprinkle of relishing,
  it would grow, increase, and mature.
  Rūpupayaṃ vā, bhikkhave, viññāṇaṃ
  tiṭṭhamānaṃ tiṭṭheyya, rūpārammaṇaṃ rūpappatiṭṭhaṃ nandūpasecanaṃ
  vuddhiṃ virūḷhiṃ vepullaṃ āpajjeyya.

And the same applies to other aggregates apart from form.

From SN 12.38:

  “Mendicants, what you intend or plan, and what you have underlying
  tendencies for become a support for the continuation of consciousness.
  “Yañca, bhikkhave, ceteti yañca pakappeti yañca anuseti, ārammaṇametaṃ
  hoti viññāṇassa ṭhitiyā.

  When this support exists, consciousness becomes established.
  Ārammaṇe
  sati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa hoti.

  When consciousness is established and grows, there is rebirth into a
  new state of existence in the future.
  Tasmiṃ patiṭṭhite viññāṇe
  virūḷhe āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti hoti.

As an additional reference from SN 22.79:

  “And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes, ’
  bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness. And what does it
  cognize? It cognizes sour, it cognizes bitter, it cognizes pungent, it
  cognizes sweet, it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild, it cognizes
  salty, it cognizes bland. ‘It cognizes,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is
  called consciousness.

I think that what you quoted is the converse of SN 12.64 -- which describes how consciousness doesn't grow or become established, i.e. as a result of not "landing".

I guess an analogy is if you have a seed or seedling which lands somewhere then its roots become involved and it grows -- or, it is doesn't land, then it doesn't.

  Suppose there was a bungalow or a hall with a peaked roof, with windows on the northern, southern, or eastern side. When the sun rises and a ray of light enters through a window, where would it land?” “On the western wall, sir.” “If there was no western wall, where would it land?” “On the ground, sir.” “If there was no ground, where would it land?” “In water, sir.” “If there was no water, where would it land?” “It wouldn’t land, sir.” “In the same way, if there is no desire, relishing, and craving for solid food, consciousness does not become established there and doesn’t grow. …

I think I agree with what you said, i.e. that you attach to what's cognized, make plans based on whats's cognized.

But perhaps it's saying the converse too, i.e. that when attaching (or on attaching) to something then the consciousness lands there and evolves -- e.g. glimpse something, feel attracted, then gaze at it, further resolve details of it and fit those into the idea of what's attractive, etc.

I think that's called "grasping signs" -- I don't know the best example of that, but one is e.g. SN 35.235

  You’d be better off mutilating your eye faculty with a red-hot iron nail, burning, blazing and glowing, than getting caught up in the features by way of the details in sights known by the eye.
  Varaṃ, bhikkhave, tattāya ayosalākāya ādittāya sampajjalitāya sajotibhūtāya cakkhundriyaṃ sampalimaṭṭhaṃ, na tveva cakkhuviññeyyesu rūpesu anubyañjanaso nimittaggāho.

  For if you die at a time when your consciousness is still tied to gratification in the features or details, it’s possible you’ll go to one of two destinations:
  Nimittassādagathitaṃ vā, bhikkhave, viññāṇaṃ tiṭṭhamānaṃ tiṭṭheyya, anubyañjanassādagathitaṃ vā tasmiñce samaye kālaṃ kareyya, ṭhānametaṃ vijjati, yaṃ dvinnaṃ gatīnaṃ aññataraṃ gatiṃ gaccheyya


Vinaya Rule of a Monk saying he's an arahant Is there a rule where if a monk is an arahant and if he is to tell he is an arahant, he can only say it to a Upasampada monk and not even a samanera monk?

If so, please provide the source of the rule

According to the Patimokkha rules:

  Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, claim a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision, as present in
  himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless
  of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he — being
  remorseful and desirous of purification — might say, "Friends, not
  knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see — vainly, falsely,
  idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no
  longer in affiliation.
  Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed.

But above, there are no distinctions made between fully ordained monks and novice monks.


Is Will Power required to renounce sense pleasures? Is there will power & endurance required in order to renounce worldy pleasures? I am particularly speaking of those people who did not experience (profound) meditative bliss à la sukha or various jhanic states yet.

Regards

In Pali Canon, Buddha gives the following image of Will Power:

  Gladly would I let the flesh & blood in my body dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if I have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing my persistence.

According to my teacher, if you look at Will Power closely, you will see that it's actually made out of multiple distinct factors:

Inspiration - first, we're inspired by an example of the teacher or the beauty of a tradition.

