Hosting people who are making me feel angry I have been hosting people in my home recently, and I felt uncomfortable because they were being a little lazy for the common chores and sometimes even greedy when we had to pay for goods (eg. food, gasoil, etc.) by not proposing any financial participation (I wasn't asking anything though, but they are far from being poor), even though I was accepting them in my own house for a whole week and taking them with my car here and there.

This was, considering my culture, a big disrespect not because I expected any money in return, but because the least they could've done is to show some gratitude. (Note : it is not the first time that this happens, we had them a few times and I felt the same way every time)

I spoke with my wife, who doesn't feel the same way, and told her I wouldn't invite them for such a long period anymore because I was afraid this might eventually take my patience to its limits and consequently provoke the end of this friendship. I'd rather spend nice evenings with them or even weekends from time to time, but nothing more than that.

I feel guilty for making my wife sad by not accepting those people that aren't being harmful objectively and that we really like, but doesn't the Noble Eight-fold Path specifies that one should avoid bad thoughts by cutting the source of them ?

Did I do the right thing or am I overreacting there ?

This is my personal favorite. I have had this happen so many times although the victim was my mother who had to do a lot of things and I contributed a bit in a constructive fashion. This seems to be a fairly common case experienced by many hospitable people.

So the deal here is that I would not worry what the noble eight fold path says or whatever. This is rather general i.e., in terms of how best to deal with things that happen. It is about the choices you make and consequence you receive. There are lots of options to consider and each one would have a consequence. But without hurting others, (although I wouldn't mind giving the guests a piece of my mind), choose the best and most congenial option available. Sometimes it may be best to go out or do something else wherein you are busy.

Funny thing is they know they are being unhelpful too. But they still stick around. You could employ the tactic of asking for help when and if you need it.

There is nothing wrong with being practical about such matters. But know that you always deserved everything that came to you. Feeling something about it, either positive or negative, makes no difference to the matter. This is a little hard to take.
I am not asking you not to feel guilty or angry but know that when it comes, it is pointless to act on a whim. There are other ways to deal with the matter.

One other important thing is that, trying to satisfy other people is not your problem. You can treat/guide them to an extent. And in the world I have observed that no matter what you do you will be criticized in some way. Even Jesus was criticized. Buddha has been criticized. It's important how they took it. Because they were in total control of how they reacted.

Again I am not perfect and nobody is, and sometimes I get irritated too. But being practical and working on distancing yourself from emotions is important. The rest is how you conduct yourself.


Did Lord Buddha gain enlightenment by inquiring into death? I remember one just one of my treasured books 1955 copy of " the teachings of a compassionate Buddha" where I read that the Lord had a morbid fascination with death ..suffering etc and inquiring of death ( possibly a force //entity within)he gained insight into a possible way out of suffering ..rebirth etc pls let me know if this is true ?
For example there is reference made to countless past lives of the Buddha by him so I guess he was able to tap into his own death.

While living in the palace, Prince Gotama realised he would die (read Sukhamala Sutta), which resulted in him losing intoxication with the ordinary life of pursuing transient pleasures, which he also saw caused anguish & addiction in people and brought little happiness & much disappointment (read Magandiya Sutta).

In other words, Gotama did not directly or actively inquire into death to gain enlightenment because death was an established fact to him. The 'morbidity' referred to is 'suffering' & Gautama's inquiry was always into suffering.

Therefore, when inquiring into suffering, Gotama inquired into Dependent Origination (read Maha Sakyamuni Gotamo Sutta). Gotama asked: "Why do beings suffer?" and answered: "Beings suffer due to aging & death", i.e, "loss'. Then Gotama asked: "Why do beings suffer due to aging & death?". His answer was "birth". Why does birth occur? Due to becoming & attachment, etc.

As for his countless "past lives" and also the word "reborn" (in  SN 12.10, above), these are just mistranslations of the respective Pali words "pubbe nivāsa" and "uppajjati". For example, this translation of SN 22.79 correctly does not use the words "past lives". Instead, it uses "past abodes".

Everything above points to something called "birth" ("jati") as being the main problem the Buddha identified. After his enlightenment, the Buddha's 1st words were:

  153. Through many a birth (jati) in samsara have I wandered in vain, seeking the builder of this house (gaha). Repeated birth is indeed
  suffering!

  154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My
  mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of
  craving

  Dhammapada

What "birth" ('jati') actually means will depend on your personal study, practise & realisation.

The Haliddakani Sutta may possibly provide some insight into what the Buddha meant by "abodes/homes/fixations" ('nivāsa'/nivesā) and "house/home" ('gaha').


Vipassana retreat while in post acute withdrawal? It's a hell of state to observe moment by moment. I mean nothing is really life threatening with PAWS so does a retreat somewhere accommodate this condition?

Ask the people arranging the retreat. If they lack experience and/or accommodation for dealing with withdrawal I’d advice against participating.


What does "heard" mean in "I allow fish and meat that is pure in three respects: One has not seen, heard, or suspected..." In Vinaya, there is this rule (copied from Buddhist Monastic Code II):

  "One should not knowingly consume meat killed on purpose (for a
  bhikkhu). Whoever should consume it: an offense of wrong doing. I
  allow fish and meat that is pure in three respects: One has not seen,
  heard, or suspected (that it was killed on purpose for a bhikkhu)." —
  Mv.VI.31.14

How should we interpret "heard"? I can think of some possibilities:

Heard from someone that it was killed for me, i.e., someone told me that it was killed for me.
Heard the sound of killing, e.g. sound of the animal or action of killing
Both of the above.

This translation says,

  If a bhikkhu sees, hears or suspects that it has been killed for him, he may not eat it.

This commentary says,

  Furthermore, even cooked fish or meat of an allowable kind is unallowable if the
  bhikkhu sees, hears, or suspects that the animal was killed specifically for the
  purpose of feeding bhikkhus.

Both of these imply only the first of your two possibilities.


How do I control my mind? How can I prevent harmful thoughts and intentions from coming into my head?
How can I remove them if they do come into my head?
Even if I try to forget about them, I will still remember it. So how can I forget about them and never remember it?

Practise what is explained in MN 19.
In other words, it is not sufficient to label a thought as "harmful" and then worry about it.
Instead, when the harmfulness of the harmful thought is thoroughly considered & examined, the harmful thought will end, due to truly understanding its harmful nature.


I believe I have done bad things in a past life can I fix my curse that causes people to turn against me what kind of Karma is this? What kind of karma is it that causes people to suddenly go 180 on me when I seem to give 'too much' info about a certain point then they turn against me and give me the 'cold shoulder'? or have excuses to not be near me even if I currently haven't done anything wrong other then open up about myself?
Then I regret wishing to be born and I have had dreams that I may have had done bad things to  people in the past and went on the run instead of facing my trials as I'm always dreaming I'm escaping the police and often succeed in doing so leading me to think I ran from my crimes and haven't yet faced justice.
Is it even possible to have been a dictator in a past life and your put in this as punishment? When I die and go to the 'pearly gates' is a big arrest warrant going to be shown in my face instead how do I retcify this crap and heal myself?

On the contrary, the fact that you came to this site, or even thought about Buddhism and karma means you actually inherited some very good karma from the past lives.
Having dreams about being chased by police means you have some guilt on your mind. Only you can tell what it is, but you must know - and it must be something obvious to you, it always works that way. If you just stop and look at it, you will see it.
People turning against you could mean one of two things: either you are saying careless things or you are in a wrong place. The only way to fix that is to be always real: true to yourself and true to others (without being either harsh or careless, it not easy but can be done).
In short, never regret that you were born. You have the same right to be here as these trees and stars, and just like they don't have to be something else to deserve to be here - you don't need to be someone else to deserve a place in the universe. If you can be always real, honest, and kind, things will work out fine.


What's the Buddhist view of fostering pets? What's the Buddhist view of fostering a pet?

It is good karma to save a living being's life, which is what you do when you take care of one.

Fostering is better than buying one, because when you foster a pet, you don't encourage inbreeding and other abuses that happen in pet-breeding.


When you get a nightmare could the message in it be right? Some people have the ability to have for-spelling dreams. Imagine that someones'face changes into a devil and making a nightmare of it, could this be a dream revealing to the dreamer some information about other peoples state.
Or can only demons'revealing dreams which are calm contain true messages?

So this question concerns people who are usually gifted with visions etc.

Maybe, maybe not.

Negative dreams indicate evil or negative thoughts inside of you.

Interpreting dreams is mentioned as a Wrong means of livelihood for monks (DN 2 and elsewhere).

If you want to have no negative dreams practice cultivating, developing, and pursuing loving-kindness towards all beings (metta).

It is mentioned as one of the 11 advantages of developing loving-kindness (metta):

  "Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release
  (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of
  loving-kindness (metta), by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by
  constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as
  a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by
  living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into
  practice, and by establishing them. What are the eleven?

  He sleeps in comfort.
  He awakes in comfort.
  He sees no evil dreams.
  He is dear to human beings.
  He is dear to non-human
  beings.
  Devas protect him.
  Fire, poison, and weapons cannot
  touch him.
  His mind can concentrate quickly.
  His countenance is
  serene.
  He dies without being confused in mind.
  If he fails to
  attain arahantship here and now, he will be
  reborn in the brahma-realm.

