What are the wholesome qualities? Namo Buddhaya. At many places in the Suttas, Buddha calls for development of wholesome qualities. I guess Love , Joy , Compassion , Equanimity,Honesty,Conscience are wholesome qualities but that is the not the final list of wholesome qualities.

My question is : Is there a Sutta in which Buddha lists all the wholesome qualities one should develop in order to attain Nirvana?

The 25 beautiful mental factors (sobhanaa cetasika) from the Abhidhamma (which is not sutta but is derived from the Buddha's teachings):

  The beautiful mental factors. There are twenty-five beautiful factors.
  Nineteen are common to all beautiful thoughts, six are variable. The
  latter are the three "abstinence factors," two "illimitables," and the
  wisdom factor.

  The common beautiful factors (sobhanaa saadhaaranaa) are as follows:

  Confidence (saddhaa), also called faith, which for a Buddhist means
  trust in the Three Jewels — the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, and in the
  principles of the Buddha's teachings.
  Mindfulness (sati): this is alertness, which makes us aware of what is
  happening to us, from moment to moment, through the five physical
  senses and the mind. Mindfulness is essential to insight meditation,
  when it must be conjoined with a clear comprehension of the
  suitability, purpose, and conformity with reality of any action. Then
  it is called right mindfulness (sammaa sati). Usually the average
  person acts without any form of mindfulness; his acts are prompted by
  force of habit. Right mindfulness has two functions: one is to
  increase the power of recollection and the other is to evaluate what
  is wholesome and what is unwholesome. Right mindfulness is a spiritual
  faculty that maintains a proper balance of the other faculties —
  faith, energy, concentration and wisdom.
  Shame of evil (hiri) and
  fear of evil (ottappa) are the opposites
  of the second and third unwholesome mental factors, already discussed.
  Non-attachment (alobha) restrains attachment and fosters generosity.
  Good-will (adosa) is synonymous with loving kindness (mettaa). It
  keeps a person free from resentment and anger.
  Equanimity (tatramajjhattaa, upekkhaa) is balance of mind, a quality
  of neutrality free from attachment and repulsion.

  The other twelve common beautiful factors fall into six pairs, one member affecting the "body" of mental factors (kaaya), the other
  affecting consciousness as a whole (citta). The six are as follows,
  the terms themselves indicating their nature:

  composure (passaddhi) of the mental factors
  composure (passaddhi) of consciousness
  buoyancy (lakhutaa) of the mental factors
  buoyancy (lakhutaa) of consciousness
  pliancy (mudutaa) of the mental factors
  pliancy (mudutaa) of consciousness
  efficiency (kammaññataa) of the mental factors
  efficiency (kammaññataa) of consciousness
  proficiency (paguññataa) of the mental factors
  proficiency (paguññataa) of consciousness
  rectitude (ujukataa) of the mental factors
  rectitude (ujukataa) of consciousness

  The abstinence factors (virati) restrain a person from committing evil
  acts. These are three in number:

  Right speech (sammaa vacaa) is abstinence from lying, slandering,
  abusive language, and idle talk.
  Right action (sammaa kammantaa) is abstinence from killing, taking
  what is not given, and wrong conduct with regard to sense pleasures.
  Right livelihood (sammaa aajiiva) is abstinence from any livelihood
  that brings harm to other living beings.

  The illimitable factors (appamaññaa) are compassion and sympathetic
  joy; they are called illimitable because they are boundless and extend
  to all living beings.

  Compassion (karu.naa) has the nature of being moved by the suffering
  of others. The sadness we might experience over the suffering or loss
  of a loved one is not true compassion. Such sadness is sentimental, a
  manifestation of grief. Real compassion arises when the mind, detached
  from self-referential concerns, is stirred by the suffering of others,
  feeling the suffering as its own.
  Sympathetic joy (muditaa) has the nature of rejoicing in other's
  happiness. Usually people rejoice at the success of someone who is
  near and dear to them, but it is rare for them to rejoice when success
  and prosperity are enjoyed by someone unknown, not to speak of an
  adversary. Muditaa embraces all beings and cannot coexist with the
  unwholesome mental factor of jealousy.

  Compassion and sympathetic joy, together with goodwill and equanimity,
  form the Four Sublime Abodes (brahma vihaara). Goodwill and equanimity
  were mentioned under the common beautiful factors.

  The wisdom factor (paññaa) enables one to see things as they truly
  are, that is, in the light of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and
  selflessness.


Hatred arising after a friend tried to make my fiancé cheat on me Yesterday one of my fiancé's friends had a heart attack at 25 due to alcoholism. She stayed with him all night. When he was discharged she was sleeping at his house because she was too tired to drive home and he made a very aggressive move on her. She ran away crying.

It really hurt her, because he was a close friend and now things have gotten complicated. But for me I can't shake feelings of anger and hatred at this guy. Two days  ago he was a funny, nice-enough guy who probably had a crush on my fiancé but I wasn't worried because I trust her. Now he's the guy who hit on her very forcefully.

My fiancé partly wants to stay his friend. But I don't know how I can even look at this guy. I try to have compassion, remember he could've died and was in a scary place, but I think about what he did I'm filled with disgust. I don't know if he knows I know what happened. Should I talk to him? Or ask my fiancé to tell him and see if he apologises?

Sometimes they work together, late at night and by themselves. I don't know how I could stand that.

Please, I'll appreciate any advice you can give. I was once fairly rid of feelings of violence and anger. Now I'm not so sure.

The issue is mostly between you & your fiancé (rather than the guy) since it is your fiancé that must establish appropriate boundaries with the guy. If he is to remain your friend, naturally he should apologise to both of you. If he remains your friend, you must communicate your personal concerns directly to him (rather than hold them within you).

However, Buddhism does not state you must remain his friend because Buddhism warns against 'false friends' & 'bad companionship', particularly those who are womanizers & alcoholics.

  12. "These are the six dangers inherent in bad companionship: any rogue, drunkard, addict, cheat, swindler, or thug becomes a friend and
  colleague.

  15. "Young man, be aware of these four enemies disguised as friends: the taker, the talker, the flatterer, and the reckless companion.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html


Permission of parents to be a Monk I already know this much    https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/35802/17220
Still ,there is a particular case where ,I have no experience/knowledge which is below.

Person with 27 yrs. of age and above. Parents are alive. No responsibility over Person. Person is having exemplary character & is unmarried. Person is unsatisfied by any meditation center , monastery , ashram , yogi etc. ,so want to meditate alone in forest alongside other *religious meditators. Parents are not ready to accept buddha or buddha's teachings for their child cause they think that it(buddhism) is only to destroy householdness. It tears down parents if person flees away to forest or even tries to do so.

Update

Under these circumstances, is permission required ,if yes ,then how to convince parents.

Note:: 'To be a monk' means 'to go forth to be' ::

detached one , beyond all sense of his own name and form. Without any existence of I, my or mine. Not to grieve if his name and form entity were to decay and deteriorate.

This rule is put in place because joining a monastic order (like any thing else one does in life) is a karmic act, and one should strive not to do harm. The idea that a child might disappear into a monastic order, never accomplishing any of the 'normal' things that parents expect of children — gainful employment, grandchildren, social status or respect, or any of the other hallmarks of worldly 'success' — can be frightening and disturbing to a parent. One is asked to seek parent's permission so that one does not enter monastic life leaving a cloud of fear and resentment in one's wake. It's an act of compassion for parents and the world they live in.


Why this hair style on statues of the Buddha? http://9gag.com/gag/arOnzn5 says that the Buddha's "hair" on this statue represents snails.

I thought Buddha shave his head like all his disciples. And there is a claim that his hair are actually snails.

The question isn't just whether the hair represent the snails, but what do the 108 snails present. Recall that Buddhism heavily utilize symbolism to convey it's message. It doesn't mean that the historical Buddha actually had snails on his head.

The number 108 represents the 108 mental afflictions.

http://mrob.com/pub/epist/buddhism.html

  In traditional Buddhist thought, people are said to have 108
  afflictions or klesas. There are six senses (sight, sound, smell,
  taste, touch, and consciousness) multiplied by three reactions
  (positive, negative, or indifference) making 18 "feelings." Each of
  these feelings can be either "attached to pleasure or detached from
  pleasure" making 36 "passions", each of which may be manifested in the
  past, present, or future.

  which corresponds to: {sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, and
  consciousness} × {positive, negative, indifferent} × {attached to
  pleasure, detached from pleasure} × {past, present, future}    =
  6×3×2×3 = 108

In this sense the snails and their hard shells essentially represents mindful concentration which guards against all these afflictions.


where to get Tattvasiddhi Śāstra Anyone knows where I can get my hands on Tattvasiddhi Śāstra by Harivarman, also known as Satyasiddhi Śāstra also known as Prodbhūtopadeśa also known as Chengshi lun. Paper or electronic format is fine.

It's available for download here at Scribd.com.

But it looks like one must buy a subscription in order to read their books.


What is the relationship between the New Kadampa Tradition and Tibetan Buddhism? New Kadampa Tradition is a prominent Buddhist movement in the UK with many centres and meditation classes. However I've always been confused about the relationship between them and Tibetan Buddhist.

So moving on from this question - what is the relationship between the New Kadampa Tradition and the Tibetan schools? What lineage if any do they claim? Are they a minor school or a subset of another school? I heard somewhere that they had a disagreement with the Dalai Lamaso maybe they are linked with the Gelug school. However that might not be true - all kinds of things get reported about Buddhist organisations that can be classified as new religious movements, some of which are just sticks to beat them with.