Objective - because we're inspired by an image of happiness, freedom, perfection etc., we want to attain it, we want to be like the Buddha or like our teacher.

Commitment - then we make a firm decision. In case of renouncing worldly pleasures it's a firm decision to not enage in worldly pleasures. In case of abandoning negative thinking, it's a firm decision to not cultivate the negative thinking. In case of cultivation of suchness, it's a firm decision to not think that you lack any further achievements etc.

Cultivation - now that we have made the decision, we must stick to it despite all sorts of obstacles and distractions, including the ones that disrupt our Commitment by distracting us into other frames of reference in which the original Objective does not make sense. So we repeatedly engage our attention with stimuli that help sustain and generate the right kind of Inspiration and we avoid the stimuli that mess with our Commitment.

Forbearance - as we do the above, we keep running into situations that result in psychological pain because of the conflict between our commitment and the distracting stimuli pulling us in other directions. This type of pain is inevitable side-effect of practice and we must learn to endure it.

Taken together, these factors constitute Will Power. It is important to understand the exact mechanics of how the will power works, rather than naively assuming we can achieve success by applying brute force.

The first two factors happen automatically, without our control. We get inspired by an idea and we want to be like that, too. The other three factors depend on us. We must make a firm determination or commitment to stick to a specific frame of reference. We must guard our minds from distractions and demotivators. We must seek inspiration again and again, by turning our attention to and going over the inspiring ideas, in order to keep our motivation high. We must be prepared to face the conflict-generating aspect of commitment and the pain it creates. Without putting effort in these three factors, our original inspiration will die out very fast.

So while Will Power matters, what's important in Buddhism is developing skilful means for working with (mental) causes and their effects.


Sense of calmness in meditation, what is it? In a first 10 day vipassana meditation course I did almost continuous intensive meditation for 7 days ,I felt a strange calmness such that I could almost not feel the weight of my body , this feeling lasted till 2-3 days and then I stopped doing it, So what is that feeling called and is it common after meditation? Also after I resumed the meditation then I could not get back the same feeling (nor was I seeking for it).

The sensation of the body 'feeling heavy', very relaxed, 'numb' or almost as if it's disappearing is quite normal. When there is nothing new happening, sort of, when bodily sensations don't change, the mind 'loses interest' and kind of deactivates those sense inputs. This can be beneficial for focusing on the mind experience, since there are no longer as many body sensations impinging on the attention.

Going looking for the same sensations again can get you stuck instead of moving forward, so it sounds like a good idea not to seek it, as you mention. More likely, you may experience different types of calmness and other experiences, when you let go and are not chasing an experience you've had, previously.

The calmness you are referring to, sounds like samadhi - a deep calmness brought about by "single pointedness of mind". In deepest samadhi, absorption is so complete that all sense of "self" disappears, and subject and object are completely absorbed into each other. However, there are many kinds and levels of samadhi.

Wikipedia: Samadhi


Which materials exist on the construction and origin of kōans? A further question: is there an online community that creates kōans?
Thank you so much!

John

This book might be useful: The Koan. Texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism. By Steven Heine e.a. With contributions from several specialists in the field


Is this nibbana or god? There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. (Sutta pitaka , khuddaka nikaya , udana 8:3)

That is Nibbana, and not god or Brahman or any kind of Ultimate Reality. It is that which is experienced by the mind, when it is completely free of all fetters and defilements.

I quote from this answer below. Please see that answer for details.

  So, Nibbana is not a thought of the mind, not a concept of the mind,
  not a state of the mind, not a state of consciousness and also not a
  feeling. However, when the mind experiences this Nibbana, which is not
  conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not
  arising, not ceasing and not changing, it experiences bliss. The mind
  can therefore experience Nibbana, but it cannot feel it or think about
  it.

  Sukha or happiness for an unenlightened person is experienced when
  encountering pleasant feelings (from the six senses) or when
  encountering the cessation of painful feelings (from the six senses).
  But for an arahat, sukha or bliss (in this context) is experienced
  when encountering neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana.


Playing with sensations/heat I am a Vipassana meditator and in the last 2-3 years am noticing that someone is playing with my aura/heat and sensations all the time. I have no idea where to get help. It is coming in the way of my meditation practice. I know it is a person who is playing with it ... Looking for help for where I can connect with.

Thanks
Archana

Still, calm, tranquilize your mind. Talk to this entity as though it were a person in your ordinary world.