  (AN 11.15)

Therefore try to concentrate and pervade your entire body and mind with loving-kindness on a daily basis to gain these 11 advantages.


What are the canonical texts for the Buddhisms of the world? And as a follow up, what institutions are charged with expanding the list of canonical works, if any?

For Theravada there is the Tipitaka: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html

This consists of the "three baskets"  of the vinaya pitaka,  the rules for monastics,  the sutta pitaka aka the sutta teachings,  and the abidhamma.

It is generally accepted that the oldest and most core part of the Tipitaka that is closest to what the buddha said,  are the four Nikayas

Digha Nikaya (long discourses)

Majjhima Nikaya ( middle length)

Samyutta Nikaya (grouped discourses)

Anguttara Nikaya ( numbered discourses)

There is also the Khuddaka Nikaya which is a collection of "little texts".  This is where the famous dhammapada  and Sutta Nipāta reside.


Mindfulness of feelings and emotions I'm having a certain trouble in meditation being aware of both my feelings and emotions. The feelings, as in vedana, aren't so inaccessible to me but my emotions are particularly hard to discern. I'm wondering whether the practice of mindfulness of vedana will help me discern my emotions more, or whether emotions are a different thing alltogether.

Vedana is pleasant/unpleasant/neutral feelings at the sense doors. Being aware of that is called Vedananupassana.

Emotions (including for example the five hindrances) are covered under Dhammanupassana.

Here is a simple guide book, How to Meditate, you can follow.

  It is customary to memorize
  these four categories before proceeding with the
  meditation practice:

  Body – the movements and postures of the body;
  Feelings – bodily and mental sensations of pain,
  happiness, calm, etc.;
  Mind – thoughts that arise in the mind – of the past
  or future, good or bad;
  Dhammas – groups of mental and physical
  phenomena that are of specific interest to the
  meditator, including the mental states that cloud
  one's awareness, the six senses by which one
  experiences reality, and many others.

Ex: When sitting for meditation, you might feel pain in your legs. That pain is still Vedana(feeling). You can note it as pain... pain... pain... It becomes emotion, if you start to dislike the pain. If you are wishing the pain to go away, you are already emotional. Simply note it as disliking... disliking...

Similarly, you might feel very calm when meditating. Simply note it as calm... calm... calm... If you start to like that calmness, it is emotion. Note it as liking... liking... liking... This liking becomes clinging and when the calmness goes away, sadness/disappointment arises as a result of clinging. That is again Vedana which you can note as sad... sad... sad...


Sleep - What about it? What are the proper relax / Sleep practices for a practitioner of meditation methods?

As to Buddhist point of view what is sleep and how to cope with it?

What are the proper relax / Sleep practices for a practitioner of meditation methods?

If you do Metta meditation before sleeping you are better off, as one benefit of Metta is you sleep well. ((Aṭṭha) Mettânisansa Sutta, (Ekā,dasa) Mettânisansa Sutta)

  As to Buddhist point of view what is sleep and how to cope with it?

This is when your Bhavanga is active and the revolutions of the Dependent Origination cycles has momentarily stopped. (The Doctrine of Paticcasamuppada - The Law Of Independent Origination - By U Than Daing, page 32). An essay "The Unconscious" by Piya Tan discusses action action that done when sleeping.

--

Thoughts of others on the subject of sleep:

On deep sleep and bhavanga:

  The idea of an underlying skilful base to the mind is developed further in the
  Abhidhamma, which analyses the constituents of consciousness in detail. For a
  human rebirth to have occurred, the bhavakga, or consciousness to which the
  mind returns at rest, is skilful, whether with the two roots of non-greed and nonhatred,
  or more usually, with three roots, of wisdom, non-greed and non-hatred.
  This consciousness will be present whenever the mind enters bhavakga, either
  momentarily at the end of each thought-process, or during deep sleep. For all born
  as humans, the state of bhavakga is a reflection of the skilful state of mind that
  must have been present at the moment of death as a governing factor for the
  relinking consciousness. It is passive, however, and this predisposition needs
  active cultivation during waking life. Only when skilful consciousness is present
  during daily life, or during meditation, does the mind become actively bright and
  radiant. According to the theory this happens, for instance, at the moment of
  giving, of being alert and interested or when practising jhana: the active part of
  the thought-process ( javana) is then free from defilements. Those practising
  meditation are ‘bringing into being’ a consciousness which is thought to be a kind
  of birthright, but which needs cultivation. In Buddhist countries the human realm
  is considered particularly important for spiritual work. Birth in heaven realms is
  pleasant but lacks the suffering to encourage spiritual work; the realms of
  animals, ghosts and hell beings are considered far too painful for the path, and it
  is difficult, though not impossible, for such beings to find a skilful rebirth. It is
  said that the Buddha always has a human birth as his last existence after many
  lifetimes spent preparing to teach others. One sutta compares rebirth in a hell
  realm as entering into a pit of coals, that of a heaven realm to a stay in a luxurious
  mansion. The human realm, however, is like a man sitting in the shade of a
  tree in a hot climate, also the classic conditions for the practice of meditation
  (see M I 76–7).

Source: Buddhist Meditation: An anthology from the Pali canon, by Sarah Shaw

On reduced need of sleep for meditations

  Similarly, when you go to bed at night, close your eyes and feel sensation anywhere within the body. If you fall asleep with this awareness, naturally as soon as you wake up in the morning, you will be aware of sensation. Perhaps you may not sleep soundly, or you may even remain fully awake throughout the night. This is wonderful, provided you stay lying in bed and maintain awareness and equanimity. The body will receive the rest it needs, and there is no greater rest for the mind than to remain aware and equanimous. However, if you start worrying that you are developing insomnia, then you will generate tensions, and will feel exhausted the next day. Nor should you forcefully try to stay awake, remaining in a seated posture all night; that would be going to an extreme. If sleep comes, very good; sleep. If sleep does not come, allow the body to rest by remaining in a recumbent position, and allow the mind to rest by remaining aware and equanimous.

...

  Firstly, you will need less time for sleep.

The Discourse Summaries

Mental impurities inducing sleepiness:

  Another enemy is laziness, drowsiness. All night you slept soundly, and yet when you sit to meditate, you feel very sleepy. This sleepiness is caused by your mental impurities, which would be driven out by the practice of Vipassana, and which therefore try to stop you from meditating. You must fight to prevent this enemy from overpowering you. Breathe slightly hard, or else get up, sprinkle cold water on your eyes, or walk a little, and then sit again.

The Discourse Summaries

On involuntary action during sleep:

  Unconscious actions are, however, still regarded as morally motivated, but should be
  understood to differ from involuntary actions or reactions. Sue Hamilton, for example, discusses the
  possibility of involuntary reactions and how it is accounted for:

    I have suggested that if one is not conscious of a sound then one has not heard it. We
    can, however, sometimes react ―involuntarily‖ to a sound without being conscious of it: in sleep,
    for example, a loud sound can cause one to make a movement even if there is absolutely no consciousness
    of the sound at all. We also experience peripheral awareness which we do not seem to
    be conscious of. We regularly avoid obstacles in our path while our attention is wholly elsewhere,
    for example. Though such experiences of peripheral awareness might indicate the minimal level
    to which consciousness of, or awareness, operates, this question is not explicitly dealt with in the
    Sutta Piaka. Nor is the experience of involuntary reactions explained. This is a significant omission
    because involuntary reactions such as wet dreams became the subject of controversy in the
    early Buddhist sangha: if they are unconscious, do they constitute a volition with moral implications?

Source: The Unconscious

Though not in a Buddhist perspective this course also might be of some interest: Sleep: Neurobiology, Medicine, and Society


Is rebirth scientifically proven? I am from a Buddhist family, in which my parents believe in Buddhism a lot (100%).
But after learning tech, science, and IT in the last five years, what I feel is the idea of rebirth is nothing more than an ancient Far Eastern religious belief, which is utterly impossible. For rebirth to be real, there would need to be:

The ability for consciousness or awareness to survive the death of the brain of the person concerned. This is an impossibility, since consciousness is an exceedingly complex function of the electrical and biochemical activity inside a living brain, and as far as we’re currently aware, only in the brain of certain higher mammals. The definition of death is when all electrical and biochemical activity in the brain ceases, and consequently everything which was ever held in that brain, vanishes. It doesn’t ‘go’ anywhere, it simply ceases to exist.

The ability for a person’s consciousness or awareness to exist both extra-corporeally and immaterially. There is no mechanism which allows for such a thing even when related to a living brain, let alone a dead one. For this to happen, several of the fundamental laws of science would need to be violated.

The ability for this extra-corporeal consciousness or awareness not only to survive the death of the brain in which it originated, and then continue in existence in an immaterial form for an undefined period, but then to somehow find its way into the brain of another person who might not even be born yet—we’re well into the realm of pure fantasy or science fiction here!

So what I want to know is: has rebirth been scientifically proven or is it true?

Reincarnation as you describe it, is scientifically unproven. It is also, speaking as a scientist and someone who has studied & researched Buddhism for almost 30 years now, IMHO irrelevant to the central teaching of Buddhism, which is experiential. Buddhism and science agree on many aspects of how the brain and the mind operate. The meditative practice and mental effects of Buddhism can be and have been scientifically quantified.
Many Buddhist schools also do not perceive reincarnation as the definition in your question, but rather as an allegory for the states of mind we go through as individuals every day. One Zen master wrote "we reincarnate ten thousand times every day" - that is, your mental state is not the same right now as when it was 5 seconds ago. This is viewing the realms of Samsara as states of mind: craving, desire, frustration, bliss, instinct, etc.


