What is the real meaning of the Pali-word adukkhamasukham in the Mahasatipatthana-Sutta? In the Mahasatipatthana-Sutta are mentioned three kinds of sensations: pleasant sensations (dukkha vedana); unpleasant sensations (sukha vedana) and adukkhamasukha vedana.
What is the meaning of adukkhamasukha vedana? What are those sensations?

I think it's literally close to 'not suffering but not pleasure'

“And what is the pleasure-faculty? Any physical pleasure, physical comfort born of body-contact to be experienced as pleasure & comfort. That is called the pleasure-faculty.
“And what is the pain-faculty? Any physical pain, physical discomfort
born of body-contact to be experienced as pain & discomfort. That is
called the pain-faculty.
“And what is the happiness-faculty? Any mental pleasure, mental
comfort born of intellect-contact to be experienced as pleasure &
comfort. That is called the happiness -faculty.
“And what is the distress-faculty? Any mental pain, mental discomfort
born of intellect-contact to be experienced as pain & discomfort. That
is called the distress-faculty.
“And what is the equanimity-faculty? Anything, physical or mental, to
be experienced as neither comfort nor discomfort. That is called the
equanimity-faculty.
“With regard to this, the pleasure-faculty & happiness-faculty are to
be seen as a feeling of pleasure. The pain-faculty & distress-faculty
are to be seen as a feeling of pain. The equanimity-faculty is to be
seen as a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. Thus, by this
exposition, the five are three; and the three, five.” https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN48_38.html

"'The thirty-six states to which beings are attached should be known': thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? Six kinds of
household joy & six kinds of renunciation joy; six kinds of household
distress & six kinds of renunciation distress; six kinds of household
equanimity & six kinds of renunciation equanimity.
"And what are the six kinds of household joy? The joy that arises when
one regards as an acquisition the acquisition of forms cognizable by
the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, connected with
worldly baits — or when one recalls the previous acquisition of such
forms after they have passed, ceased, & changed: That is called
household joy. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile
sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of renunciation joy? The joy that arises
when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, their change,
fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as it actually
is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, stressful, subject
to change: That is called renunciation joy. (Similarly with sounds,
smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of household distress? The distress that
arises when one regards as a non-acquisition the non-acquisition of
forms cognizable by the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming,
endearing, connected with worldly baits — or when one recalls the
previous non-acquisition of such forms after they have passed, ceased,
& changed: That is called household distress. (Similarly with sounds,
smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of renunciation distress? The distress
coming from the longing that arises in one who is filled with longing
for the unexcelled liberations when — experiencing the inconstancy of
those very forms, their change, fading, & cessation — he sees with
right discernment as it actually is that all forms, past or present,
are inconstant, stressful, subject to change and he is filled with
this longing: 'O when will I enter & remain in the dimension that the
noble ones now enter & remain in?' This is called renunciation
distress. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations,
& ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity
that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill,
untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results
of action [2] & who is blind to danger [3] — sees a form with the eye.
Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called
household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile
sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of renunciation equanimity? The equanimity
that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms,
their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as
it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant,
stressful, subject to change: This equanimity goes beyond form, which
is why it is called renunciation equanimity. (Similarly with sounds,
smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.137.than.html


Does anyone have a source reference for Advayavajra in tantric buddhism? This article on tantra -- Buddhist Tantra - 5 -- says

  The deities of the vajrayAna are all manifestations of shUnya.
  Advayavajra says in a very characteristic verse that the deities are
  nothing but manifestations of shUnya and are by nature non-existent,
  and whenever there is manifestation it must be shUnya in essence. The
  process of evolution of deities from shUnya has four stages: the first
  is the right perception of the shUnyatA or voidness, the second is its
  connection with the germ syllable, the third is the conception of an
  icon and the fourth is the external representation of the deity. This
  statement which occurs both in the sAdhanamAlA and in advayavajra is a
  very strong argument against the theory that later Buddhism was
  nothing but gross idolatry.

  They are rather the voluntary manifestations of the shUnya in
  accordance with the bIjamantras uttered by the worshippers, with an
  appearance suitable for the function he has to discharge.

Does anyone have the appropiate references to these statements?