Such things can happen by accident. Generally we have 'shields' (really just agreements between peoples ... now being ignored wholesale by data miners ... that are usually not breached, but sometimes two people can have such complimentary thoughts that one can slip into the consciousness of another.

One also becomes aware of the non-existence of real barriers between minds when practicing meditation. This is why training in good will and ethical conduct is so important a prerequisite for successful meditating. Become aware of your thoughts and trim them up properly.

Example: you may find yourself worked up about politics and focus on some leader with anger at his positions. Think about what the results of that would be if you were face-to-face with this leader. Your interactions with 'phantom' beings in meditation must be as carefully conducted as are your relations in the so-called 'real' world.

Invasion of another's mind is really only contact with another's mind. This being is not 'inside' your mind, but is only able to influence it as in a face-to-face conversation. But when the invadee is unaware (and almost everyone is unaware), a malicious invader can pretend to be the other's mind and this will be perceived as 'my thoughts' by the victim. If you feel the force is malicious, practice metta: "May you be well and happy!" With Feeling! And, oh yes, I nearly forgot: ulimately, no thoughts are 'your thoughts'; if you can see that, your problem is solved. Short of that you need to strengthen your identity with the Dhamma such that outside forces are easily recognized by you.

If you are being attacked because you have done something harmful to this entity, apologize. If you don't know what you may have done, ask. The answer should make your symptoms look like a simile for the problem and its results. Figure out what you should have done and let this entity know you are attempting to change.

This is likely also to be physical. The idea of an invading entity and physical disability is not mutually exclusive. But throwing off heat is frequently a symptom of purging of poisons (which could be the result of some bad deed done to this entity) and is a good thing when the throwing off is complete. If you cannot get any response from this 'entity (but be careful, response may not be as you expect; the communication may not be verbal, it may be pictorial, it may be a startling intuition) assume it is internal to yourself and look for either a habit you should break or a habit you are breaking that has withdrawal symptoms. Age too can cause symptoms such as you describe.

Take the Refuges. Find a Bhikkhu near you and ask to be given the refuges. This is the first step in becoming a Buddhist and, doubt it if you will, is powerful protective magic power. Then get involved in Sutta Study. The mind recognizes the superior power of the clear thinking that is contained in the suttas and by attention to that rises above the scope of malicious entities. Guaranteed!

Here is a link to the Sutta Index of multiple sets of sutta translations. Start from the first, or jump in anywhere: most suttas were given to people who would never see the Buddha a second time and so were constructed such as to lead to the goal no matter how brief the instruction.
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sutta_toc.htm

Of course you can also stick with the consensus reality that such things do not exist and end up in an asylum because you are crazy.


Need more information about samanera or sramanera in India(Theravada tradition)? I am planning to be samanera or sramanera for now. Later, would like to be a buddhist monk. I am interested in Theravada tradition. I live in India. But I have no idea what is the procedure to be one or to whom to contact for that. Is there anyone who can guide me on this?

There is the Maha Bodhi Society in India. They have monastic training centers in Bengaluru and Hyderabad.

There's another monastery called the Mahabodhi Jetavana Monastery in Ladakh.

I found these through Google, to be honest.


How closely related are the concepts of Karma and Pavlovian conditioning? If I get into a habit of fighting to defend "my self" is it reasonable to say that getting into a fight and getting beat up is karma?

How similar is karma to the idiom "you reap what you sow"?

While habits are part of the workings of karma, it is not reasonable to say that what you described (habit to fight leads to beating) is Buddhist notion of karma. It may be correct other way around, though—some unwholesome karma is ripening while you exercise habit to fight.

Karma is similar to idiom "you reap what you sow" but with some added complexity. What you will reap is not need to be the same or feel the same as what you sow. In Buddhist concept of karma, unwholesome actions, when sown, will certainly reap into unwholesome fruits. What will be reaped is not mirror of what is sown, but it is consequence of what was sown. So when you sow action that should result in suffering, you will reap suffering for sure.


How does killing bear consequences? How can I explain to a non follower of the dhamma that killing living beings intentionally has mental and physical consequences?

This person started saying: "old hunter-gatherers, had no consequences nor problems with hunting". If I tell them this is the Buddhist point of view they are going to label it as religious mystical nonsense.

How can I explain to a non follower of the dhamma that killing living beings intentionally has mental and physical consequences?

Kamma is intention. The intention dictates the mental and physical consequences.

  This person started saying: "old hunter-gatherers, had no consequences nor problems with hunting".