Can someone help me to find suttas on Self compassion QN: I'm looking for Buddha's teachings on self compassion. (Especially for lay practitioners.)
There are few verses which can be found in Dhammapada:

He, who by good deeds covers the evil he has done, illuminates this world like the moon freed from clouds.
(Dhp, verse 173)

Angulimala Sutta also represents forgiveness and self compassion if some mistakes has happened due to lack of mindfulness or by ignorance.
I personally think that self compassion is required otherwise we may fall in too much guilt instead of improving ourselves.
And by understanding our own suffering, we can understand the suffering of others and help them better. It will make this world a better place.

Update: At the beginning, I was asking for very specific suttas but I understood that there are less suttas directly connected to Self compassion. (So you can use any sutta which are relevant and makes sense.)
And I think there is a reason for it.
I feel that Buddha wanted to say, develop compassion in all directions (including inward & outward). Because if we develop it only towards self or only others in either case, it will lead to Identification which will stop us from direct knowing and release.
He always mentioned it as whole.
I also found [SN 56.11] very relevant.

"Mendicants, these two extremes should not be cultivated by one who has gone forth. What two? Indulgence in sensual pleasures, which is low, crude, ordinary, ignoble, and pointless. And indulgence in self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, and pointless. Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One woke up by understanding the middle way..."

I hope everyone will participate. And you're free to edit and improve your answer if needed.^^

You may be interested in AN 3.99, which states that by developing yourself in body, virtue and mind, a trifling evil deed that is done, will not bog you down:

"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of
water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become
salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in
the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit
to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River
Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become
salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River
Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit
to drink."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by
one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case
where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual
is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual takes him to
hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in
the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind [i.e.,
painful feelings can invade the mind and stay there], undeveloped in
discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering.   A
trifling evil act done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind
[i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there],
developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with
the immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual
is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment.

From SN 42.8, we get a similar message:

"There's the case, headman, where a certain teacher holds this
doctrine, holds this view: 'All those who take life are destined for a
state of deprivation, are destined for hell. All those who steal...
All those who indulge in illicit sex... All those who tell lies are
destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell.' A
disciple has faith in that teacher, and the thought occurs to him,
'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds this view: "All those who take
life are destined for a state of deprivation, are destined for hell."
There are living beings that I have killed. I, too, am destined for a
state of deprivation, am destined for hell.' He fastens onto that
view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine, doesn't abandon that state
of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then as if he were to be
carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.
"[The thought occurs to him,] 'Our teacher holds this doctrine, holds
this view: 'All those who steal... All those who indulge in illicit
sex... All those who tell lies are destined for a state of
deprivation, are destined for hell.' There are lies that I have told.
I, too, am destined for a state of deprivation, am destined for hell.'
He fastens onto that view. If he doesn't abandon that doctrine,
doesn't abandon that state of mind, doesn't relinquish that view, then
as if he were to be carried off, he would thus be placed in hell.
"There is the case, headman, where a Tathagata appears in the world,
worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in clear knowing &
conduct, well-gone, a knower of the cosmos, unexcelled trainer of
those to be tamed, teacher of human & divine beings, awakened,
blessed. He, in various ways, criticizes & censures the taking of
life, and says, 'Abstain from taking life.' He criticizes & censures
stealing, and says, 'Abstain from stealing.' He criticizes & censures
indulging in illicit sex, and says, 'Abstain from indulging in illicit
sex.' He criticizes & censures the telling of lies, and says, 'Abstain
from the telling of lies.'
"A disciple has faith in that teacher and reflects: 'The Blessed One
in a variety of ways criticizes & censures the taking of life, and
says, "Abstain from taking life." There are living beings that I have
killed, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was
not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed
of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right
then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life.
This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed. This
is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed.
"[He reflects:] 'The Blessed One in a variety of ways criticizes &
censures stealing... indulging in illicit sex... the telling of lies,
and says, "Abstain from the telling of lies." There are lies that I
have told, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was
not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed
of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right
then the telling of lies, and in the future refrains from telling
lies. This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed.
This is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed.
"Having abandoned the taking of life, he refrains from taking life.
Having abandoned stealing, he refrains from stealing. Having abandoned
illicit sex, he refrains from illicit sex. Having abandoned lies, he
refrains from lies. Having abandoned divisive speech, he refrains from
divisive speech. Having abandoned harsh speech, he refrains from harsh
speech. Having abandoned idle chatter, he refrains from idle chatter.
Having abandoned covetousness, he becomes uncovetous. Having abandoned
ill will & anger, he becomes one with a mind of no ill will. Having
abandoned wrong views, he becomes one who has right views.
"That disciple of the noble ones, headman — thus devoid of
covetousness, devoid of ill will, unbewildered, alert, mindful — keeps
pervading the first direction [the east] with an awareness imbued with
good will, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the
fourth. Thus above, below, & all around, everywhere, in its entirety,
he keeps pervading the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness
imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without
hostility, without ill will. Just as a strong conch-trumpet blower can
notify the four directions without any difficulty, in the same way,
when the awareness-release through good will is thus developed, thus
pursued, any deed done to a limited extent no longer remains there, no
longer stays there.
"That disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid of covetousness, devoid
of ill will, unbewildered, alert, mindful — keeps pervading the first
direction with an awareness imbued with compassion... appreciation...
equanimity, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the
fourth. Thus above, below, & all around, everywhere, in its entirety,
he keeps pervading the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness
imbued with equanimity — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, without
hostility, without ill will. Just as a strong conch-trumpet blower can
notify the four directions without any difficulty, in the same way,
when the awareness-release through equanimity is thus developed, thus
pursued, any deed done to a limited extent no longer remains there, no
longer stays there."


How can there be knowledge of unconditioned phenomenon without any knower? It's strongly maintained by almost all Buddhists that there is no ultimate permanent knower. They maintain Nirvana is unconditioned phenomenon. My question is then, who knows there is an existence of such a phenomenon? One has to know or experience such a phenomenon to know about its existence. For instance, Gautama Buddha said -

  There is, bhikkhus, that base (ayatana) where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering. Ud 8.1

Now, how Gautama Buddha knew there is such base/ayantana with those qualities of negations? To claim so one has to either experience so or accept the authority of someone, right? or I am missing something? Moreover, What is 'it' in 'it has no support'? It seems some existing substance to me which has been experienced/known thus proving the existence of some known entity.

The sutta quoted says Nibbana is an "ayatana" or "base". Therefore, it is a sense object.

The "knower" of Nibbana is mind-consciousness rather than a "self". This "knower" is a "nama-dhamma", "mental element" or "conditioned element".

Nibbana itself is the "unconditioned element" ("asankhata dhatu" - MN 115) therefore the Nibbana Element is "unsupported" by any condition.

"Consciousness" or the "knower" only "knows" Nibbana. The "knower" does not "support" Nibbana.

In short, the enlightened conditioned consciousness, while living, knows the unconditioned Nibbana.

When the conditioned consciousness ceases to exist, the unconditioned Nibbana, as an element (rather than as a known sense object) continues to exist.

The element of Nibbana is eternal & permanent. Knowing consciousness is impermanent & conditioned.


Did I get into a Jhana state? I was meditating. I was using classical music as my object of meditation.

I know some don't approve of that but it's REALLY relaxing, especially while meditating. Anyway, as I was meditating the music became... so much more clear. I really can't explain it. It's like I had cheap headphones and all of sudden they switched to top brand headphones. That's how clear it became. Then my breath became very shallow almost as if it was disappearing.

Now I have anxiety attacks, such as I had during my previous attempt at meditation. And that makes my breath feel shallow. But this was different I felt it slowly disappearing. And this very unusual feeling overcame me. My whole body was blissful. I never had that experience before.

So was that a Jhana state?

I wouldn't worry about what it is or isn't and dont listen to what other people have to say about it either as everyone will have varying opinions and really they cannot know what you experience. You will end up feeling confused. The main thing to remember is that it was just a pleasant experience and like all experiences it arose and then passed. It's like a small reward for making progress. Try not to think about it or recreate it as it may hinder your progress. It does not need a label.
If you go into meditation expecting, hoping or craving to have the same experience again or for another pleasant experience you are missing the point so don't fall into that trap. However, when you do have a pleasant experience, enjoy it for what it is then let it go.


Is the self an illusion or is it *like* an illusion? Recently, in explaining the relative unimportance of the question whether phenomena lack true existence it was claimed that, "the self is definitely an illusion" and lacked true existence. This seemed to be held up as an important fact that has significance in the pragmatic soteriological aims of Theravada in contrast to the above mentioned question.

A few questions that arise:

First, is the self an illusion or not? Here it was said by the same person above that the self was not an illusion?
If either the self is like an illusion or is literally an illusion, is this synonymous with saying that it lacks true or real existence from the Theravada viewpoint?
Why does Theravada regard this question about the ontological status of the self of persons to be an important question? Why can't we just say that the self of persons is real and true like other phenomena, but transient or lacking sara as Chris said was the correct interpretation of SN 22.95
Why does Theravada regard the question of whether the aggregates have intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality an important question? If the self does not truly exist like an illusion, then what does it matter if the aggregates have intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality since the self cannot be found in them?