If by Advayavajra they mean Maitripa then it must come from Maitripa's Amanasikara.

Specifically, in Mahasukhaprakasa, text #16 in above translation, so pages 181-187.

In addition, for an English translation of a small but relevant part of Sadhanamala see "Two Tantric Meditations: Visualizing the Deity" by Luis O. Gómez. in Buddhism in Practice pages 236-245.


Are Buddhists happier people? The First Noble Truth says that cyclic existence is Dukkha. I'm not in a position to expound on the meaning of the word Dukkha, but I think everyone can agree it does not mean "happines".

Still, I think many Buddhists would say they are more happy in their lives than non Buddhists.

Would it be fair to claim that Buddhists, if they practice well,  can expect to be more content and generally more happy in their lives? And if so, is this because of Buddhism or is it more generally because they have a spiritual outlook on life?

If I can try to generalize, I would venture to guess that people who come to Buddhism on their own (as opposed to being born into the religion) -- are probably less happy than average, which is what pushes them to seek the way out to begin with.

The reference to suffering in the First Noble Truth is not meant as the final conclusion the Buddhists are supposed to live with, but rather as a starting point for one's spiritual journey. We are seeking an end to the painful wrongness: issues, troubles, hopeless social situation, messed up personal world etc. However, we don't believe in solving it by doing more of the same. We are tired of Samsara, tired of the rat race, we had enough of it. Buddhism promises an alternative to the rat race, this is why we like it, this is what we believe in.

That said, it's not that happiness simply comes as a passive side-effect of being a good Buddhist. Rather, deliberately cultivating happiness that does not depend on external circumstances is one of the core practices in Buddhism!

In Theravada, happiness is cultivated at the end of samatha stage, as the First/Second Jhana. In Vajrayana, this is practiced as Generation-Stage Meditation. In Mahayana, we achieve happiness by forgetting about our own problems as we take care of others.

All this is to say that happiness is not a second-class concept in Buddhism, far from it. In fact, in (Tibetan) Mahayana, one's capacity for lighthearted humor, affirming joyfulness and authentic warmth; one's capacity to be happy and to make others happy -- in the face of the most adverse circumstances -- is considered the most reliable indicator of one's spiritual progress.

So yah, it should absolutely be a fair claim to make, that Buddhists who practice well are happier than average, not because Buddhism is so awesome but because being happy is one of the main things we practice!


Has any Buddhist meditator claimed that the mano-vijnana has a base to differentiate it from the other consciousnesses? Has any Buddhist meditator claimed that the mano-vijnana has a base (I don't mean that in any technical sense) to differentiate it from the other consciousnesses?

If so, what is it called, and when is its action suspended?

According to the Theravada Abhidhamma Mental Consciousness (mano-vijnana) is heart based. This is what Buddha realised through his meditation. Other consciousness arise with the respective faculties and the base, e.g. eye-consciousness with the eye.

It is suspended when you are in Nirodha Samapathi and in Bavanga consciousness. Also perhaps in Pala Samanapathi if this result in a momentarily entering Nirodha Samapathi but not very sure on this as there are different view on this.


Can all human beings potentially be enlightened in this lifetime? Does any Buddhist school or tradition make the assertion that all human beings have the capacity to be enlightened in this lifetime? Or to put it the other way are there groups of people who it just is not possible for them to become enlightened and they have to wait for a better rebirth? Do different traditions differ on this? Does any tradition make the claim that particular human beings will never be enlightened no matter what even in subsequent rebirths?

In the Ugghaṭitaññū Sutta (AN. ii. 135) the Buddha says that there are
  four kinds of person found in this world: those who are quick in
  acquiring, those who learn by means of a detailed exposition, those
  who may be guided, and those for whom the letter [of the Teaching]
  alone is the highest thing. In the Abhidhamma Piṭaka these are defined
  as follows:

  What sort of person is quick in acquiring (ugghaṭitaññū)? The person
  for whom there is penetration of the Dhamma at the very time when it
  is being taught is called “quick in acquiring.”

  What sort of person is one who learns by means of a detailed
  exposition (vipañcitaññū)? The person for whom there is penetration of
  the Dhamma when the meaning of what has been taught in brief is later
  analysed in detail is called “one who learns by means of a detailed
  exposition.”