Correct. They hunted for food; to feed their children; following the cycle of life; how nature created them.

  If I tell them this is the Buddhist point of view they are going to label it as religious mystical nonsense.

The above appears to be your personal point of view rather than a Buddhist point of view. If the above idea was Buddhist, there would be specific quotes from scriptures to support this idea; where the Buddha instructed people to not kill for food. Obviously, in the Buddha's time, people would have asked him the same questions about how to gather food. Obviously, the later monks decided such questions did not warrant inclusion in the scriptures. We know the Buddha never taught vegetarianism because he allowed monks to eat meat from almsfood. The Buddha appeared concerned about killing with wanton violence (rather than about how people feed themselves).


Infinite loops of Rebirths I have a question.

A man should attain enlightenment to liberate himself from cycle of rebirths and every other aspects.

What if a MAN don't even care to try out to attain enlightenment. Will he be stuck in a cycle and no place to stop his process of rebirth until he attains enlightenment.

Does he be a prisoner of this birth cycle. Is there no way for him to escape until he attains Enlightenment. What is the end of this birth cycle?

I don't have in-depth knowledge in Buddhism or the question I ask. So please correct me if I am wrong.

Vimalakirti Sutra:

  Śāriputra: Goddess, where will you be born when you transmigrate after death?

  Goddess: I will be born where all the magical incarnations of the Tathāgata are born.

  Śāriputra: But the emanated incarnations of the Tathāgata do not transmigrate nor are they born.

  Goddess: All things and living beings are just the same; they do not transmigrate nor are they born!

  Śāriputra: Goddess, how soon will you attain the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood?

  Goddess: At such time as you, elder, become endowed once more with the qualities of an ordinary individual, then will I attain the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood.

  Śāriputra: Goddess, it is impossible that I should become endowed once more with the qualities of an ordinary individual.

  Goddess: Just so, reverend Śāriputra, it is impossible that I should attain the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood! Why? Because perfect enlightenment stands upon the impossible. Because it is impossible, no one attains the perfect enlightenment of buddhahood.

  Śāriputra: But the Tathāgata has declared: “The tathāgatas, who are as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, have attained perfect buddhahood, are attaining perfect buddhahood, and will go on attaining perfect buddhahood.”

  Goddess: Reverend Śāriputra, the expression “the buddhas of the past, present, and future” is a conventional expression made up of a certain number of syllables. The buddhas are neither past, nor present, nor future. Their enlightenment transcends the three times! But tell me, elder, have you attained the state of arhat?

  Śāriputra: It is attained, because there is no attainment.

  Goddess: Just so, there is perfect enlightenment because there is no attainment of perfect enlightenment.


Does the wicked have a better bargain at death in Buddhism? Does the wicked have a better bargain at death in Buddhism considering that there are no soul to transmigrate?

Let's assume there are two persons A and B, born to similar condition. Person A surround himself with virtuous people, learn the Dhamma and practice it. Person B surround himself with wicked people, don’t respect the Dhamma and does evil deed.

In this very life, both persons have conditioned free will, but person A open for himself preferable condition of choice by acting virtuously. For example, the joy of virtuous act as a condition to be preferred is only open to person A, person B will never feel this joy until he correct his volition. Likewise, both persons feel sensual pleasure the same, but person B crave for more endlessly, and he live in want.

Person A been compassionate to all beings future or present he delighted when he hear that, at time of death, because of his virtuous act the mindstream-continuum will form another being in favorable condition.

Person B is also happy when he hear the fruit of karma at death,because been evil he care less for condition of future beings and he is also happy that his life of want and endless craving will end at death, and he will be no more.

Does the wicked have a better bargain at death in Buddhism considering that there are no soul to transmigrate?

Though there is no soul (unchanging, eternal core in a being) there is a dependently arisen continuity of a person. If your are wicked, you continue in lower realms which are dominated by suffering, through like other doctrines this is not internal. In other words there is a continuum in the form of a causality driven process, but there is not solid, unchanging entity or part as person.

There is a probabilistic element what will be your last mind as this decides the next birth. In balance of probability your last mind will be good only if have done a great lot of good deeds near your death and habitually being doing good deeds. Also you do not know whether you die young or old so you have to cultivate goodness whenever you can.

Also being born in the different realms are like gravity. Lower realms attract the most. Also there is a higher chance that a bad thought will pop up at the last moment. So majority of humans end up lower. If you were to have a chance of getting to a higher realm you have to be very good. Therefore, it is the good that has some bargain for an upgrade from where they are.