Some Theravada adherents say that, "the original Pali sutta's" do away with unnecessary speculation or "ontological hamster wheels." :) However, paradoxically it seems some Theravada regard the question of the ontological status of the self to be very important. It's also clear that Sariputra thought it very important to correct Yamaka about this. And the Buddha himself thought it important to instruct how the aggregates and other phenomena were to be regarded as lacking intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality irregardless questions of the self.

Is the self an illusion or is it like an illusion? Well, let's just say that it's not truly existent. The lute analogy in the Vina Sutta explains that very well. Using a musical instrument you can play nice music. But if you break it down to its constituent parts, you cannot find music. Music cannot be isolated from the musical instrument. Similarly, the self arises from the inter-working of the five aggregates. You cannot isolate the self from the five aggregates. This is in stark contrast with the Hindu view found in Bhagavad Gita 2.20.

Next, why is it so important in the Pali Suttas that the self of persons is not truly existent, but it is not important in the Pali Suttas that the self of phenomena is truly existent or not truly existent?

This is an easy question to answer in my opinion.

The self of persons is strongly related to the cause of a person's suffering. That's why it is so important in the Pali Suttas. The Cula-Saccaka Sutta (MN 35) explains why the self of persons is strongly related to the cause of a person's suffering.

On the other hand, the self of chairs is unrelated to the cause of a person's suffering. The self of chairs is also unrelated to the cause of a chair's suffering (or rather, I cannot imagine how a chair would experience suffering). This is why whether a chair has a self of chairs or not, is not important in the Pali Suttas.

In fact, the self of phenomena may even fall into the category of unconjecturables in the Acintita Sutta as follows:

  "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.

The point here is that the world may or may not be truly existent. The world may or may not have a self of phenomena. The world may or may not be an illusion.  The world may or may not be like an illusion. But in all these cases, it is not related to the cause of a person's suffering, and hence it is not important to the path to the end of suffering. At least, this, in my opinion, is how Theravada views it according to the Pali Suttas.

And this also shows how the Pali Suttas are extremely pragmatic.


Does "empirical evidence" challenge "scriptural authority"? In his talk titled, Science at the Crossroads, the Dalai Lama said,

  On the philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul, or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last. This means that, in the Buddhist investigation of reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may be.

With specific reference to the last line: in the "Buddhist investigation of reality", when does empirical evidence "triumph over" or even challenge, scriptural authority?
Is the Dalai Lama's point of view confirmed or contradicted by other points of view in the scriptures, or in the talks and writings of recent Gurus?

I think the Dalai Lama is making a tactical retreat on issues he doesn't care about. He isn't claiming he's a modern secular Buddhist. I'm looking for a Donald Lopez quote but can't find one. Anyhow, Lopez often writes about how west projects more progressive & (western) Age of Englightenment ideas on the Buddhism than really are there.

When I was in uni doing economics, one of the professor's there was keenly interested in epistemology and theories of truth. There are a great many theories of truth and they vary from community from community-- what passes as true among economists, doesn't for Christians and so on.

So for Buddhists, some theories of truth I can see:

Personal experience. This is the theory of truth that is recounted in the traditional life story of the Buddha. He sat under a tree, saw things as they really are (and you can too).

Personal experiences don't settle arguments & disagreements among people and early Buddhist knew this as well.

Buddhavacana. This is truth via authority. The Buddha said it, it is true. This is moderated by the phrase "what ever is well said is Buddhavana" (And a blog post that says even that isn't as progressive as it sounds.)

Epistimology Depends on Which Buddhist Organization

The theory of truth is all wrapped up in organizational matters. An organization, especially one whose product is a set of teachings, needs to present a coherent face to its customers. We can't rationally expect an organization to be self sabotaging when it comes to projecting a message to the community-- the message has to be coherent to gain new followers, donations and so on. No one joins a group because all of their members have radically opposed views found as a result of idiosyncratic personal decisions about what is true. The join because they got the message and agree with most of it.

To appeal to scripture you first have to figure out what group you are in and what texts are authoritative. That is why answering these questions without a tag indicating what school makes it hard to answer. In the Dalai Lama's world, his gurus, the Dalai Lama's expriences are authoritative, probably followed by texts from the Gulugpa tradition. Texts in general are not authoritative. The texts themselves, again depending on the tradition, will have in them some sort of epistimilogical claims (a theory of truth and assertions on why this text meets that standard of truth). In Vajrayana and Zen, things are true because of lineage and something was said by a teacher in that lineage going back to the historical Buddha. In other schools of Buddhism, lineage isn't important, the internal qualities of the text are, e.g. Tien Tai/Nichirenism, which posit the text is authoritative-- period (i.e. doesn't matter who said it or how it came about).

Visionary Experience. Mahayana writers expanded truth to include visions seen in dreams and meditation.  In the Avatamsaka, we have what appears to be the name of the monk who had the experience that provides the basis for the sutra, Dharmamati. Ref Nattier. In otherwords, the sutra said it was legit because Dharmamati had a vision of Buddhas which preached this doctrine. Later authors just followed the style and form of earlier sutras and attributed it to the historical Buddha or a celestial Buddha.

Dealing with Conflicting Evidence
When things contradict evidence, we get the theory of two truths, where there is a conventional truth and an "absolute" truth.

In organizations, the precepts, usually a few of the 6th to 10th precepts and many of the minor precepts will talk about intragroup harmony. It is more important for the organization to endure than for an argument to be settled. People are encouraged to defer to others based on rank regardless of who is wrong (the rules about the nuns having to defer to male monks regardless to the male monk being wrong on a matter is an example). The point isn't that they don't care about what is true, the point is that a rational organization that doesn't want to self destruct has to do something to maintain harmony. It isn't rational to expect an organization  to allow and encourage a lot of heterodoxy.


Does Buddhism have a concept of avatars? Avatars are a Hindu concept as far as I know, but I have noticed that many of these religions (from places like India) have similar things in common, whether they be symbols, names, beliefs, or whatever.  My question is, does Buddhism have a concept of avatars? Or reworded, does Buddhism have a concept of avatars that is the same as or similar to the concept of avatars in Hinduism?

Because Buddhism denies the notion of "self" it does not have a concept of Avatar, as someone literally being a reincarnation of e.g. Ananda (Buddha's favorite student).

Tibetan Buddhism does have a notion of Tulku though, which is similar. Tulku is a new person that inherits the life stories and responsibilities of a previous person. This is done through teaching this person to deliberately identify with their predecessor, to learn predecessor's history, and to carry on his or her work.

Because the new person's life is so heavily influenced and inspired by the predecessor, we can say that the new person is an embodiment of the abstract energy of the previous one.


Authenticity of rules for monks and nuns Is there any way we can know that all these rules are from the Buddha and not made up after him,  based on cultural and/or persons agendas?

People (e.g. those having left home, having left stinginess) who have mastered the fist step, who have gained the strainless eye of Dhamma, have neither doubts nor do they ponder much about it.

So why, if really like to know, don't simply follow them and why, if not follow them ponder about that much, being not you issue yet?

If seeking for doubters and waste a live by pondering around, there is a community working hard on being wiser as the elders for more than 2500 year. Simply join, there are plenty on topics on it. It's like science or watching news, everyday some new personal opinions.

If more tend to uproot doubt, to know for youself, avoiding association with doubt, foremost outwardly and also inwardly. Associate with admirable friends.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


Unfriendly and unapproachable faces - Metta Practices I'm kind of curious, some people may have looked a little aloof and cold from the outside, and get commented on this too but deep down she/he isn't like this. She/he are probably just quiet and doesn't mingle around, don't think it's a wrong trait?
How can metta help on this? And how can metta be practiced on situation like this?
Thanks.

Loving Kindness, I would think.

You are asking, really, what should we do when confronted with an unpleasant person (who is unpleasant in any way, including appearance). We cannot NOT be human, and so our reactions are, and will be, whatever they will be.

However, if you relax and give freely, of your attention and time, you may find their attitude changing towards you. You will also find your reactions changing. Through that process of feedback comes learning.

To be very clear, "giving freely" doesn't mean "giving without discretion". Give only what you would give to anyone on earth. Use your discrimination to determine how much farther you are willing to go in compassion. And end the interaction if you decide it is no longer fruitful.


What Buddhist babies' names or meaning should be? My relatives ask me to suggest good names that must be Buddhist.
I tried on internet but there are from other culture I want Indian names so what  names or meaning should be?

You should probably start from the Buddhist Dictionary of Pali Proper Names and then find proper Sanskrit versions of the Pali names.

For example, the Pali name Sariputta is Śāriputra in Sanskrit. The full version of this name is known as Śāradwatīputra.


At what point in the path is one able to recall their past lives? In most traditions of Buddhism there is talk of the Buddha, or various Bodhisattvas talking about their past lives.

At what point in the path to enlightenment is the ability to remember ones past lives gained?