  What sort of person is one who may be guided (neyya)? The person for
  whom penetration of the Dhamma comes gradually by means of recitation,
  questioning, proper attention, and by serving, cultivating and waiting
  upon kalyānamittas is called “one who may be guided.”

  What sort of person is one for whom the letter alone is the highest
  thing (padaparama)? The person for whom penetration of the Dhamma will
  not come in this life, however much [of the Teaching] he may hear and
  speak and bear in mind or recite, is called to be “one for whom the
  letter alone is the highest thing.” (Puggalapaññatti 41-2; Designation
  of Human Types 58)

  Regarding the fourth type, the padaparama, his lack of potential for
  awakening in the present life may be due to a number of factors. Most
  padaparamas were already such before they were even born, when still
  in their mothers' wombs. Only humans conceived with a triple-rooted
  relinking consciousness (i.e., one accompanied by all three kusala
  roots: non-greed, non-hate and non-delusion) have the possibility of
  attaining jhāna or the noble path in their present life. Those with
  fewer kusala roots than this are all padaparamas.

  Even those who have been reborn with such a consciousness may still be
  padaparamas. In the Puggalapaññati Atthakathā (PuggA. 184-5)
  Buddhaghosa lists six causes for incapacity to attain the paths and
  fruits in the present life; in each case the state is reckoned as one
  that lacks the requisite decisive support condition
  (upanissaya-paccaya). A similar list is also given in the
  Paṭisambhidāmagga (Paṭi. i. 123), but here I will use Buddhaghosa's as
  the Paṭisambhidāmagga's version does not supply any explanation.

  Obstruction by kamma (kammāvaraṇa); meaning those who have committed one of the five anantariyaka kammas.
  Obstruction by defilement (kilesāvaraṇa); meaning those who hold to any of the ten niyata wrong views ("there is no giving, no
  sacrifice... etc.").
  Obstruction by kammic ripening (vipākāvaraṇa); meaning those who were reborn with only a double-rooted or a rootless relinking
  consciousness.
  Lack of faith (assaddha); "one lacking faith in the Buddha, Dhamma and Saṅgha."
  Lack of zeal/desire-to-act (acchandika); defined as being one who either lacks chanda in the sense of desiring to undertake what is
  kusala.
  Being weak in wisdom (duppañña); defined as those in whom the bhavaṅga-citta of that lifetime lacks the mental factor of paññā (this
  in fact overlaps with #3, for it is the relinking consciousness that
  determines the character of the bhavaṅga-citta in any lifetime).
  Blockquote

Above is copied from the answer given here by ven. Dhammanado

  Does any tradition make the claim that particular human beings will
  never be enlightened no matter what even in subsequent rebirths?

It is said that those who are with Niyata Micchāditthi will be stuck in Samsara indefinitely. They are also called as beings who are tied to a pole in Samsara. They are said to be born in the Lokantarika hell when the world system gets destroyed. It is considered even worse than committing one of the 5 heinous crimes.


Does the Dhamma suggest to change external unfavourable conditions In modern society most politicians and banks are corrupt and only care to gain more money & power. They do not care about the welfare of the citizens. What would the dhammic response be? Activism and Dhamma should be incorporated or not or partially?

The Buddha did not intend monks to participate in politics, as seen in DN 2:

  "Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
  faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these —
  talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and
  battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents;
  relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women
  and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead;
  tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future],
  the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things
  exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as
  these. This, too, is part of his virtue.

However, the Buddha did intend for lay people to participate in constructive nation building, in accordance with the Dhamma in DN 16:

  At that time the Venerable Ananda was standing behind the Blessed One, fanning him, and the Blessed One addressed the Venerable
  Ananda thus: "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis have frequent
  gatherings, and are their meetings well attended?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that this is so."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.

  "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse
  peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that they do."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.

  "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees
  nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their
  ancient constitutions?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that they do."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.

  "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor,
  esteem, and veneration towards their elders and think it worthwhile to
  listen to them?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that they do."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.

  "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting
  women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.