  Person A surround himself with virtuous people, learn the Dhamma and practice it.

Good friends are the main cause of being able to practice the Dhamma.

  Person A surround himself with virtuous people, learn the Dhamma and practice it.

You should be careful when you act. If you act unwisely the result will not be desirable? If you are wise and act accordingly you will be able to reap favorable results.

  crave for more endlessly, and he live in want

Unsatisfied desires is also a source of misery and stress. This produces additional karma which also result in stress.

  happy that his life of want and endless craving will end at death, and he will be no more.

Reality is not what someone believes. Generally believes are far from reality. Dhamma is reality. You need to know it at the experiential level.

A person with the roots (craving, aversion or ignorance for lower rebirths and unselfishness, hatefulness and undecidedness for higher rebirths) will always be reborn. A person who is not liberate will have the roots. Also see: The Roots of Good and Evil by Nyanaponika Thera


Seeking a specific book on Buddhism Back in the late 1980s I was in San Francisco on business. My hotel room had, of course, a Gideon Bible but surprisingly to me, it also had a book on Buddhism, I think it was called "The Way of the Buddha" but I'm not sure. It was put out, I believe, by an organization called something like The Buddhist Society of San Francisco.
I took and read it multiple time years later. It served as my really basic introduction to Buddhism and it led me down the path to discovering mindfulness meditation. Note, I don't consider myself a Buddhist now but I'm open to learning.
I'd like to find that book again. I'm not sure it was a Dhammapada but some googling suggests that it may be. I may be wrong but a Dhammapada sounds fairly scholarly, this book had an easy reading feel to it.  It did remind me some of a Christian Bible, containing stories about the Buddha.

Did some googling.
The Buddha Way
by Harper San Francisco
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-buddha-waya-folding-screen-book_harper-san-francisco/2596039/item/13174882/#isbn=0062511394&idiq=13174882
Is this it?


Buddhism and organ donation Thank you for creating this website.

I have a question regarding organ donation.

How is organ donation understood in theravada buddhism? Is it okay to do it?

Have a good day.

May all beings be happy and peaceful and free from mental and physical suffering.

Lanka

I found this article (by
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi) recently when I was looking for a description of "compassion".

It says (beware that the following quote is taken slightly out of context),

  Lay people support the Sangha with their simple material needs of food, robes, dwellings, and medicines. They also give generously to the poor and disadvantaged. In Sri Lanka, for example, blood donation campaigns are common on Buddhist holidays, and many people donate their eyes to eye banks and their bodily organs for medical research after their death. I learned recently that in Sri Lanka, more than 200 monks have donated kidneys, without any thought of remuneration or any other personal benefit, solely for the privilege of giving a bodily organ.

I infer that the "kidney donation" is from living donors.

In summary, I think that Theravada Buddhism says it's okay to do it (perhaps with some limitations which I hope are obvious regarding harmlessness).

This Buddhism and organ donation page from the UK claims that it's ethically okay, for example here is one of several quotes,

  Organ donation is acceptable in Theravada Buddhism. It is a Buddhist virtue to generously extend help to other sentient beings and this covers the case of organ donation." (Phramaha Laow Panyasiri, Abbot, The Buddhavihara Temple)

It also says,

  There are no injunctions in Buddhism for or against organ donation. The death process of an individual is viewed as a very important time that should be treated with the greatest care and respect. In some traditions, the moment of death is defined according to criteria which differ from those of modern Western medicine, and there are differing views as to the acceptability of organ transplantation.

I tried to ask about "the moment of death" in this separate question: How long to leave a body undisturbed after death?


Is daydreaming bad (outside of meditation)? A advise that I was given is to be "mindful" when I'm not meditating. However, it seems that mindfulness is incompatible with daydreaming (especially those in which we can get really engrossed and lose our sense of the present moment). Therefore, is daydreaming/fantasizing bad?

It is hard to be mindful yet it is beneficial.

  SN1.18:2.1: “Few are those constrained by conscience, who live always mindful.

It is easy to daydream yet it is fatal while driving.

Which would you choose moment by moment?


what is this state i am undergoing? I have been practicing meditation now for more than a year. I found that in recent months I go to a state where I am not bored, not happy, not dull, not tired but it is some state I find myself keeping it to myself. Really I couldn’t explain it fully. Did anyone go to a state like this ? Any explanation ?

It sounds like "equanimity", which is a normal result of meditation.