Powers are generally orthogonal to insight.
Most enlightened people have some powers, but not all people with powers are enlightened.
The six higher powers (chalabhiññā) include the cessation of ignorance, leading to becoming an arhat and the knowledge of past lives.
Thus theoretically one can be an arhat but not have knowledge of past lives, if one isn't interested in pursuing such skills or vice versa. However, this is contentious, since popular lore expects arhats to walk through walls or be able to perform other special deeds, but the Buddha himself never solely equates powers with enlightenment.
Devadutta, the villainous cousin of the Buddha had lots of powers, including transforming himself into other beings through jhana cultivation, but he was no arhat even though he was only a short hop away from it - he simply had no interest in enlightenment. He was interested instead in profiting from the psychic and political powers of being a spiritual guru.

"Remember one's former abodes" (pubbe-nivāsanussati), that is, recalling ones own past lives;
"Extinction of mental intoxicants" (āsavakkhaya), upon which arahantship follows.

See Abhijñā or direct knowing
"Are powers strictly necessary for enlightenment?" is a separate question. While they can be a distraction keeping one away from enlightenment, after enlightenment they can become useful tools. For example, those on the Bodhisattva path are expected at some point to focus their training on attaining mind reading powers so that they may help others to liberation.
Yet, adherents of the Zen tradition would say enlightenment is very ordinary, it was never not there. Enlightenment is doing ordinary things in a most extraordinary way.
Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.
Watch "Ten Oxherding Pictures" on YouTube - https://youtu.be/bN126j4FH7g


Is Schopenhauer's "the Will" equivalent to "the Mystic Law"? I recently was watching a video in which Schopenhauer's views on aesthetics were expressed. Part of his views relied on saying that there is one aspect of the nominal world which can be experienced -despite that basically being a contradiction to what the nominal and phenomenal world are-. He went on to say that the exception is called, "The Will". The will as basically, to my best understanding, the driving force for all things which pervades all things, both abstract and not, and that, once aware of this "Will" one loses what I guess could be loosely identified as the self, and becomes more as one with, "The Will".

This, to me, sounds a lot like what I have heard called, "The Mystic Law". Here is a definition of the mystic law as referred to as, "the true aspect", by the philosopher, Miao-Lo:

  “The true aspect invariably manifests in all phenomena, and all phenomena invariably manifest in the ten factors. The ten factors invariably manifest in the Ten Worlds, and the Ten Worlds invariably manifest in life and its environment.”

My question then is, how closely are these two "aspects" related, and are they really referring to the same thing?

I know next to nothing about Schopenhauer but the Nichiren sect of Japanese Buddhism focus on the sutra popularly known as Lotus Sutra - the 妙法蓮華経 Myōhō Renge Kyō which is in turn from Chinese 妙法蓮華經; pinyin: Miàofǎ Liánhuá jīng, which is ultimately from Sanskrit Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra literally Sutra on the White Lotus of the Sublime Dharma. So "Mystic Law" is just a re-translation of "Sublime Dharma". Now I am no expert on the text but I believe the 'Sublime Dharma' refers to All of Existence and Phenomena. So this concept is only tangentially related to the Will or Collective Consciousness described by Schopenhauer.


How do you develop the right view with lack of information, knowledge and time? One of the tenets of the eight fold path is developing right view which in my opinion can be subjective based on variables or factors such as your upbringing, exposure, experience and like.

How does one develop right views when there is a lack of information and knowledge and there is a constraint of time?

Alternatively how does one maintain right views when you may have some information and little knowledge and there is a constraint of time?

Right view is basically the knowledge/realisation of Four Nobel Truth, which is not subjective. Our current view about things we observe is subjective and we need to have the right effort to get to the right view. The main constraint is not the time, it's the priority I suppose.


What does celestial mean in 'celestial bodhisattva' What does celestial mean in 'celestial bodhisattva'. I'm aware of the definition of the term "celestial", but wondered if it meant that the bodhisattva was not born on earth, so that e.g. tantric masters are not celestial beings.

In Tibetan Buddhism they recognize a class of beings that we can call "latent informational energy entities". In modern language they can be explained as long-term memes or archetypes inhabiting the sphere of knowledge and capable of producing activity through that sphere.

This includes spirits, guardians, dakinis, and celestial bodhisattvas.

They are not organisms in our sense of the word, but they are acting entities in an abstract sense, having a certain identity, relationships with the world of people, and even something like attitude or perspective, that allows them to respond or react to human acts.

You could say that this is a kind of animism towards religious archetypes, and you would be right, except that our own system of political parties, corporations etc. is in essence based on the same principles.

So yeah, celestial Bodhisattvas are characters, like Batman or Spiderman, that have a certain role and function in human society. As opposed to normal Bodhisattvas who are actual people.


It's ok to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits, because they are not sentient? A teaching householder here adviced:
"It's ok to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits, because they are not sentient." ("ok" here was to be assumed of having no negative kammic consequences by killing certain beings, nor increasing wrong view on such thoughts.)
Is that right, aside of growing wouldn't work with out killing "sentient" perceived being?
Is there a mention of sentient satta (living being) different from satta?
Doesn't growing involve harming and killing?
Doesn't harvest cut of life?
Doesn't no worry in consuming increase dependency and neglecting right effort?
In the case it would be ok, why seeking to escape from the wheel of food and feeding?
Sure good if providing serious counted advices from the Sublime Buddha.
[Note that this gift isn't given for stacks, exchange, feeds, other worldbinding trades, but for a way out of this wheel.]

Let me add some qualification to that:
It's ok from the perspective of the Five Precepts and Right Livelihood for lay people, to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits (without the use of pesticides), because plants are not sentient.
The word for sentient being is satta.
From SN 5.10:

When the parts are assembled
we use the word ‘chariot’.
So too, when the aggregates are present
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.

From my understanding, all five aggregates must be present, in order to consider it a sentient being. The five aggregates are form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations. Plants do not have consciousness and mental formations, to the best of my understanding.
From a scientific perspective, please see Taiz, L., Alkon, D. et al (2019). Plants neither possess nor require consciousness. Trends in Plant Science, 24(8), 677-687.
From SN 23.2:

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

Also here, from my understanding, a plant does not mentally cling to the five aggregates, so it's not a sentient being by this definition.
The first precept of not taking a life (of a sentient being), therefore does not apply to plants.

OP: Doesn't growing involve harming and killing? Doesn't harvest cut of life?

If pesticides are not used, then it doesn't harm sentient beings.

OP: Doesn't no worry in consuming increase dependency and neglecting right effort?

The second noble truth says that the cause of suffering is craving (tanha), not agriculture and farming. The problem is in the mind.
If we have an aversion (dosa) to agriculture and farming, then that's a negative state of mind.
For lay people, agriculture and farming without pesticides, is ok from the point of view of Right Livelihood and the Five Precepts.


8 Precept Commentaries? Would like some suggestions on books/authors/resources for commentaries on keeping and maintaining the 8 and 10 precepts. Haven't found this question answered elsewhere. Am already aware of what the precepts are, just asking for ideas on how to support their practice in everyday situations.

There is a good commentary on the eight precepts here in the Questions and Answers format, originally written in Thai by Ven. Ñanavara Thera and translated into English by Ven. Kantasilo.


Permission of your parents in your renunciation I have thought about this since a long time, and now I am ready for renunciation, accept teachings and practise Buddhism in a monastery. I told my parents about these future plans. They said they were disappointed in me & that I was running away from my responsibilities & will ruin their and my life if I follow this path.

Since they've made me the person I am today, I feel the need to ask for permission before I leave. They won't allow me.

What would be the best way to solve this, maybe a middle path?

The rule of requiring your parents' permission for ordination, even if you are an adult, comes from this incident:

  When King Suddhodana heard that his beloved grandson had become a monk
  he was deeply grieved. The king said, "When you left home it made me
  sad. When Nanda left home my heart ached. I concentrated my love on my
  grandson and again the one I love has left me. Please do not ordain
  anyone without their parent's permission." To this the Buddha agreed
  and never ordained anybody after that without their parents'
  permission.

In any case, most monasteries would not allow you to ordain right away as a monk. See here for the ordination process of the Bodhinyana Monastery near Perth, Australia.

You have to first undertake the eight precepts as an anagarika (a sort of a pre-monk) for some period of time (maybe a year), before undertaking the ten precepts, to become a novice monk (samanera). Then some time later (maybe another year), you may be allowed to ordain as a full monk (bhikkhu). The novice monk and full monk both wear similar robes, while the anagarika usually wears white clothes.

You don't need your parents' permission to become an anagarika and serve in a monastery. You can spend this time to experience a taste of the monastic life, to see if renunciation is what you really want to do, before making a final decision. Maybe you might not like it after experiencing it.

At some point, you would still have to get your parents' permission to ordain. For this, you need to convince them. In any case, you can remain an anagarika for an extended period of time.

I don't think you need your parents' permission to become a novice monk either. But they would probably be unhappy to see you in a novice monk's robes which is almost the same as a full monk's robes.

For more info, read here, here and here.

Another point is, have you decided which tradition to join? Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan, Zen etc.? Perhaps, there's more things to consider.


What does Buddha mean with '' to not sacrifice one's life for another' (Dhp 166)? What did Buddha mean when he told not to sacrifice?

Does "sacrifice" mean the same thing as in the Jewish or Christian traditions?

Btw: don't feel offended when I compares some things, I'm just wondering the differences.