  "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor,
  esteem, and veneration towards their shrines, both those within the
  city and those outside it, and do not deprive them of the due
  offerings as given and made to them formerly?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that they do venerate their shrines, and that
  they do not deprive them of their offerings."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.

  "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"

  "I have heard, Lord, that they do."

  "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."


Meditation, sleep paralysis, spinal vibration I have meditated off and on since childhood, before I knew what it was, and since my 30s I have been interested in the spiritual concepts of Buddhism.  I had an experience in 2010 wherein I awoke from sleep but could not move, yet my eyes were open, not my physical eyes.  I could see a pale ceiling but could not look around.  I was aware of my cat half-lying on my stomach, and he was purring.  My ears popped, and suddenly I could hear differently, acutely.  I heard footsteps ascending my stairs and the swishing sound like that of a robe.  I heard footsteps cross to the left side of the bed.  I was frightened, and the hair stood up on end on my arms and head, but I deepened my breathing and relaxed.  I immediately felt a type of massaging, but not on my physical body, more the ethereal body, and also a warmth.  The light massaging moved from left leg and foot to right leg and foot to left rib area to right rib area, and then I heard movement toward my head.  The light in front of my eyes suddenly brightened, and my sinus passages popped loudly.  I felt gentle pressure like hands cradling under my neck, and this pressure began to lift my head and shoulders upward, and I knew that I was being assisted out of body.  Then my alarm went off and awakened me.  I sensed a vibrational peace which lasted several minutes.  Since that time, I have had several OOB experiences, always as I go to sleep or am awakening from sleep, some frightening, which set me back for a few years.

Recently, over the last 2 years, I have had several experiences after I fall asleep wherein I half awaken in that state again, and sometimes feel a presence near, but immediately I feel a very strong, pleasant, vibrational, almost humming flow of energy flowing from the base of my neck to the base of my spine and back again.  I always fall back asleep easily.

I don't know what is happening, and I have been trying to release any fear and simply let it be.  I want to trust that this is some type of healing or spiritual progression process, but I feel that I have no guidance.  Are there any Buddhist teachers who would be able to guide me through this? Any response or feedback would be extremely welcome!

Dont be too much stuck with spiritual experiences.

What you explained accounts for nothing except that now you know what all things are there beyond normal experiences.

Since you have asked this question on a buddhist stack exchange I will suggest you explore more on meditation and start meditating.

There is lit more to experience.


Can Vipassana dissolve psychosis? I did 2 10 day Goenka Vipassana courses. And years later developed adult onset psychosis,

I have not maintained Vipassana practice. Just had a physical and it appears that otherwise I’m relatively healthy if that can be said. I can read without interference. It appears that off and on rhythmic repetitive simple worded voices, sounds and difficulty sleeping might be labeled metaphysical “spiritual emergency.” Difficult to label it as “spiritual.” Maybe more like warfare.

Needless to say, long term the above has a tendency to occlude what is known in secular society as normal function. Can Vipassana dissolve psychosis?

Google defines psychosis as

  A mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality.

Causes:

  Psychosis may occur as a result of a psychiatric illness like schizophrenia. In other instances, it may be caused by a health condition, medications, or drug use.

Since what you suffer from sounds more like the temporary kind, I would say there's a good chance that vipassana meditation could help you. Vipassana means to see clearly the nature of reality, and it is effected by cultivating sati, the main characteristic of which is confronting (abhimukha) reality. If you can manage that, I'd say you would be effectively counteracting the dissociation involved in psychosis.

That being said, I've been reading a lot lately about Goenka-based retreats that seems to suggest they are quite intense. I don't practice his technique myself, so I would just like to say that there are many ways to practice vipassana, some maybe more suitable for dealing with your condition than others. Good luck :)


Software Engineer not challenged enough at work, feels like wasting my time I work as a software engineer. I've been working at this workplace for around 2 years. But, I don't find the work challenging enough (just boring bugfixes only). Given that I spend 8 hours at my workplace, I probably do just around 3 hours of productive work. I think I am wasting my time. Is it bad if I want better work ? Should I consider this as my aversion and just continue with my work ?