The New Kadampa Tradition (or NKT for short) is an offshoot group that broke away from the Gelug school. One of the primary areas of controversy between the NKT and the mainstream Gelug school is the position of a figure called Dorje Shugden, who among the NKT is considered to be Manjushri emanated as a spirit in order to keep the Gelug school pure from teachings from other schools. Among the NKT Dorje Shugden is propitiated as an enlightened being, but within the Gelug school now it is understood that Dorje Shugden is a worldly spirit only, and should not be treated as an enlightened being.

As a result of this split, the NKT is very insular, and will generally only read a selection of books written by their founder, Kelsang Gyatso, and in general are not considered to be part of the Gelug school any more due to Kelsang Gyatso being expelled from his home monastery of Sera Me, but their selection of teachings and practices are all drawn from the Gelug school.


How to cure "if I blamed someone who we should not blame"? According to the Buddha's teaching, how can one cure the offense of "blaming someone who we should not blame"? Here "someone" means from Sotapanna to Arahant; and "blame" means to accuse that what he/she does (or what he/she does not do) is done (or not done) in not a good way.

Is there any chance that normal people like me can blame Sotapanna - Arahant in a way he/she is not doing good?

If I should not blame and I blamed, how can it be cured so that I do not accuse improperly and do not make any harm to myself?

What is Buddha's teaching said about it?

What is proper way of curing to completely remove the burden of accusing the noble being? How it can be done in details?

Even if it is not in direct Buddha's teachings or in Dhamma, is there any example or something that had been done before in some past experiences?

There's no completely escaping the consequences of a bad deed unless the Karma becomes defunct. But you can do much to mitigate the effects.

If the monk is alive, apologize in person. If he is dead, think of him and apologize.
Do good deeds. ex: offering alms to the monk you insulted or to the Sagha as a whole.
Do meditation. ex: Spreading Metta to all beings, practicing the four foundations of mindfulness etc.

All of the above will help a great deal, but only a Buddha would know what exactly you should do to make a Karma defunct, if it is possible.


Where in the Pali Canon does it give examples of right livelihood and it's opposite A while ago I remember reading part of the Pail Canon where it gave a comprehensive list of professions the Buddha considers not right livelihood. It has things like fortune tellers in the list. I remember the list was quite anachronistic in parts but also very interesting and instructive. Can anyone give that reference and perhaps copy in the original text if it isn't too long.

Also is there an equivalent list of professions that would be considered right livelihood in the Pail Canon.

Many Thanks

An introduction to Right Livelihood on accesstoinsight references very short definitions of right and wrong livelihood for lay followers. And in fact I've never yet found a detailed description of right and wrong livelihood, beyond these quotes. You can also infer some ethical rules from what the Sigalovada Sutta says about Workers; and from RIght Livelihood being on the "ethics" branch of the Eight-fold path.

The "not right livelihood which include things like fortune tellers in the list" might be from here, The Great Section on Virtue in Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life (note that these are said to be 'wrong' for "contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith"):

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
  signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
  interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
  reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
  oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
  ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
  blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
  geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a
  cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and
  gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
  bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
  charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: determining lucky and unlucky gems, staffs, garments, swords,
  arrows, bows, and other weapons; women, men, boys, girls, male slaves,
  female slaves; elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams,
  fowl, quails, lizards, rabbits, tortoises, and other animals — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
  march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
  their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
  triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
  triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
  triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be a lunar eclipse; there will be a solar
  eclipse; there will be an occultation of [a conjunction of the moon or
  a planet with] an asterism; the sun and moon will be favorable; the
  sun and moon will be unfavorable; the asterisms will be favorable; the
  asterisms will be unfavorable; there will be a meteor shower; there
  will be a flickering light on the horizon [an aurora?]; there will be
  an earthquake; there will be thunder coming from dry clouds; there
  will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the sun,
  moon, and asterisms; such will be the result of the lunar eclipse ...
  the rising, setting, darkening, brightening of the sun, moon, and
  asterisms — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such
  as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
  drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
  rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
  will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
  counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
  and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
  the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
  calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
  collecting debts or making investments and loans; reciting charms to
  make people attractive or unattractive; curing women who have
  undergone miscarriages or abortions; reciting spells to bind a man's
  tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands,
  or to bring on deafness; getting oracular answers to questions
  addressed to a spirit in a mirror, in a young girl, or to a spirit
  medium; worshipping the sun, worshipping the Great Brahmā, bringing
  forth flames from the mouth, invoking the goddess of luck — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
  promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
  skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
  construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
  mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
  administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
  head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
  ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
  extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
  root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
  his virtue."

  "A monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger anywhere from his
  restraint through virtue. Just as a head-anointed noble warrior king
  who has defeated his enemies sees no danger anywhere from his enemies,
  in the same way the monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger
  anywhere from his restraint through virtue. Endowed with this noble
  aggregate of virtue, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being
  blameless. This is how a monk is consummate in virtue.


How do I slow down and start living according to my values? How do I change the direction of my life? For some time, I have been practising different types of meditation and yoga, and I have also tried to study a bit of Buddhism, from which I have got the main values that guide my life (I cannot say I am a Buddhist, but I believe the teachings of the little Buddhism I know have been my main source of well-being, together with the love of the people around me).
Still, I live trapped in my particular little daily samsara in which my work determines the shape of my days, and I don't see a way out of it. I live in Madrid, I am finishing my PhD in a university and planning to move for a post-doc abroad very soon. Ever since I started studying at the university, I feel like I have been in a continuous race, always moving to new goals. This has not been my decisions, but rather what I thought best at the moment to make a living. I have never had other options or I have not known how to see them. I do not have any professional or academic ambition (which makes me feel peaceful), my needs are very simple, I do not spend much money -but yet, one has to pay rent and food, and for me the PhD and now the postdoc have been the best options for a work which seemingly offered the best way to harmonize my work with my personal life. My work, however, eats away a big part of my days, and I haven't had real holidays in years. I am not unhappy, but I do not wish to be doomed to more years of this meaningless cycle of pursuing goals, working on projects and then get home drained of energy from working on something "competitive", as is academia. I do not want to earn more money, I just want a more simple life. I have no idea, however, which work could I look  for, or what changes should I try. I just want to have my horizon depleted of projects and plans. I have researched, for example, how to grow my own food, which is not entirely easy on a small apartment on a city, but even so I have to pay housing, which is expensive, and forces me to keep working. I don't see to have a way out, I do not have the resources to "start a new life", and the only thing I want is to find a way to restructure my life and live a more simple life, in accordance with the Buddhist teachings I have so far gathered, not having always new projects to fight for, not having my life defined by my work. The Buddha, apparently, just went out there "into the wild", so as to speak, which is unthinkable for me. I do not even have the resources or knowledge to survive if I give up my job and house, but I would do the closest thing to that that is possible.

Beautiful question, one of the best questions I ever encountered on this site - at least for me, because I can relate to it in my own life, too.
Without going into too many personal details, aren't most of "successful" people in the modern "West"-style society defined and driven by their jobs and careers? And wouldn't it be nice if life were simple and pure, oh dear.
For me, an answer to this most important question of "what are we living for", an answer I was seeking for years, an answer  I slowly matured into, is that the pace, the color, the overall atmosphere and the very meaning of our life are not defined by our job or location but only by our attitude, our personal mental/emotional stance so to speak.
You see, I have studied Buddhism for a quarter century now, and to my surprise what I came to realize is that being in authentic harmony with one's own values and indeed with one's heart - is the unquestionably highest pinnacle of the most advanced parts of the Buddhist teaching.
In other words, if you live contrary to this principle, no matter how successful your outward life and career is - you will be unhappy. It's a mathematical law, there's no happiness when you are in conflict with yourself. And vice versa, if you don't have any inner conflict at all, which is to say if your every step and every word and even every breath is an expression of your true authentic being, then no matter what shape your external life takes, your actual living reality will be peaceful and harmonious.
In other words, the answer to your question is already right there in the title. Slow down and live according to your values, there's nothing else that you need, you just have to find the guts to live like that every second of every minute of every hour of every day, regardless of circumstances. You don't need to move to the Himalayas, you must create Himalayas in your life by being who you really are in the midst of your current situation.
In practice this means that when you face a choice between living according to your authentic being and bending over backwards to satisfy a requirement of the samsaric flow - you must choose the real thing, even if it means failing on an external commitment or losing your job or whatever other "scary" thing that could happen. The circumstances will change accordingly, the things you don't need will fall-off, and what is left will be in harmony with your being - because that's what you'll keep on choosing.
I swear I spent years scrutinizing every Buddhist teaching I could lay my hands on and this is what I came to. I mean, there's being a good person, good karma and all, there's non-attachment, there's emptiness - all of these things are valid and true. But being fearlessly True and Authentic despite the constant pressure of everyday things is the real Enlightenment I have found.
If I could do it, you can do it. I promise you won't regret :)


Why do Buddhists believe there is no creator? Why do Buddhists believe there is no creator?

Do Buddhists in general also believe there is no supreme being, or do they settle on that there is no intervening supreme being?

Are these the Buddha's thoughts or a deductive conclusion from some type of logical reasoning? If they are mainly the Buddha's, how come they are generally accepted - as far as I understand it, he encouraged everyone to not take his word for anything, but instead seek the truth for themselves?