I like this reference to the Dhammapada, because it includes the "story" behind each verse (note that it's the verse itself that should be treated as "Gospel", the story is commentary, sometimes allegorical).
So verse 166 can be found here: Dhammapada Verse 166 ... from which I take the following to be the essential message:

The Buddha then said to the bhikkhus,

"Bhikkhus, those who love and revere me should act like Attadattha. You are not paying me homage by just offering flowers, perfumes and incense and by coming to see me; you pay me homage only by practising the Dhamma I have taught you, i.e., the Lokuttara Dhamma."

In other words, the Buddha taught what he did to let each person to attain liberation. That's what the Buddha wants: for each person to attain liberation. So if you do something other than that, "for the sake of another's benefit", then you're missing the point of the Buddha's message.

Also, "not sacrifice your life" is a paraphrase or extrapolation of the verse, not a quote; actually it says,

Verse 166: For the sake of another's benefit, however great it may be, do not neglect one's own (moral) benefit. Clearly perceiving one's own benefit one should make every effort to attain it.

Also there are stories (fables) of the Buddha having sacrificed his own life, in past lives: for example, there's the story of the tigress (here's the short version and a longer version). Actually that story is told as admirable and perhaps even as a necessary step in the Bodhisattva's evolution towards birth as a Buddha. The Jataka tales are not entirely canonical though.

Also Buddhist are taught that generosity is a virtue (perhaps the first virtue; or maybe the second virtue after "harmlessness").
I'm not sure that generosity is seen as "sacrifice" though.
And literal "sacrifice" (perhaps using fire?) was a feature of the contemporary (pre- and post-Buddhist) religion: performed by priests of the "Brahmin" caste.
I think that the whole last chapter of the Dhammapada is on that topic: saying that what makes a person "holy" isn't sacrifice and so on, but self-restraint and so on.
There are some similar doctrine addressed to a Brahmin in the suttas also.


Why did Tsongkhapa list guru devotion first in his Lamrim while Atisha did not? Lama Atisha famously brought the teachings of Nalanda back to Tibet and authored his famous, A Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment upon which the new translation schools were founded. This seminal text is the foundational document of the lamrim upon which all subsequent lamrims are based.

Atisha did not seem to mention guru devotion in his lamrim. Spiritual teachers are mentioned only in the course of explaining how to properly receive the Bodhisattva vows and to receive Tantric initiations. Nowhere can I find the idea that guru devotion is the root of the path to enlightenment.

Je Tsongkhapa on the other hand listed guru devotion towards the very beginning of his lamrim and it is widely taught in new translation schools that guru devotion is the root of the path to enlightenment. Why is this? Why would something so important and fundamental be left out entirely by Lama Atisha from his seminal text?

Also, this is what His Holiness the Dalai Lama has said about guru devotion in Questioning the Advice of the Guru:

  It is frequently said that the essence of the training in guru yoga is
  to cultivate the art of seeing everything the guru does as perfect.
  Personally I myself do not like this to be taken too far. Often we see
  written in the scriptures, “Every action seen as perfect.” However,
  this phrase must be seen in the light of Buddha Shakyamuni’s own
  words: “Accept my teachings only after examining them as an analyst
  buys gold. Accept nothing out of mere faith in me.” The problem with
  the practice of seeing everything the guru does as perfect is that it
  very easily turns to poison for both the guru and the disciple.
  Therefore, whenever I teach this practice, I always advocate that the
  tradition of “every action seen as perfect” not be stressed. Should
  the guru manifest unDharmic qualities or give teachings contradicting
  Dharma, the instruction on seeing the spiritual master as perfect must
  give way to reason and Dharma wisdom.

  Perhaps you will think: “The Dalai Lama has not read the Lam Rim
  scriptures. He does not know that there is no practice of Dharma
  without the guru.” I am not being disrespectful of the Lam Rim
  teachings. A student of the spiritual path should rely upon a teacher
  and should meditate on that teacher’s kindness and good qualities; but
  the teaching on seeing his or her actions as perfect can only be
  applied within the context of the Dharma as a whole and the rational
  approach to knowledge that it advocates. As the teachings on seeing
  the guru’s actions as perfect is borrowed from Highest Tantra and
  appears in the Lam Rim mainly to prepare the trainee for tantric
  practice, beginners must treat it with caution. As for spiritual
  teachers, if they misrepresent this precept of guru yoga in order to
  take advantage of naive disciples, their actions are like pouring
  the liquid fires of hell directly into their stomachs.

Emphasis mine. If preparing the trainee for Tantric practice is the reason for adding it to the Lamrim, then is it true that guru devotion is not of such importance for those studying sutra only? In other words, can it be said that for those practicing sutrayana only that guru devotion is not the root of the path?

Very good question. This is a quote by Lama Zopa Rinpoche that seems to cover this point.

  Lama Tsongkhapa asked Manjushri, “What is the way to achieve quick
  realizations of the path to enlightenment?” Manjushri answered, “To
  purify the mind of the obstacles to realizations and to collect the
  necessary conditions, the merit, to collect extensive merit, that’s
  one thing. The other one is one-pointedly making requests to the
  guru,” that means with devotion. The third one is meditating on the
  path.

Thus it may have been under Manjushri's guidance that Je Tsongkhapa adopted this order.

You are of course right about the order in which the Lamrim points are presented is different in the various Lamrims. While Jowo Je Atisha used Bodhichitta as the first step on the path, Gampopa in his "Jewel Ornament of Liberation" begins with Buddha Nature. While Patrul Rinpoche begins "The Words of My Perfect Teacher" with the precious human life.

Atisha begins his Lamrim after explaining the three scopes with the following verse:

For these excellent beings
Who aspire to supreme enlightenment,
I shall explain the perfect method
Taught by my spiritual masters.

Thus the Lamp on the Path to Enlightenment is primarily addressed to Mahayana practitioners and thus generating the Spirit of Enlightenment is the first step he presents.

Gampopa has a very interesting presentation in "Jewel Ornament of Liberation". Buddha Nature is the primary cause, the precious human life is the working basis while reliance on a spiritual master is the contributory cause.

Patrul Rinpoche's combines 'Reliance on a Spiritual Master' together with generating the spirit of enlightenment and development of Bodhichitta. One of my teachers has explained that the above are three levels of refuge and Patrul Rinpoche uses it as the preliminaries before the introduction of Mahamudra, Chod and Transference teachings.

Since the Lamrim Chenmo is a sutric text it does not go into the tantra except towards the end where Je Tsongkhapa mentions that the disciple has to practice the teachings of the Vajrayana before undertaking the four methods of gathering disciples. However the Vajrayana is a part of the entire path and thus from Je Tsongkhapa's point of view the preliminaries should include guru devotion.

This is explained further in Panchen Chyoki Gyaltsen's 'Easy Path' where each section is divided into the preliminary, the actual meditation session and time in between sessions. This format is adopted by Kyabje Pabonka Rinpoche as well in 'Liberation in you Hands'. In the preliminary, is the primary practice of Guru Yoga and supplication which helps you understand the meditation topic better.

Thus in the Gelug Lamrims following Tsongkhapa the importance on the Reliance on the Spiritual Master being the root of the path is emphasised. This can be best explained by the benefits of relying upon a spiritual master as found in the Precious Master's Instructions Outline to the Lamrim.

The eight benefits of relying on spiritual masters:
* Coming closer to achieving Buddhahood
* Pleasing all conquerors
* Being invulnerable to demons and misleading friends
* The automatic reduction of disturbing mental factors and incorrect behaviour
* The increase of all grounds, paths and realisations
* Never being deprived of a teacher in all future lives
* Not falling into lower rebirths
* Effortlessly achieving all temporary and ultimate goals


Why are these called "The All"? Based on the sutta quote below:

Why are these called "The All": the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas?
Why someone trying to explain "The All" as being something else would fail?
What does "it lies beyond range" mean?

From Sabba Sutta:

  "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
  speak."

  "As you say, lord," the monks responded.

  The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who
  would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
  questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
  would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
  Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Buddha's time in India there were many views about the world. This is similar to saying nowadays "The all mighty God" etc. These views are discussed in the Brahmajala Sutta. These wrong views lead you to a wrong destination. However, according to Buddhism the right view lead to Nibbana.
What Buddha saying is nobody can comprehend anything beyond six senses.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html


Did Buddhism ever go through a period of relatively high violence? Catholicism/Christianity had the dark ages and the inquisition in which 'heretics' were prosecuted with violence.  One could claim that Islam is currently in a period of high violence.  Did Buddhism ever go through such a period?

Buddhism experience some very harsh periods. E.g.

The destruction of Nalanda
Decline of Buddhism in India due to many factors
Kalinga Magha's invasion
Persecution of Buddhists

Buddhism would have gone through some violent times in the Malay Peninsula also as it was predominantly Buddhist before.

Following may also be interesting:

Decline of Buddhism in Thailand
Buddhism in the World Today


What exactly is Buddhism? Where does it help me? How can I start? I just discovered this website and it seems really interesting!
But now I ask myself: "What exactly is this? What exactly is Buddhism? How can it help me? Where does it help me?" etc.

I really want to start with it (if it really helps me in everyday life), but I don't know how :(. Can anyone explain it to me?

Thank you in advance!

The exact nature of Buddhism is it exists to diagnose the suffering & problems that exist in human life for the sole purpose of overcoming & being free from suffering & problems in human life.