As you understand I'm a total Buddhist noob, please correct me where I'm wrong and clarify where needed!

For most people God is a dualistic concept. Meaning, for a typical person the unspoken assumption is: "I am here and God is over there". So when I think about God, when I speak to God -- I inevitably imagine some power outside of myself. It is in this power that I place hope for good life and for salvation; it is this power that I blame for unfairness etc. According to Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, by attributing to God the power to save us or to send difficulties etc. we alienate ourselves from our own power.

Instead, in Buddhism our liberation is always in our hands. As Trungpa Rinpoche said, no one is going to descent in the golden chariot to take care of you. As long as you keep looking up to some higher power, how can you be the master of your life?

Two of my teachers emphasized such "master consciousness". My Zen Master said: "People say, 'God bless you', but Enlightenment is when you bless God". My last teacher said: "Utilize God". Both remind us to take ownership of our lives.

Not that [Mahayana] Buddhists deny the Absolute. What they deny is existence of independent "I" in the absolute sense. "I" is a label, a nominal designation that only exists relatively to other things. However, because the relative is subsumed in the absolute - not opposed to it - we can't deny existence of the relative either. This (here simplified) position is known as the unity of two truths. From this non-dualistic perspective, my power and the power of Absolute is the same power, my will and the will of Absolute is the same will, and my spontaneity and the spontaneity of Absolute is the same spontaneity. Using it and being used by it refers to the same activity. As Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." So, like I said in this answer, "Could we go as far as to say that Buddhist path culminates in the first-hand knowledge ... of God?"


Merits and Credit Point In Buddhism I was taught that studying and practices in Buddhism should not keep a mindset that a good deed action to expect a good return of credit points to be used afterlife.
Anyone has article explaining more on this. These are my personal thought why should not have such a mindset

Buddhism is not a bank afterlife
That is a trading mindset which i believe contradict or mislead the rule of thumb of Buddhism
Should focus on why a good deed "cause and action" and how to do it better on the good deed?

Yes. Those who want good things to happen them should be heedful in doing meritorious deeds.
From the Ittha Sutta:

Long life, beauty, status, honor,
heaven, high birth:
To those who delight
in aspiring for these things
in great measure, continuously,
the wise praise heedfulness
in making merit.

Those who do not want bad things to happen to them should be mindful of their conduct.
From the Themes Sutta:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

So, who says there is no bank account of kamma in Buddhism?
Yes, there is. But where does it end?
Everyone works to earn money to fill their bowl with food. Then they eat enough to have sufficient energy so that they can go back to work, to earn more money.
Similarly, everybody is busy running on the kamma hamster wheel to ensure that the periodic kamma bank balance (hopefully) looks positive.
Don't you get tired of that?
Also from the Themes Sutta:

“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.

If you're tired of running on the hamster wheel, well, that's suffering.
Suffering, not because you did past bad kamma and have bad things happen to you.
But rather, suffering, because you have to struggle to keep going. And despite struggling and working hard to have a good future, it never permanently satisfies you. Good outcomes don't last forever and bad outcomes cannot be avoided forever.
Congratulations! You have just stumbled onto the first noble truth. Next, go on to the second, third and fourth noble truths, to find your way out of suffering.

P.S. Please note that not everything that happens to you is due to kamma. Sometimes it's due to other reasons like weather, bile, phlegm, clumsiness, harm done by others etc. - please see Sivaka Sutta and Devadaha Sutta for details.


Is all lying considered to be 'unwholesome'? Suppose I tell a lie in order to protect others or to protect myself; is it still considered to be 'unwholesome'?

Or let's take the common example of a person who isn't really moral; is it okay to inform friends/colleagues of this aspects, or is it unkind to the person?

Sutta. Ma. Ma. cūḷarāhulovādasuttaṃ:

"In the same way, Rahula, when anyone feels no shame in telling a deliberate lie, there is no evil, I tell you, he will not do. Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself, 'I will not tell a deliberate lie even in jest.'

The four noble truth is the opposite of lying.
It's a reason that I super trust in Pali Canons because the Noble Ones can't lie at all situations.
Although I am an ordinary, I can the witness that it is possible to speak the truth in all situations because I never lie through 12 years in Buddhism. It depends on personnal management. Actually, there has not only the lie method, so the practitioner should practice the other methods instead of the lie.
However, the noble one has at least three methods to manage the unsecured situation by the murder, etc.

Running away.
Asking the evaded question to let the listeners think of the answer by themselves. See Dha.A.4 sahassavaggavaṇṇanā Tambadathikacoraghatakavatthu.
Mute. or sacrifice his life to keep the truth. It's just mute until the murder tortures or kills the noble one. See Dha.A.5 pāpavaggavaṇṇanā Maṇikārakulupakatissattheravatthu.

The ordinary thinks lying is the only way, but the noble one thinks there are many ways instead of the lying to manage the unsecured situation.
Additional
In Khuddaka.A. (paramatthajo.) Sikkhāpadavaṇṇanā:
How is big of the fault from the lie?

In immoral animals, e.g. ant and chimpanzee,  lie the small body is lesser fault than bigger because of it's required more effort to lie if both animals can understand the lie.
In moral animals, e.g. human and god, lie the lower wholesome skill is lesser fault than higher.
In the animal which has the same body and wholesome skill, lie the higher passion is more fault than the lower.

All Ariyas Can't Lie
In Sutta. Aṅ. (2): catukkanipāto Āpattibhayavaggo VoharaSutta:

250. Expressions (1st)
250. Paṭhamavohārasutta
“Mendicants, there are these four ignoble expressions (the noble one doesn't express).
“Cattārome, bhikkhave, anariyavohārā.
What four?
Katame cattāro?
Saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, but you haven’t.
Adiṭṭhe diṭṭhavāditā, asute sutavāditā, amute mutavāditā, aviññāte viññātavāditā—
These are the four ignoble expressions.”
ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro anariyavohārā”ti.
251. Expressions (2nd)
251. Dutiyavohārasutta
“Mendicants, there are these four noble expressions. (the noble one expresses).
“Cattārome, bhikkhave, ariyavohārā.
What four?
Katame cattāro?
Saying you haven’t seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you haven’t.
Adiṭṭhe adiṭṭhavāditā, asute asutavāditā, amute amutavāditā, aviññāte aviññātavāditā—
These are the four noble expressions.”
ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro ariyavohārā”ti.
252. Expressions (3rd)
252. Tatiyavohārasutta
“Mendicants, there are these four ignoble expressions.
“Cattārome, bhikkhave, anariyavohārā.
What four?
Katame cattāro?
Saying you haven’t seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you have.
Diṭṭhe adiṭṭhavāditā, sute asutavāditā, mute amutavāditā, viññāte aviññātavāditā—
These are the four ignoble expressions.”
ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro anariyavohārā”ti.
253. Expressions (4th)
253. Catutthavohārasutta
“Mendicants, there are these four noble expressions.
“Cattārome, bhikkhave, ariyavohārā.
What four?
Katame cattāro?
Saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you have.
Diṭṭhe diṭṭhavāditā, sute sutavāditā, mute mutavāditā, viññāte viññātavāditā—
These are the four noble expressions.”
ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro ariyavohārā”ti.


Suchiloma Sutta translation I am looking for a translation of the Suchiloma Sutta other than the one I have found through searching on Google or some insight into the Pali.

In the story, the Demon Suchiloma wants to test the Buddha and 'strikes him with his body' whereupon the Buddha withdraws his own body.

Here is the passage I am interested in:

  Thereupon the demon Suchiloma addressed Bhagava thus: "O Samana! Are
  you afraid of me?" (Bhagava said,) "Friend! though your touching me is
  sinful, (yet) I am not afraid of you."

I seem to recall reading a translation of this sutta in which the Buddha's words are translated as something like: Friend, I am not afraid of you, but still, contact with you is not pleasant.

Can anyone point to an alternate translation or to a Pali version of the sutta (along with any insight into the meaning of the passage in question)?

Here is an alternative translation up on Sutta Central: https://suttacentral.net/en/snp2.5

However, the sentence you are looking for is translated as so:

  Friend, I am not afraid of you, but your touch is evil.

The word "evil" here translates Pali pāpako - bad, malignant, evil, wrong, sinful.

I suppose the meaning is that, although Enlightened One is not afraid to come in contact with demonic influences, even for Buddha the close contact with them is not beneficial. As poisonous food may upset the stomach, so poisonous thoughts may upset the mind.


Do predatory animals gain bad karma? To my understanding, the killing of any animal will produce bad karma to whoever or whatever it committed the murder. For humans, I can understand that we have the power to go vegan and let animals be by themselves, it is our nature. But for predatory animals, their instinct is that they must kill for food. If they don't, they simply can't go vegan, they are going to die.

So do predatory animals get bad karma for killing, a natural instinct for survival?

Yes. Since the question is reasoning from the point of a belief in the realms, I'll answer it as one.

In the realm of animals, it is difficult to earn good karma since it is assumed that animals life brutish lives of killing and savagery.  In Tibetan Buddhism, contemplating how lucky we are to be human where it is possible to practice Buddhism is a fundamental practice. In a typical contemplation, the unfortunate lot of the animals is a common theme.

As a side note from someone who sees the realms as myth and not necessarily the most valuable ones, I would speculate that if we were, say rather smart cats, and the Buddha were a cat, then we still could choose to eat fewer animals, be more humane in their raising and slaughter, or slowly switch from animals to plants. My own cat eats an omnivore diet, a product of how pet food is sold in the US. He eat enough corn gluten that when I'm eating corn, he wants to eat it. Cats are poorly adapted to a vegan diet, but do fine on an omnivore diet.

In biology, omnivores, carnivores and herbivores often evolve into a different category, although they ordinarily only make one jump at a time, from carnivore to omnivore, then to herbivore.


What kind of harm can koan answers cause to one's practice? In a recent meta discussion some people expressed the opinion that giving koan answers may be detrimental to one's practice. In what way, exactly? And if it is so, why did many Buddhists publish koan commentaries for many hundred years?

I like to compare Koans with poems, or with jokes. Poems teach us to experience the world directly, unmediated by discursive analytical thinking, as feelings and associations. Getting a joke requires expanding one's context, relating alternative frames of reference.

In some professional settings, the experts develop a shortcut way of referring to things they deal with. E.g. in software engineering, you could hear someone saying that a particular design is kludgy, or leaking, or tangled up etc. Not all of these have official agreed-upon definitions, and many are made up ad-hoc, as required for communicating in a particular situation.

The method of Zen is to get practitioner in touch with their immediate experiences (to point them to their own mind). This requires transcending whatever context the person is stuck in, and expanding one's awareness to include "the elephant in the room". To build on the joke metaphor, the point of Koans is to make you "laugh".

Now, you can answer your own question: will explaining jokes help you learn how to laugh? Will analyzing songs help you learn how to feel?

Why did many Buddhists publish koan commentaries for many hundred years? -- I don't know. Because they are slaves of their minds? Because they think it may be helpful to certain types of practitioners?

The other problem with explaining Koans is that a Koan (unlike a joke) does not have a single "correct" interpretation. A Koan is always ambiguous, by design. A good koan commentary may help one explore various facets of the theme. Sort of like analyzing poems in school may(!) help one develop artistic sensitivity. But in context of Buddhism S.E. the danger is, someone might read an answer and assume they now know what this Koan is about.

Many people don't see until they know what to look for. I may not see a frog under my feet until my wife points it out, even though I've been staring directly at it. What we want to learn in Zen is to "see" before knowing. The more you explain Zen, the further you are from "seeing".


How is the Concept of Consciousness in Psychology Related to the parallel Buddhism concepts? Philosopher Dan Dennett makes a compelling argument that not only don't we understand our own consciousness, but that half the time our brains are actively fooling us.

(The illusion of consciousness)

The above look very much like the Buddhist understanding on the matter where you are initially not mindful of the realities on the present moment but ultimately realize it through meditation.

How does the concept of Consciousness in modern psychology relate to that of the Buddhist understanding? What are the similarities and differences of the concept and the background body of knowledge surrounding concepts in psychology and Buddhism?

"Consciousness" is a word or concept which is not well-defined, for example:

  Pholosophy of mind

    Philosophers have used the term 'consciousness' for four main topics: etc.

    Philosophers and non-philosophers differ in their intuitions about what consciousness is

  Scientific study

  Measurement

    Experimental research on consciousness presents special difficulties, due to the lack of a universally accepted operational definition.

  Biological function and evolution

    Opinions are divided as to where in biological evolution consciousness emerged and about whether or not consciousness has any survival value. It has been argued that consciousness emerged (etc.)

  Medical aspects

    Whereas the philosophical approach to consciousness focuses on its fundamental nature and its contents, the medical approach focuses on the amount of consciousness a person has: in medicine, consciousness is assessed as a "level" ranging from coma and brain death at the low end, to full alertness and purposeful responsiveness at the high end.

  Stream of consciousness

    In the west, the primary impact of the idea has been on literature rather than science etc.

IMO "modern psychology" will describe consciousness as an "emergent" property: for example, a home is not a brick; nor is a home two bricks; but with enough bricks put together in the right way you can construct a house.

I think that "consciousness" does exist in (at least some) Buddhist metaphysics, which calls it "sentience":

  Sentient beings is a technical term in Buddhist discourse. Broadly speaking, it denotes beings with consciousness or sentience or, in some contexts, life itself.

Because it's such a broad (not well-defined) concept I think the question is too broad to be answered in more detail.


Why do Buddhist Stupas have various shapes? I came across a gallery of Stupas from around the world and it made me wonder why some of them differ in shape considerably. Do they express different aspects of Buddhism or is the source of difference rather cultural/historical?

I am aware that in Tibetan Buddhism there are 9 types of Stupas and they have a rather uniform shape. What I am interested in is why the ones found in, for example, Sri Lanka or India, have a much different shape and style.

According to "Buddhist Art & Architecture" by Robert E. Fisher, the stupa is one of three main types of Buddhist buildings. (The other two are the residence hall (vihara) and the hall of worship (chaitya).
Early stupas were solid inside and patterned after Hindu burial mounds. They were typically a dome set upon a low platform with a single pillar emerging from the top which had 3 umbrella-like discs covering the pillar. The pillar and it's umbrellas would be surrounded by a small fence; a miniature version of the fence that surrounded the stupa itself. The pillar represented the "world mountain" or axis mundi; the pivot of the universe. The 3 umbrellas came to symbolize the Three Jewels of Buddhism. (Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha) Inside, the stupas were arranged into geometric, magical designs and generally housed sacred relics. Buddhist worship included circumambulation (moving clockwise) around the stupa and the sacred object contained inside.
With the emergence of Mahayana Buddhism, the practice of circumambulation was not prevalent (with Mahayanist Buddhists) as sacred items were placed in the worship hall and worshiped from the front only as the back of the hall would be blocked off for secret rituals. Robert E. Fisher notes the following regarding a change in style of stupa at Ajanta, India:

The stupa continued to be the focal point of the worship hall, and was now embellished and extended with carvings and additional motifs in keeping with the increased complexities of Mahayana worship. The body of the stupa, the anda, is moved upwards and the base extended to accommodate a large image of the Buddha. The figure is placed between richly carved pillars and surrounded by subordinate figures and elaborate, decorative motifs, typical of the Gupta taste. The pillar and umbrella at the top also gain in complexity, assuming greater prominence, nearly doubling the stupa's height in Cave 19. The once simple, earthbound stupa has evolved into a complex of images and symbols, not only attached to the earth, but also extended vertically. The older empasis upon the historical, earthly Buddha is giving way to the celestial, mystical realms of esoteric belief.

As Sri Lanka was established as a stronghold for Theravada Buddhism, a change in stupa shape (from the original Indian stupas) was noted, as in the stupa in Anuradhapura, in that the body of the stupa became bell shaped and the traditional spire became enlarged and was compared to the graceful tower of a medieval Hindu temple. Robert E. Fisher writes that "according to some" the enlargement of the traditional spire was an effort by Singhalese builders to join two symbols, the pillar of the world and the heights of Mt. Meru.
Mr. Fisher writes regarding the Sri Lankan style:

Similar proportions, the dominant bell-shaped andas, prominent harmikas (small platform with railing) and tapered spires are retained in later stupas in Burma, Thailand, and Cambodia.
Theravada Buddhism, with its more limited pantheon and emphasis upon direct action, unlike the salvationist beliefs and spectacular heavens of the Mahayana is perfectly served by the clean, uncomplicated forms and geometric harmonies of the Sri Lankan stupa.

The book notes across Asia, the stupa assumed a variety of regional forms. Thai and Burmese stupas were tall and graceful. In Vietnam and Cambodia, separate stupas rarely appeared as temples were built into mountainsides; but sometimes small "votive" style stupas were build inside those temples. In Java, small stupas decorated the terraces of the temples.
The book does go on in quite a bit more detail regarding changes in the look of stupas including the change to open, wooden stupas in the Far East, where they were called pagodas. It was also noted that later styles of stupas typically did not contain sacred relics and were not always built inside walled enclosures. They became more decorative and less sacred.
Hope this sheds some insight. :)


What's the Buddhist perspective on permanently eradicating bedbugs? (Extinction) On one hand, killing...

On the other hand, if there are no bedbugs (extinct status) no one can be reborn as a bedbug. The species causes more suffering then good.

Perhaps it would be worth it to be reborn in the hell realm for a life or two as a sacrifice to better the universe in such a way...
Or perhaps the very thought is in grave error...

Say a man were to carry out the mission of bringing bedbugs to extinction, and then take the precept and never kill another thing for his entire remaining life.

What is the Buddhist perspective on this?

Would such a man be responsible for removing the suffering caused by bedbugs if he had not taken on his mission?

Being in a position of not having to kill is better.  The idea of getting rid of species that cause more harm (or bad karma to themselves) is a product of pondering mind, and definitely not Buddha's teaching.

To answer your question, Buddha did not speak of any situations where killing another species was worth anything.

However, if you search "kill" in sutta, Buddha used "killing" in a context of anger.  Something like "those who killed anger live in peace" , and other contexts as well, but never in a context of taking lives or other species.  Your hypothetical doesn't lead to enlightenment or cessation.


What is your Dhamma? I am trying to understand Dhamma. If people ask me what is my Dhamma I say I am XXX , which explains my behavior to them.

Suppose I ask you the same question ,What is your Dhamma? ,then what will be your answer?

What is your Dhamma?

One cannot really have ones "own" Dhamma. The Dhamma is timeless and impersonal and cannot be owned by anyone.