The Buddha said: "I teach about two things: suffering & freedom from suffering".

Whatever problems people have, be they related to work, finance, relationships, life skills, grief, suffering, discontent, existentialism, etc, Buddhism generally has an answer.

In short, Buddhism exists to bring human happiness, peace & freedom.


how to respect older/elderly people who are conceited and demand respect because of age? How to respond appropriately to people that are significantly older than me if they demand respect because of their age yet are conceited (and typically also conceited about not being conceited)?

Often old folks use their age to gain respect, and then build their authority on top of it to spread false teachings. How would a passionate person handle such situations, not wanting to offend against the Dhamma by insulting the older/elderly person, yet preventing them from getting away with conceit and/or false teaching?

How would the Buddha have handled such situations?

I think a lot of Christian folk use such coercive tactic to gain authority and following, so I think it’s a practical question in the western world.

Situations triggering resentment present challenges. To abandon such resentment and act freely requires mindfulness of body, speech and mind. For example, the conceit you describe is heard and resisted as coercive, impure speech. In this particular case, Venerable Sāriputta details the following advice:

  AN5.162:2.5: In the case of a person whose behavior by way of speech is impure, but whose behavior by way of body is pure, … you should get rid of resentment for that kind of person.

This alone is astounding in its uncompromising assertion that it is our own resentment that is a hindrance needing to be abandoned. Venerable Sāriputta continues and provides a more detailed example:

  AN5.162:4.2: Suppose there was a lotus pond covered with moss and aquatic plants. Then along comes a person struggling in the oppressive heat, weary, thirsty, and parched. They’d plunge into the lotus pond, sweep apart the moss and aquatic plants, drink from their cupped hands, and be on their way. In the same way, at that time you should ignore that person’s impure behavior by way of speech and focus on their pure behavior by way of body.

In this way one may gently ignore the strident teachings of such people while praising their silent kindness, caring and generosity to others. If you're curious, AN5.162 has more detail for study.


Which (semi)secret societies influence Buddhism? What are the names of the (semi)secret societies — any and/or all of them — that have influenced, are influencing (and, via common consent, may influence in the future) Buddhism?

The Dhamma(teachings of the Buddha) is the sole authority on Buddhism and the Sangha are the guardians of it. There is no need for secret societies in Buddhism. It is not supposed to be secret or hidden.
The Dhamma has the following 6 qualities:

Svakkhato: The Dhamma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely. Therefore it is Excellent in the beginning (Sila — Moral principles), Excellent in the middle (Samadhi — Concentration) and Excellent in the end (Panna — Wisdom),
Samditthiko: The Dhamma is testable by practice and known by direct experience,
Akaliko: The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence.
Ehipassiko: The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test and to experience it for themselves.
Opaneyiko: The Dhamma is capable of being entered upon and therefore it is worthy to be followed as a part of one's life.
Paccattam veditabbo vinnunhi: The Dhamma may be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples who have matured and enlightened enough in supreme wisdom.

It is like the moon. The more it is revealed to the world, the brighter the world becomes.


Is this what is nimitta is? From my understanding, The nimitta are signs you should be looking for during your jhana meditation. Like once your focusing on your visual object you will notice a white light. Thats a sign your entering acess concentration. Or you may notice your breathing becoming very faint. Thats another sign.

Is this correct? Is there certain signs i should look for during my jhana meditation?

It is not correct.

As Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena says in this post (Does contemplation activity, before hand, give rise to the mental image?) in this context, nimitta (that we usually translate as sign) refers to a mental image. In case of concentrating on the breath, it says it resembles white light.

But the measure of achieving an access level is not just that, for the mental image of the breath is found way before, according to Abhidharma. Before the access level, there is samatha, and the measure of achieving samatha are physical and mental pliancy, and physical and mental bliss. As long as these pliancy and bliss are not present, you can be sure you have not obtained samatha, much less the access level. That pliancy is the direct antidote to laziness, which means that one can at last meditate for as long as he wishes without experiencing discomfort (no more backache, no more unwilling mind that you feel you can not bend, etc).

You should not actively seek for these (pliancy, bliss, and even the finding of the mental image of  the breath) because it will make your mind tight and narrow. We do not meditate just to cultivate more attachment. Rather, you should count on ethical discipline, contentment, few desire, the lack of many discursive thoughts, regular and repetitive practice, and an understanding of the Dharma to lead you there eventually.


Non attachment in daily life Has anybody personal experience in trying this ? Is it not natural to have some attachment?  I realize attachment is a cause of suffering but is suffering not natural?

Attachment to that which is impermanent will result in suffering. Attachment is clinging or holding onto something, resisting change, seeking to duplicate past experiences when that is simply unreliable or even impossible.

One can live a normal life without attaching - we can do this by ceasing to fall prey to our habitual judgements and reactions, cultivating a mindfulness that sees things as they are, without a faulty bias or colored glass to see with. When we are not mindful of our feeling, perceptions, or judgements, we get carried away with the proliferation resulting from that. One can enjoy music or a garden without becoming attached to it - you know these flowers will wither, and the music will fade to silence, yet they are still pleasant. As long as you are aware of their Impermanence and the fact you judge them as pleasant, you'll be fine.

Seeing clearly, without judgements, leads to Equanimity, which leads to non-attachment, which leads to peace, which is freedom from suffering. The more Equanimity, the less suffering. When we see clearly, we see all things as impermanent, not capable of satisfying our desire, and therefore not worth attaching to or identifying with. When one truly knows attachment as the precursor of suffering, it is easy to avoid, like you avoid putting your hand in open flame.

When attachment arises, become mindful of it. Ask, is it skillful, leading towards relinquishment and freedom? Ask, is this attachment permanent, satisfying, or truly mine? Then, simply observe as you let it go. How does it feel to release an attachment, to watch a desire fade away? When you resist the urge to eat that candy bar, how do you feel? Try it out. Come and see. ;)


Resemblance between bhanga and jhana Is there any resemblance between bhanga and the jhanas? If so, which is the accordance between both?

Both have Priti. In Banga you can see it through out your body where you can see complete dissolution. In Jhana dissolution aspect might not be that clear depending how you gain it.


I only know that I will know nothing: can that ever have any currency for Buddhists? The Socratic / dialectical phrase:

  I know one thing: that I know nothing.

If one were to subvert it to

I know one thing: that I will know nothing.

Is it a maxim that can guide practice, in any conceivable way?

"A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but
  a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed." - Dhammapada 63

If a foolish person were to become aware that he is foolish, there is potential for spiritual growth. But the fool who thinks that he is wise, blocks himself from any spiritual development due to his delusion.


What is Destruction of Lay arahathood? when lay person attains enlightment he has to die that same day within 24 hours or else become monk if not there is destruction of life what is the future of such person ?

They leave the laylife within 7 days, not 24 hours. This is why Pacceka Buddhas go to live in the forest since there is no Sangha community.


From which text is the quote by Buddha “My practice is the nonpractice, the attainment of nonattainment” taken? I was reading an article on Tricycle written by Thich Nhat Hanh, in which he quotes Buddha as follows:

  “My practice is the nonpractice, the attainment of nonattainment.”

From which text is this quote taken?

Here it says, its from the Sutra of 42 Chapters.


If every bad event is because of karma, how can anyone ever murder an arhat or buddha? If every bad event is because of karma, how can anyone ever murder an arhat?

  Killing an Arhat (enlightened being)

is one of the ānantarika-kamma actions.

If every bad event is because of karma, how can anyone ever murder an arhat or buddha?

Question premise might reveal an internal inconsistency - every bad event is not only caused by Kamma.

The Buddha taught that there are 5 natural laws (Niyamas), that causes physical and mental events to take place;

  1.    The seasonal laws (Utu-Niyama) related to temperature, seasons and other physical events

  2. The biological laws (Bija-Niyama) related to seeds and physical organic order

  3. The physical law (Citta-Niyama) related to the processes of consciousness, or to the nature of consciousness which recognises objects etc.

  4. The Kammic law (Kamma-Niyama) related to the law of Kamma, (good deeds and bad deeds and their results)

  5. The Natural laws (Dhamma-Niyama) related to certain events: the general law of cause and effect, causality conditionally and unconditionally
  Trying to further interpretate it will just carry over into  imagination. Only a fully enlightened Buddha can know the intricate workings of kamma.


What does wrong freedom or wrong release mean? This is from the Paṭhamaadhammasutta (AN10.113).

  Katamo ca bhikkhave adhammo ca anattho ca?

  Micchā-diṭṭhi, micchā-saŋkappo,
  micchā-vācā micchā-kammanto, micchā-ājīvo,  micchā-vāyāmo,  micchā-sati,micchā-samādhi, micchā-ñāṇaɱ, micchā-vimutti.

  And what are not-dhamma and not-aim?

  Wrong view, wrong thinking, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong living,
  wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration, wrong knowledge,
  wrong release.

(Found on Obo-net.)

Does anyone know what wrong release could be? Does the Buddha explain this anywhere?
I can't really understand how release can be wrong. Seems to me that one is or is not released.