Furthermore, the Dhamma is discovered..

In the Nagara Sutta, the Buddha teaches how he discovered an ancient Path, the Noble Eightfold Path, and by following it he came to experience the cessation of aging and death (conditioned reality).

  "... So too, bhikkhus, I saw the ancient path, the ancient road travelled
  by the Perfectly Enlightened Ones of the past. And what
  is that ancient path, that ancient road? It is just this Noble
  Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration. I followed that path and by doing so I have directly
  known aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation,and the way leading to its cessation ..."

  -- SN 12.65: The City, p. 603, Bodhi transl.


Why do Bhikkhunis have so many extra Vinaya rules? The Vinaya contains 227 rules for male monks and 311 rules for female monks. Is it known why so many additional rules were put in place for Bhikkhunis?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu, in Access to Insight, says,

  Thus the Bhikkhunī Pāṭimokkha contains 85 rules for which there are no
  direct correspondences in the rules for the bhikkhus. Some writers
  have interpreted these added rules as sign of an attempt to oppress
  the bhikkhunīs unfairly, but it should be noted that:

  more than one third of these extra rules were formulated to protect bhikkhunīs from being the direct recipients of the abusive or careless
  behavior of other bhikkhunīs;
  two of the extra rules (Pācittiyas 6 and 44) prevent bhikkhunīs from putting themselves in a position of servitude to bhikkhus or lay
  people;
  according to the rules' origin stories, all but three of the extra rules (Pācittiyas 59, 94, and 95) were formulated only after
  bhikkhunīs complained to the bhikkhus about an errant bhikkhunī's
  behavior.

  Tellingly, these last three exceptions were formulated after
  complaints initiated by the bhikkhus, and they touch directly on the
  formal subordination of the Bhikkhunī Community to the Bhikkhu
  Community. However, they are counterbalanced by two rules exclusive to
  the Bhikkhu Pāṭimokkha — NP 4 & 17 — that were formulated at the
  request of bhikkhunīs to prevent bhikkhus from abusing their position
  in the hierarchy in a way that would interfere with the bhikkhunīs'
  practice of the Dhamma. For a more detailed discussion of the checks
  and balances in the relationships between the two Communities, see The
  Buddhist Monastic Code, volume II, chapter 23.

For what it's worth there is a further set of opinions, published here: Extra rules. This too says that the rules "primarily dealt with the protection of the nuns".


Will mindfulness help me in observing patterns and learning to keep away from a toxic person? I have started mindfulness from past 3 days and am experiencing reduced anxiety.

I have allocated a half an hour time at 9 PM to reflect on the thoughts which may have occurred to me during the day time.
So, during the day time I do NOT dwell on the past emotions. I question myself is there a problem to be solved or the thought is only about feeling bad or good. If there is a problem to be solved, then I solve it otherwise I list the thought in a diary to reflect on it in the night.

Since mindfulness is always about being in present, my fear is that with this attitude I may forget how the person x behaved with me in the past and I may allow the bad/toxic behavior to continue.

I want to learn from the past mistakes, I also want to remember what wrongs did the person x do to me - is there a pattern in them, so that I keep that toxic person away from me.

Will mindfulness help or allow me to recognize patterns and learn from them?

Good practical question.

First of all, I have to tell you, in (Mahayana) Buddhism there is no such thing as a "toxic person". The other person has impulses and reactions because of their own bad past experiences, and something in you triggers them. Doesn't mean you are bad or s\he is bad, it is just inertia from the past.

If you really think about it, there is no "you" and "other person", there is just a dynamic process of interaction between the two sets of past experiences, from which emerge new behaviors, whether healthy or pathological.

What you call mindfulness allows you (me, us) to suspend our typical impulses informed by the past and act with a new, fresh perspective. When you dance your part differently, the other participants can't help but alter their dance as well. Remember, they are not really choosing how to act, most people don't, but when you change, you create a new setting in which their impulses play out.

That's for one, and second, in Mahayana Buddhism we do not worry so much about protecting ourselves. Protection is an instinct of the ego, which is always vulnerable. To make the ego invincible one has to become a kind of demon, wearing a steel-strong-shell, never showing true feelings, always taking care of oneself at the expense of others. In Mahayana we go the opposite way. We open up and have nothing to protect. When we have nothing to protect we are invincible in a different way, and this way to be invincible is actually stronger than the first.

It's a very different attitude to what you are used in the normal world, takes a while to get used to.


Earliest usage of "rope or snake" allegory in Buddhist literature? The allegory of a rope being mistaken for a snake to explain subtle metaphysical points is widespread in Buddhist literature. In particular, Je Tsongkhapa uses this allegory many times in his works to explain subtle distinctions of his formulation of Prasangika Madhyamaka.

I am looking to track down the earliest usage of this rope or snake allegory in Buddhist literature. I have not been able to identify any sutra where this allegory is mentioned, but it occurs many times in later commentarial literature on the perfection of wisdom sutra's as well as in explanations of Nagarjuna's writing.

The earliest usage I have been able to discover is from Chandrakirti's explanation of Aryadeva's Four Hundred Stanzas on the Middle Way (Chatuhshataka). Here is Aryadeva's stanza 178:

  Apart from concepuality,
  Desire and so forth have no existence,
  Who with intelligence would hold [that there are]
  Real things [imputed by] conceptuality?

  Aryadeva's Four Hundred Stanzas on the Middle Way

To which ChandraKirti apparently gives this explanation:

  Those which exist only when the conceptuality [apprehending]
  exists and do not exist when conceptuality does not are
  without question definite as not established by way of their
  own nature, like a snake imputed to a coiled rope.

  Tsong-kha-pa's Final Exposition of Wisdom

Does anyone know of any earlier or contemporary usages of this allegory in Buddhist literature? Anything that can be traced back to Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Chandrakirti, Buddhapalita, or Bhaviveka would certainly apply. Of course, if it can be found in sutra that would definitely count as an answer.

Thanks!

For all I know, the simile may come from generic Indian religious tradition and not specifically from Buddhism. For example, here are some quotes from Upanidhads:
Nirvana Upanishad (~ 100 BCE - 100 CE) :

The phenomenal world is impermanent as it is produced [from Brahman
which alone is real]; it is similar to a world seen in a dream and an
[illusory] elephant in the sky; similarly, the cluster of things such as
the body is perceived by a network of a multitude of delusions and it is
fancied to exist as a serpent in a rope.

(Wikipedia:) The composition date or author of Nirvana Upanishad is unknown, but its sutra-style suggests that it originated in the sutra text period (final centuries of the 1st-millennium BC), before it was compiled and classified as an Upanishad. This text was likely composed in the centuries around the start of common era.

Tejobindu Upanishad (~ 100 BCE - 300 CE):

If a man is bitten by a rope mistaken for a snake, then mundane existence may be. If a blazing fire is extinguished by a golden arrow, then the world is.

(Wikipedia:) [...] Eliade's suggestion places these in the final centuries of BCE or early centuries of the CE. [...] Gavin Flood dates the Tejobindu text, along with other Yoga Upanishads, to be probably from the 100 BCE to 300 CE period.

More of these quotes can be found in Advaita Vedanta mail list archives.
And then somewhere around 310-390 CE we see it used by the Yogacara founder Asanga in his Mahayanasamgraha:

How is this entry into Concept-Only made and what is it
like? [...] One enters in the same way that one identifies a rope which seems in the darkness to be a snake. Since it does not exist, the snake seen in the rope is an illusion. Those who have recognized that it does not exist reject the notion of snake and keep the notion of rope. But the rope itself, if reduced to its subtle elements, is an illusion itself, for it has color,
smell, taste and tactile as specific characteristics.
Thus, when any reality has been denied to the six types
of mental words which appear as phoneme or as thing - just as the notion of snake is abandoned by means of the
notion of rope - the notion of Concept-Only underlying the mental words should be abandoned by means of the notion of the absolute nature, just as the notion of rope is abandoned by means of the notion of color, etc.

Since Asanga was originally a brahmin before converting to Buddhism, I wouldn't be surprised if he took this simile from one of the Upanishads and repurposed for Yogacara.
There is also this Sanskrit version of Cittavisuddhiprakarana by Aryadeva (~200-300 CE), but I was not able to find a translation:

sarpabuddhiryathā rajjau rajjudṛṣṭau nivartate|
sarpabuddhiḥ punastatra naiva syādiha janmani||68||
sattvabuddhistathātrāpi vajrajñānānnivartate|
na bhāvaḥ sambhavettatra dagdhabīja ivāṅkuraḥ||69||

Also, this simile appears in Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Sastra which would date it around 150CE: 薩迦耶見計我我所。於勝義中無我我所。如人見繩謂是蛇。 'The satkāyadṛṣṭi thinks about the self and that which belongs to the self; but according to higher truth, there is no self. As for example, a person sees a rope and calls it a snake' (T 1545 (XXVII) 36a18-19)


What exactly did Lord Buddha say about Size of Atom? I have heard that Lord Buddha wrote or discussed about the smallest indivisible particle i.e the atom. What exactly did he say. Is it mentioned in some scriptures? If yes, did he give any argument or detail of his observations.

As described in Theravada Buddhist texts of the Abhidhamma Pitaka in the Tipitaka, there is no indivisible part of the atom. Every atom is divisible. If anyone divides it infinitely, the ultimate outcome is energy = there is nothing that exists in reality, it's a mirage that we experience because of the four major qualities. And the atom is made out of four major qualities and due to those 4 major qualities, there are another four qualities are generated. The four major qualities can exist in different or equal proportions within the atom. When the proportions changes, the elements change to another element. The four major qualities are:

"patavi" - which gives the quality of roughness to the atom
"aapo"- which gives the quality of flowing (fluidity)
"thejo" - the quality which gives warmth or heat (and this accounts for the coldness too, when the heat decreases we humans feel coldness, so it is both heat and cold)
"waayo" - the quality of expansion.

Then because of those four, another sub qualities being generated:

"warna" - the quality which gives colour to atoms
"ghanda" - which gives smell
"rasa" - which gives the quality of taste
"oja" - the energy that keeps those four main qualities intact (it's like food to the atom).

And the proportions of the four major qualities in atoms are constantly changing, the change can take fraction of second in some materials, sometimes it might take uncountable years to change. And according to Buddhist texts the atom itself appears and disappears very fast and we humans can only see its existence if you don't have developed your mind to understand and see those happenings (just like our human eye see the tv screen or a video as a one motion, it actually contains many frames to make a full video, but we only see it as a one frame with people moving inside it), but Buddha have said this is a mirage we see and it is "non-eternal".

Source: I have read Abhidhamma Pitaka. And I'm a Buddhist.

P.S: if you want to know the what's really happening, my advise is, you have to read it by yourself and understand, rather than reading some English translated text.


Is discussing bad practices of monks a sin? I've heard in several dhamma deshana that discussing the bad practices practiced by monks is a sin. But I feel that if we don't discuss such with our family & just continue giving, we won't have much shradda in our heart & also we won't be able to inform it to the chief monks to be corrected. Is there any suthra that describes about this?

(Hatthi,gāmaka) Ugga Sutta

In the above Sutta householder, Ugga declares he does not discriminate how he treats the monks based on their attainments or qualities. This is his 6th quality.

But if some monk is doing something wrong it might be worthwhile to report him to a head monk if there is a chance that proper action might be taken.

Ultimately what matters is the motivation. If you talk ill of a monk with intention breaking his good standing with other this is bad karma. If you do it for the betterment of the monk and the sasana then it is positive. In doing so you have to be tactful though so that it does not lead to unintended consequences.


Do you have to have certain pastlife karma to use a computer? So lets take all humans currently alive in the human world. They all have the karma to be reborn in this realm.

Computers exist in our world, and in some places (Not all) public libraries provide them and access to them / the internet.

Are there cases where karma would prevent someone from using a computer? Say even that one was right in front of them, would karmic forces prevent them from using it? Could karmic forces prevent them from touching it?

Like say, if you tried to give to someone that had a lot of karma from stealing in a previous life. Would it be possible? Or would events always unfold that prevent you from giving in some way or another?

What I am trying to ask is if karma can make events that seem possible conventionally (IE Hand someone a 20$ bill) be impossible in practice.

Karma is a complex dhamma that only Buddha saw it thru and thru..   However, Buddha taught us 6 things to know about the fundamentals of karma

For sure, Karma is not a fate.  In Angulimala Sutta, a Sutta about a misguided serial killer who would have committed matricide if Buddha didn't interfere with his killing mission.

You can give $20 to someone but then you will never know if it was his good karma that let him run into you?  or his good karma that you have money to share.   Karma is a complex thing that is imponderable or incomprehensible, Acinteyya (Pali).


What is this tile and what do its symbols depict? I found a clay tile outside on the street that appears to depict the Buddha. It has a man in lotus position on one side and four scenes along with some text on the reverse. It is roughly as broad as my thumb.

I'd be curious to know what scenes are depicted, the meaning of the text, what this tile is called, and what the function of the tile is.

I'm guessing it shows his youth, becoming enlightened, being a teacher, and his death, but I don't know if it's more specific or different than my interpretation.

What scenes are depicted?

On the side with text:

The place where Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha was born.
The place where Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening.
The place where Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha set rolling the unexcelled wheel of Dhamma.
The place where Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha totally unbound in the property of unbinding with no fuel remaining.

Lumbini, The birth place of Lord Buddha

Bodh Gaya, The place where Lord Buddha attained enlightenment

Saranath (Isipatana), The place where Lord Buddha preached his first dhamma sermon - Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, SN 56.11

Kushinagar (Upavattana Sal Grove), The place where Lord Buddha attained parinibbana

~ Source of images: The Life of the Buddha in Pictures

On the other side:

A statue of Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha in Samadhi (Dhyana) mudra (hand gesture) was carved on this side of the tile. By the appearance of the halo, I suggest that it must have been influenced by Mathura school of art. A similar halo can be seen in the famous Buddha statue at Saranath museum which was carved during Gupta dynasty.

  The meaning of the text?

I cannot be sure about the text. But, by examining the appearance of the script, it should be related to one of the Indo-Aryan languages.

  What this tile is called?

I have seen different small Buddha statues and carvings were placed inside vehicles and carried with themselves by the Buddhists in my country. But I have never seen this kind of tile in my country. So I cannot give it a name.

  What the function of the tile is?

You've mentioned that the tile is roughly as broad as your thumb. So it must have been carved in order to take with oneself wherever he/she goes.

  “Ānanda, there are these four places that merit being seen by a clansman with conviction, that merit his feelings of urgency & dismay [saṁvega]. Which four? ‘Here the Tathāgata was born’ is a place that merits being seen by a clansman with conviction, that merits his feelings of urgency & dismay. ‘Here the Tathāgata awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening’.… ‘Here the Tathāgata set rolling the unexcelled wheel of Dhamma’.… ‘Here the Tathāgata totally unbound in the property of unbinding with no fuel remaining’ is a place that merits being seen by a clansman with conviction, that merits his feelings of urgency & dismay. These are the four places that merit being seen by a clansman with conviction, that merit his feelings of urgency & dismay. They will come out of conviction, Ānanda—monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers—to the spots where ‘Here the Tathāgata was born,’ ‘Here the Tathāgata awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening,’ ‘Here the Tathāgata set rolling the unexcelled wheel of Dhamma,’ ‘Here the Tathāgata totally unbound in the property of unbinding with no fuel remaining.’ And anyone who dies while making a pilgrimage to these shrines with a bright, confident mind will—on the break-up of the body, after death—reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world.”

~ Cited from: Mahā Parinibbāna Sutta, Deega Nikaya, Tipitaka (DN 16.5)

According to the above sutta, the four places carved on the tile are very important and sacred to the Buddhists. A devotee can keep this tile with himself/herself in order to frequently remember the places that merit his/her feelings of urgency and dismay.


Do Theravada monks search for reincarnation of teachers? I know this is very common among Mahayanas, specialy in Tibet where they search for their old teachers (Lamas) all call them Rinpoche.

Is this also a practice in Theravada Buddhism?

No. We do not have this practice. At lease not in my country, Myanmar. Let Karma handles reincarnation.


Suttas on the 5 Precepts I am looking for the suttas where the Buddha has preached about the 5 precepts. Also how it can lead you to Samadhi, Niravana and etc.

-Metta

The sutta below lists out the criteria for stream entry:

Five forms of fear and animosity are stilled (basically the five precepts)
Four factors of stream entry
Rightly seen and rightly ferreted out the noble method (dependent origination)

The four factors of stream entry are verified confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, as well as, being endowed with the virtues appealing to the noble ones.

From the Vera Sutta (AN 10.92):

  Then Anathapindika the householder went to the Blessed One and, on
  arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he
  was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "When, for a disciple
  of the noble ones, five forms of fear & animosity are stilled; when he
  is endowed with the four factors of stream-entry; and when, through
  discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out the noble
  method, then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended;
  animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended;
  states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a
  stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe,
  headed for self-awakening!'

  "Now, which five forms of fear & animosity are stilled?

  "When a person takes life, then with the taking of life as a requisite
  condition, he produces fear & animosity in the here & now, produces
  fear & animosity in future lives, experiences mental concomitants of
  pain & despair; but when he refrains from taking life, he neither
  produces fear & animosity in the here & now nor does he produce fear &
  animosity in future lives, nor does he experience mental concomitants
  of pain & despair: for one who refrains from taking life, that fear &
  animosity is thus stilled.

  "When a person steals... engages in illicit sex... tells lies...

  "When a person drinks distilled & fermented drinks that cause
  heedlessness, then with the drinking of distilled & fermented drinks
  that cause heedlessness as a requisite condition, he produces fear &
  animosity in the here & now, produces fear & animosity in future
  lives, experiences mental concomitants of pain & despair; but when he
  refrains from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause
  heedlessness, he neither produces fear & animosity in the here & now
  nor does he produce fear & animosity in future lives, nor does he
  experience mental concomitants of pain & despair: for one who refrains
  from drinking distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness,
  that fear & animosity is thus stilled.

  "These are the five forms of fear & animosity that are stilled.


What if there is no rebirth but karma is not eradicated by meditation and the path? What if there is no rebirth but karma is not eradicated by the path?

I think that would mean that the agent experiences the results of their actions even without rebirth. Am I right? At least if the buddha self is not just impermanent.

There is no 'rebirth' (aka 'reincarnation') but kamma (the idea of 'agent' doing & reaping) is eradicated by the path. This means if the path is not realised, 'the agent' experiences the results of their actions even if there is no rebirth (reincarnation).