All other releases or freedom which are not that of Nibbana (e.g. still subject to birth, aging, sickness end death), are called miccha, wrong. There are countless of them. With every action, in all ways of desire beings seeks for release. micchā-magga, the wrong way of practice leads to miccha-vimutti, wrong release (no release). The nature of wrong freedom, which is gained on and on, after certain stilling, is that it does not last, is dependend and subject to decay.

To count them all would be endless, but maybe such words like "pseudo-liberalism" or "householder-equanimity" in wordily spheres or the many kinds of Nihilism incl. based on Jhana may help. The possible most structured list of miccha-vimutti by the Sublime Buddha can be found in the Brahma Net. And here a sample of an atheist: "I live free of the guilt of sin and the fear of Hell."

  "N'atthi santi param sukham"
  "The is no peace like (the peace) of happiness beyond" (e.g. Nibbana)"

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma not thought for any trade, stakes or exchange for wordily gains]


What does Buddhism teach about healing others through the mind From my experience, one can influence outcomes of whatever by using intent. This is investigated much currently by Thomas Campbell, which you can read about in this My big TOE book and see in his videos on YouTube. What I read from a Buddhist perspective (http://www.buddhanet.net/tib_heal.htm) the mind certainly plays a role in your own physical health. What about influencing that health of others? For example, when one of my kids has the flu, I wish them good health using meditation. I have no objective proof but it seems to speed up the recovery.

My question is, what does Buddhism teach in using the mind to heal physical problems of others? And what about healing their mental problems through focused intent?

I wish to have tagged this with 'mental', 'physical' and 'health' but those tags aren't available.

What happens when we aren't attentively listening, and then we see someone who attentively tries to listen to something?

It's natural if we would begin to listen attentively too.

So our behavior and states of mind influence others, and are influenced by others. Therefore, having clear and calm mind can benefit others around us.

It happened that entering a room or a Dharma center where a Buddhist teacher experienced in meditation was present, I felt thick atmosphere of awareness. Like a field of energy.

Likewise, sometimes I felt similar "field of energy" entering a church, or entering my room when I practiced there a lot.

There are many stories how a state of mind influenced others or even influenced weather, e.g. stopped a drought. Famous Heart Sutra (except in the brief version) says:

  Once the Blessed One was dwelling in Rajagriha at Vulture Peak mountain, together with a great gathering of the sangha of monks and a great gathering of the sangha of bodhisattvas.  At that time the Blessed One entered the samadhi that expresses the dharma called “profound illumination,” and at the same time noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, while practicing the profound prajñaparamita, saw in this way: he saw the five skandhas to be empty of nature.

It means the Buddha was in deep meditative absorption, and that helped Avalokiteshvara to immerse in deep clarity and gain insight.

I noticed such things in my own life. For example, when I sat down with a silent mind near people whose mind was scattered and troubled, often they realized something, e.g. solutions to their problems, or they recalled something they wanted to do.

Therefore we can say that harmony, clarity, calmness and concentration of our mind might help others too be in harmony, clarity, calmness and concentration.

When turbulence of mind ceases, our bodies naturally tend to optimize their self-regulation.

So there are Buddhist practices, especially in Mahayana, such as Bhaishajya Guru (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaisajyaguru) sadhanas, which are used for healing.

Among the mental factors conductive to awakening, there are Four bases of spiritual power, or riddhipada. See Iddhipada (Wikipedia) and Four Steps to Magical Powers by Master Sheng Yen.

Improving our states of mind as means of practice is the basis of the concept of Six paramitas. It might be considered the central concept of Mahayana Buddhism, with the role similar to the role of the Eightfold path for Buddhism in general.

Six paramitas (six perfections) can be explained as developing puṇya (Pali puñña, English merit) - the energy of good karma. As we practice the first paramita, selfless giving, and so on, we move the burden of egoism away from our shoulders. It can be felt as natural "unconditional happiness". Like feeling warm sun on the skin, warm smile inside, clarity and calmness pervading everything, as unlimited as space.

That process of abandoning egoism therefore is explained as developing the energy of good karma. Our actions become more powerful and clean, our mind more stable and perceptive, and so on.

When we try to study Dharma intellectually, we can find it's hard to understand complex ideas like emptiness etc., but when we practice Six perfections, we develop punya, and understanding becomes easier. Therefore Mahayana teachers say: "The path of giving is the supreme path". (See e.g. "Ratna avali").

Some students misunderstand that, theoretically thinking that such words were addressed to laymen and so weren't ultimately true. They think that it's clear that the supreme path is studying emptiness. But in real practice we develop punya, and that enables us to realize emptiness, so it's the same path.

Therefore we shouldn't think that developing good karmic energy is somehow a lower path; it is indeed the supreme path, inseparable from the realization of emptiness.

That's why Mahayana practitioners, especially after a session of formal practice, pronounce "dedication of merit". In order to keep our giving selfless, and to keep our energy from dissipation, we give it away, to benefit everybody. We dedicate the developed punya to the awakening of all beings, or to other goals in that direction. For example, after a session of meditation etc., we can transfer merit dedicating it to healing a sick person.

Also note that causes created mentally become more powerful when they are expressed in actions of body and speech.


What does it mean to 'advert' to the factors of jhana after emerging from jhana? I think this all comes from the Visudhimagga's explanation of jhana. I'm not sure there's any references to a term similar to "advert" in the Canon, but I keep running into the term advert without any further explanation in plain English of what that means, and it's a rare kind of word to begin with:

  Following this the meditator should try to acquire five kinds of mastery over the jhana: mastery in adverting, in attaining, in resolving, in emerging and in reviewing.[16] Mastery in adverting is the ability to advert to the jhana factors one by one after emerging from the jhana, wherever he wants, whenever he wants, and for as long as he wants. ...

The definition of advert:

  1: to turn the mind or attention —used with to <adverted to the speaker>

  2: to call attention in the course of speaking or writing :  make reference —used with to <adverted to foreign-language sources>

Mastery in adverting means mastery in turning your mind to the jhana factors? So the first step of jhana mastery is the ability to turn your mind to:

applied thought,
sustained thought,
rapture,
happiness and
one-pointedness

--after you've emerged from jhana?

So after I emerge from jhana, I have to turn my mind to applied thought, then to sustained thought, then to rapture, etc. when and for as my mind wants to, no matter where I am.

In this context "advert" would mean to recall a cue that produces the desired effect.

For example in second jhana, to produce rapture and happiness without the use of applied/sustained thought, one may turn attention to the muscles of the face, temples, neck, shoulders, diaphragm, chest -- and recall the sensations they experience when feeling happy and joyful.

In first jhana, it would be recalling a particular idea (e.g. the happy fact that one is now separated from unskillful mental qualities due to having realized the Path).

P.S. I would not take "after emerging" literally. "After emerging" aka "post-meditation" generally means one's day-to-day practice outside of formal meditation.


When would a Buddhist want to attach? I understand that Buddhism is meant to end sufferings. The Buddhists welcome everything and don't clinging when it's gone. They don't necessary cut existing attachments (knowledge, relationships), but they don't necessary seek to strengthen them. However, is there a case that a Buddhist wants to attach?

The teachings has always been about detachment.

Therefore, assuming when you mention Buddhist means "one who understands the true context of the Dharma AND practice the teachings skillfully", then the answer will be No. There will be no case for such one to want to attach.

And to clarify any doubts - practicing something does not equal to attaching to something.


Shariputra and a bodhisattva losing bodhicitta In my copy of Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara, there is a footnote referencing a story about Shariputra losing bodhicitta.  Apparently a demon asked for his right arm, Shariputra willing gave it.  But the demon is offended that Shariputra offered it with his left hand, at which point Shariputra dispairs.  According to the footnote, this story is told in the Lotus Sutra.  But, I cannot find it there.  (Granted, I do not have complete version of the sutra to search through available to me.  So perhaps it's in the missing material.)

But I also have a vague memory of another story about a bodhisattva losing bodhicitta.  The story, as I recall it, recounts how the bodhisattva works tirelessly to save all hell beings and at long last manages to liberate the last being from hell.  Hell is empty.  Having completed his work, the bodhisattva lets out a sigh of relief.  And, in that instant, hell is completely repopulated once more.  The bodhisattva grows despondent that his efforts have been to no avail.

I've tried a web search for this last one. While, not surprisingly, I get many hits on bodhicitta, I haven't found this particular story.

So, I have three closely related questions.  Where in the Lotus Sutra does this particular story about Shariputra's loss of bodhicitta occur?  And, who is the bodhisattva in this second story?  In which sutra(s) can this story be found?

I can only answer the part of your question relating to the Lotus Sutra. I hope a partial answer is better than none.

From my recollection of reading the Lotus Sutra - Shariputra is portrayed as someone who hasn't made the journey all the way to enlightenment yet. He believed he had however the Buddha clarified this and states that he is stuck on the lower teachings. Unlike some other Mahayana sutras he is portrayed in a positive light and it is predicted that he will attain full enlightenment and become a Buddha named Flower Glow.

Though it isn't translated as bodhicitta in my copy I think this might be the quote you are looking for

  Shariputra in the past I taught you to aspire and vow to achieve the
  Buddha way. But now you have forgotten all that and instead suppose
  that you have already attained extinction.

[Quote from pp 51 of the Burton Watson translation]

I read

  vow to achieve the Buddha way

as the bodhicitta - which I have previous heard translated as the 'will to enlightenment' which I propose is the same thing.