However, 'an agent' experiencing the results of their actions is what 'rebirth' really means. 'Rebirth' in reality is the re-arising of the idea of 'the agent' or 'self'.

'Rebirth' does not mean 'reincarnation' into another life. 'Rebirth' means the idea, obsession and neurosis of 'self' keeps getting born; as follows:

  There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
  has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
  self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is
  the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
  of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
  touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
  arises. That fabrication is born of that.

  SN 22.81

In the teachings in the Pali suttas, 'rebirth' always includes the delusion of 'an agent' or 'a being', as follows:

  I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human —
  beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are
  inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in
  accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad
  conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong
  views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with
  the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane
  of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But
  these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, &
  mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and
  undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the
  break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good
  destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine
  eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away &
  re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior,
  beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their
  kamma.

  MN 4

As long as the mind continues to construct the idea of 'self', 'agent', 'person' or 'being', rebirth will continue. This is samsara. Samsara is circling around in self-views, as follows:

  "Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running
  around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
  an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
  ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
  regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

  "He assumes feeling to be the self...

  "He assumes perception to be the self...

  "He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

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

  "He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that
  very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
  that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
  from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
  from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
  from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
  set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

  SN 22.99

"A being" is merely a view or idea, as explained below:

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

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

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

  SN 5.10


Is the next Buddha the same entity/being as the previous Buddha, or another discrete being who comes to the same realizations as the previous Buddha? I do not have a strong theoretical grasp of the concept of rebirth, so I am wondering:

Is each Buddha that has existed/will exist the same being, reincarnated? Or is each Buddha a totally unrelated person from the previous Buddhas and Buddhas to come, who just happens to realize all of the same truths that the previous Buddha realized?

Thank you

Next Buddha is a totally unrelated separate person to previous Buddha. He will realize the same truth as previous Buddha when his(previous Buddha) teachings are no longer among us.

Once someone becomes Arahant, He will never be born again. The whole purpose of being Arahant is not to be born again.

How can previous Buddha can tell prophecy about next Buddha?

To be a Buddha, its saying we have to do lot of good Karma and endless sacrifices. Buddha can see someone's Karma and how these Karma going to effect them. Therefore, Buddha can see whose Karma is fulfilled to be next Buddha and when it happens.

As become a Buddha is so difficult, it's only for great persons who has endless courage and such a kind heart for all beings to preach them Dharma and make them aware of Samsara.


How does a person enter the 1st bhumi In order to attain the bhumis a person needs to enter somewhere
so my question is pretty important in the way of the Bodhisattva.
How does a person enter the 1st Bhumi?

It seems that one can enter the Bodhisattva way more easily than trying to attain the bhumis. Too much can be made of attaining, while not enough of serving others. I find the Dalai Lama's Book THE OPEN HEART to be a wonderful introduction to the Bodhisattva way. It is a book not only of words but pointing to action to free all sentient beings.

If you want more info on bhumis you will find it in this article that even describes the bhumis as "hyperbolic". Perhaps that is a hint that we should stick more to basics and keep things simple. The Buddha gave us an example of a simple life. Some of those that followed tried to make it more complicated than it was. Remember the Flower Sermon. The Buddha holds up a flower and smiles. That is the whole sermon.

https://plus.google.com/+DenisWallez/posts/e4ungo3s4Fj

  The bodhisattva  path (with its descriptions of bhumis  so hyperbolic
  that they always amount to "there's work to do" no matter your
  attainments, even if you're an arhat! gplus.wallez.name/2Q5j3jM1oGC)
  is bringing back ethics into a practical approach:  you're not
  perfect, there's work to do, what matters is how hard you try and
  cultivate qualities…

  Life is dukkha  (1st noble truth), this is true even for ethical
  people (monastic or lay): failures will arise. What matters is to
  continue cultivating! The Mahayana approach sets extremely ambitious
  goals (when described with the bhumis)  and doesn't consider small
  failures as easily acceptable (a small moral failure might cancel eons
  of merit!), but it doesn't forget that even if the human birth is the
  most promising for Awakening, we cannot reasonably expect humans not
  to make mistakes! This is not about 'forgiving' lightly; instead, this
  is about accepting that amends (i.e. continued cultivation) are more
  important than snap judgements. If you did wrong, don't ignore it,
  what do you  plan to do to fix the situation, how do you take
  responsibility for it? This is, of course, perfectly aligned with the
  focus on emptiness, and on compassion as the root-quality giving rise
  to bodhicitta.


Virtue of monk and lay ariya If there's a monk without any attainment of awakening yet and a layperson with some stage of attainment (say sotapanna, anagami), what does the sutta text say about virtue of them?

Monasticism is a vehicle, not a destination; simply putting on the robes doesn't make one more virtuous.

A monk without any attainment whatsoever is not worth being called a monk. A true monk is defined by their attainments, as per the Dhammapada (Buddharakkhita, trans):

  9. Whoever being depraved, devoid of self-control and truthfulness, should don the monk’s yellow robe, he surely is not worthy of the robe.

  362. He who has control over his hands, feet and tongue; who is fully controlled, delights in inward development, is absorbed in meditation, keeps to himself and is contented — him do people call a monk.

  367. He who has no attachment whatsoever for the mind and body, who does not grieve for what he has not — he is truly called a monk.

If one is corrupt, they are not considered worthy of being called a recluse:

  184. Enduring patience is the highest austerity. "Nibbana is supreme," say the Buddhas. He is not a true monk who harms another, nor a true renunciate who oppresses others.

Also relevant:

  260. A monk is not an elder because his head is gray. He is but ripe in age, and he is called one grown old in vain.

  261. One in whom there is truthfulness, virtue, inoffensiveness, restraint and self-mastery, who is free from defilements and is wise — he is truly called an Elder.

  307. There are many evil characters and uncontrolled
  men wearing the saffron robe. These wicked men
  will be born in states of woe because of their evil
  deeds.

  394. What is the use of your matted hair, O witless
  man? What of your garment of antelope’s hide?
  Within you is the tangle (of passion); only out-
  wardly do you cleanse yourself.

  395. The person who wears a robe made of rags, who
  is lean, with veins showing all over the body, and
  who meditates alone in the forest – him do I call
  a holy man

That being said, there is a little-known but pithy passage in the Sutta Nipata (vv. 220-221; Ireland, trans) where the Buddha says:

  These two ways of life are not the same:
  that of a householder supporting a wife
  and one without worldly attachments...

  As a peacock never approaches the swiftness
  of a swan, so a householder cannot imitate a
  bhikkhu, a hermit meditating in the forest.

Again, this only applies if all else (i.e. their practice and attainments) is equal.


Looking for anti-anti-monasticism apologia from a Buddhist perspective It is commonly asserted that Buddhism advocates for monasticism as an ethical ideal for at least some of humanity. I am interested not in arguments for monasticism full stop, but arguments from a Buddhist perspective that are counter to arguments against monasticism as such. Does such a thing exist? I realize that there will be fuzzy line between these two domains, so sources that touch on both are acceptable to me.

Notably, a senior layperson once dragged a junior fellow layperson by the hair to see a Buddha:

MN81:9.1: Then Ghaṭīkāra grabbed Jotipāla by the hair of his freshly-washed head and said,
MN81:9.2: ‘Dear Jotipāla, the Buddha Kassapa’s monastery is not far away.
MN81:9.3: Let’s go to see the Blessed One Kassapa, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha.
MN81:9.4: For I regard it as holy to see that Blessed One.’

The senior layperson was Ghaṭīkāra. The junior layperson Jotipāla. It's quite the compelling ant-anti-monasticism sutta.  Here Ghaṭīkāra wishes Jotipāla to see the Buddha Kassapa. And Jotipāla stubbornly refuses in the most obnoxious anti-monastic way:

MN81:6.7: ‘Enough, dear Ghaṭīkāra.
MN81:6.8: What’s the use of seeing that baldy, that fake ascetic?’

But Ghaṭīkāra prevailed and they went to see the Buddha Kassapa. Inspired by that meeting, Jotipāla went forth.

MN81:12.4: And Jotipāla the brahmin student received the going forth, the ordination in the Buddha’s presence.

Ghaṭīkāra here takes the anti-anti-monastic role as a layperson. But Ghaṭīkāra is a special layperson, since he is also Buddha Kassapa's chief attendant in this sutta.
If you're interested, the sutta also explains why Ghaṭīkāra himself did not go forth. And Jotipāla? Jotipāla was eventually reborn as Gautama Buddha.


Can an answer, while sakayaditthi is present, be intentional free of bias? Aside of the trap of self-overestimating, theoretical (abhidhamma in action):

When one is asked a question and brings his person, his estimate, into play, is it possible to give an answer which is not biased, does not protect ones stand or ones disabilities at first place (i.e. minimum holding something back)?

Is a person able to give a "objective" answer if the mind is caught by identification-views intentionally?

Wouldn't such a person, in such a state not either give a non-biased answer certain unaware of certain "self-damaging" or be shameless? In cases of being aware and fearing "self-damaging" simply not answering?

(May one not fear or be ashamed of skillful actions while trying to give an answer.)

There are two kinds of bias, in relation to this question.

The first is deliberately answering a question in a way that serves the self-interest of the one who answers, but not necessarily the questioner's self-interest.

An example of this is that a salesperson, when asked some questions about the product he's trying to sell, would try to hide the disadvantages of the product and instead, highlight the advantages.

Indeed, there are people in the world, with identity view, who are not stream winners, who can act selflessly, and answer in an objective way without the above kind of bias. After all, an unenlightened person can selflessly act with altruism and compassion (karuna), to help another person.

The second type of bias is a deep-seated collection of biases, prejudices and stereotypes that lies deep within a person's mind. These are related to more than one of the ten fetters.

An example of this is that a person who identifies with a religion that's against homosexuality and abortion, might answer general questions about these topics in a way that is aligned to his bias, even if any kind of answer to these questions do not bring him any profit or loss.

This kind of bias is very deeply ingrained and it would be very hard for a person with identity view to avoid this kind of bias.


Discomfort during vipassana meditation I have only started meditating for only 2-3 weeks. But now I cannot seem to meditate properly. Whenever I sit for meditation, there are several problems, like increased salivation, feeling of being pressed in the chest and like not getting breath after a few minutes, which to go away I have to take a deep breath. The same just process repeats itself for the whole 20 minutes I sit for meditation. I sit in the burmese position with pillow under my butt, on the bed.

I would be glad if someone please helped me.

Whenever I sit for meditation, there are several problems, like increased salivation, feeling of being pressed in the chest and like not getting breath after a few minutes...

As a physiotherapist I would like to briefly explain the anatomy of poor posture related to meditation practice.

First of all, you want to sit on a firm surface, not a soft surface like a bed. Thats due to the anatomical structure of the spine. The spine has an "S"-curved shape meaning that biomechanically it allows to act like a spring when loaded.

When sitting on a soft surface your muscles need to work much harder in keeping your spine erect. Failing to do so results in slumping. Slumping here means that the posterior hip and spine muscles contract, thereby limiting the working space available for the diaphragm. You see the diaphragm needs to be able to move up and down in order for the lungs to expand. When one is slumped over one is actively putting restriction on the air passage by decreasing the thoracic cavity.

That is why you are feeling like the chest is being compressed and air moves slower and restricted. An analogy would be having a water hose and then bending the hose so that the water flow gets restricted.

When sitting in an upright posture with spine erect the diaphragm can move up and down unhindered thereby increasing ventilation and air passage.

My advice would be to change your sitting posture from a soft surface onto a firm surface.

When sitting you want to:

Keep the spine erect to increase working conditions for the diaphragm.
Keep pelvis in neutral position. Look at the nice and neutral position of the pelvis in the illustration with proper posture. Now look at the left illustration with the malalignment. See how the pelvis is posteriorly tilted. That is not a good posture since it causes many secondary problems to arise.

Regarding sitting options there are various options to try out. See illustration below.

The insight meditational way to deal with e.g. increased salivation, uncomfortable sensations in the body would be to take them as an object, note them and let them go.

If for example increased salivation is happening, take the feeling of the saliva touching the inner mouth parts and note that a couple of times and then let it go.

If an intention to swallow arises, note that intention. That is the "nama" part of reality. The saliva arising is the "rupa" part. Rupa arises and nama knows it. Nama knows rupa. Rupa does not know nama.

You will come to see the physical and mental aspect of reality. The two streams.
You will come to see the characteristics of conventional reality, i.e. impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and uncontrollability of conditioned phenomena.

If you need further help feel free to contact me. Email is on profile page.


Can a person choose to reincarnate as a human instead of a god? Out of all six kinds of existence, only humans can achieve nirvana. It occurred to me that someone who has accumulated too much good karma in this life without managing to achieve nirvana might get reborn in the gods (deva) realm and waste a very long time having fun without working towards nirvana.
So could a person refuse reincarnation in the gods realm?

From Awareness Itself by Ajaan Fuang Jotiko, compiled by his disciple Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

A group of laypeople who had studied the Abhidhamma together came to
Ajaan Fuang to try out his version of mental training, but when he
told them to sit, close their eyes, and focus on the breath, they
immediately backed off, saying that they didn't want to practice
concentration, for fear that they'd get stuck on jhana and end up
being reborn in the Brahma worlds. He responded, "What's there to be
afraid of? Even non-returners are reborn in the Brahma worlds. At any
rate, being reborn in the Brahma worlds is better than being reborn as
a dog."


Buddhism on vasthu shastra Vastu shastra (vāstu śāstra) is "a traditional Hindu system of architecture".

Did Lord Buddha debunk vasthu shastra? If not, what are some teachings made by Lord Buddha on the same? If Buddhism does not have an opinion on the topic, opinions of members are appreciated

The Indian Vasthu Shastra and the Chinese Feng Shui are known as geomancy in English.

In DN 2, this is known as "vatthuvijjā" in Pali, which in Sanskrit is presumably, "vasthuvidya" or, knowledge or science of vasthu (the science of building sites).

The Buddha forbade monks from practising geomancy in DN 2 (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu), calling it an "animal art" or "debased art":

  "Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal"
  arts as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens
  and signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
  interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
  reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
  oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
  ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
  blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
  geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water
  and gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
  bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
  charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.

Another translation of DN 2 by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

  “Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living on the food offered
  by the faithful, earn their living by a wrong means of livelihood, by
  such debased arts as:

  prophesying long life, prosperity etc., or the reverse, from the marks on a person’s limbs, hands, feet, etc.;
  divining by means of omens and signs;
  making auguries on the basis of thunderbolts and celestial portents;
  interpreting ominous dreams;
  telling fortunes from marks on the body;
  making auguries from the marks on cloth gnawed by mice;
  offering fire oblations;
  offering oblations from a ladle;
  offering oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee and oil to the gods;
  offering oblations from the mouth;
  offering blood-sacrifices to the gods;
  making predictions based on the fingertips;
  determining whether the site for a proposed house or garden is propitious or not;
  making predictions for officers of state;
  laying demons in a cemetery;
  laying ghosts;
  knowledge of charms to be pronounced by one living in an earthen house;
  snake charming;
  the poison craft, scorpion craft, rat craft, bird craft, crow craft;
  foretelling the number of years that a man has to live;
  reciting charms to give protection from arrows;
  reciting charms to understand the language of animals

  he abstains from such wrong means of livelihood, from such debased
  arts. This too pertains to his moral discipline.


Preliminaries (common and uncommon) in Tibetan Buddhism What are the 3 commom and 3 uncommon preliminaries in Tibetan Buddhism?

There are many Buddhist lineages in Tibet and all of these have variations on what they consider to be preliminary practices or ngondro. So in order to answer your question generally you have to look for preliminary practices that are common to all of the main lineages - Kagyu, Sakya, Nyingma and Gelugpa.

The 'common' or 'ordinary' or 'outer' practices are generally considered to be the Four Thoughts that Turn the Mind or the Four Reminders. These are more philosophical musings that prepare the mind and motivate the person to continue their practice:

Difficulty of obtaining a free and favorable human life.
Contemplation of impermanence and death.
Contemplation of cause and effect (karma).
Contemplation of endless cycle of suffering (samsara).

A poem by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche on the Four Reminders:

  Joyful to have
  such a human birth,
  difficult to find,
  free and well-favored.

  But death is real,
  comes without warning.
  This body will be a corpse.

  Unalterable
  are the laws of karma;
  Cause and effect
  cannot be escaped.

  Samsara
  is an ocean of suffering,
  unendurable,
  unbearably intense.

It is in the uncommon or extraordinary or inner practices where there is great variability from tradition to tradition but the following are fairly common:

Taking refuge in the three Jewels - Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.
Developing Bodhicitta.
Vajrasattva practice and mandala offerings
Guru yoga.

These preliminary practices are considered essential before journeying into the intermediate and completion stages of Vajrayana which, traditionally, cannot be done without a qualified teacher.

Recommended reading - A Beginner's Guide to Tibetan Buddhism


I've always had a feeling that there is more to life and death. Is this normal? Good morning,  to everyone,  I'm new to this site and only recently been very interested in Buddhism,  mainly because I have always believed in reincarnation,  but to be honest I didn't know other people had the same views.
So deep inside I have had this feeling but could not express how I feel to anyone as most people think I'm crazy.

But I am very interested in the life of how Buddhist lives and want to learn as much as I can regarding this religion.
Any help would be very much appreciated.  Thankyou

first of all let me congratulate you for having this feeling bcs many are in the drunken state of life issues. the very existing you now is the greatest proof that you existed previously and have gathered causes to enable you in rebirth. learning truth of rebirth is rejoicing bcs we aasure ourselves that i am going to be there in next birth after i will be dead in this birth. The deathfear is slightly smoothened . But according to buddha ,  there is rebirth or it is not there also. whole thing depend on you. if you are content in this life and also hope the same shall be in next life also then go on happily. But a little fraction of the futility of life comes to know you though temporarily through any means for e.g love break,cheating partner,loss in career ,deceived by friend or may be due to unknown reasons then the search begins to get rid of causes causing this. then the knowledge begins , what are the causes for getting this life . when learnt ,one strives to avoid them to avoid next birth. buddha's teachings are for this only. i suggest to read "art of living by william harts ,a very convincing analysis of buddha's teachings as taught by goenka guruji who is in lineage of lady sayadaw,sayagyi u ba khin . as per my personal experience i immediately grasped the analysis and feel blessed for  developing faith in the teachings of buddha. hoping and heartily wishing to develop the same in you also.bcs we are all diseased and once the diagnosis is done treatment can be done by a neighbourhood chemist also.