All Buddhism is going to tell you on this issue is that you do not have to suffer your way through it. You have a number of attachments:

An attachment to your job, which may be due to loyalty, fear, a sense of personal responsibility, etc
An attachment to having challenging (meaningful, fulfilling) work
A set of self-identification attachments, in which you envision yourself as more successful and productive than you actually are

There is nothing wrong with you staying in this job and continuing to do this work. There is nothing wrong with you deciding to advance yourself (either by finding a different job or by working for advancement within this company). The only problematic thing would sitting in this state of dissatisfaction because you cannot resolve these competing attachments. So, contemplate these attachments a bit to try to get at their root; meditate a bit to clear your head. Then make a choice, and trust it's the right one.


Doctor assisted suicide - does doctor break the first precept? Doctor assisted suicide - a hot potato in the western countries these days. Although this is a kind of suicide, the patient is fully awake and living human being in contrast to a patient in life support due to brain death. According to the Buddhist teachings, what are the karmic repercussions for the doctor who assists the suicide?

Assisting suicide would be considered an offence of defeat in a monk.

  Whatever monk should intentionally deprive a human being of life, or should look about to be his knife-bringer, he is also one who is defeated and is no more in communion.

-- Attitudes to Euthanasia in the Vinaya and Commentary


Why translate 'X etadahosi' as 'the thought occurred to X'? Having read translations of suttas in English and also in my native language, I noticed that every single one of them renders the phrase '(this or that person) etadahosi (quoted thought)' (but see the ETA footnote below) as 'then the following thought occurred to (this or that person)'. If I was left to my own devices (i.e. no easy access to the Commentaries - I have the texts, I'm more or less all right with Pali grammar, but my Pali vocabulary is not very good, making reading slow and skimming over Pali text in search of a topic an impossibility), I'd surely come to the conclusion that this construct means something akin to the modern slang 'then (this or that person) was like: ...'. In other words, the literal meaning seems to convey an outsider's perspective while the - assumedly canonical - translations give sort of an inside view of what happens in - or rather: to - the mind of the person in question.

So my question is: why is this particular translation chosen, apparently every time?

I assume, of course, that it is chosen because an explanation to this effect is found somewhere in the Commentaries, and in that case I'd also like to know where can I find it?

ETA: @ChrisW drew my attention to the fact that the original phrase is actually '(to this or that person) etadahosi', the person is not in nominative but in either dative or genitive.

ETA2: I ended up being convinced that the meaning is clear from the grammar alone and not coming from commentaries. The person to whom the thought occurs is in Dative (or Genitive - Dative is my bet, though), and that it is a thought that occurs to them is clear from the fact that a thought follows the construct. So I'm accepting the answer which draws my attention to the fact that the subject is not in nominative.

I'm not an expert (please consider this instead as an "exercise for the student" for someone to correct).

When it's used in a phrase like, "bhikkhūnaṃ etadahosi", isn't "bhikkhus" there in the plural genitive or plural dative case? Anyway, not nominative. So wouldn't you translate that as "of the bhikkhus", or, "to the bhikkhus"?

You say you translate 'etadahosi' literally as 'was thus' ... could it mean instead, "this was"?

Anyway, given that "bhikkhus" isn't nominative, maybe the most literal translation is, "this was, to the bhikkhus" ... or in other words, "this (thought or statement) occurred, to the bhikkhus".

If I look at other instances of etadahosi I see they too are preceded by a noun with the naṃ or ssa case endings.

Also it sometimes is translated as "they thought".


How does the reference system of the Majjhima Nikaya work? I have come across a reference to the Majjhima Nikaya (MN) noted as MN 1.436. In my own book (The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A translation of the Majjhima Nikaya by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bikkhu Bodhi) there are 152 suttas and each sutta can be sub-divided into a number of vaggas but I can't figure out how one arrives at the aforementioned reference (just newly started to take an interest in the literature).

Kind Regards
Bo

Ven. Bodhi's book also provides PTS references inside square brackets. For the MN 64 example, his book will show:

  "Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states [436] and directs it towards the deathless element thus..."

Else as Andrei mentioned, simply go to suttacentral and click MN 64, then click the cogwheel icon on the upper right hand side (it'll say "Text settings" when moused over), then click the "View textual information" slider and it'll shows the infos. on the right hand side of the paragraphs.


Can being a vegetarian actually be a hindrance for some? I am Buddhist, but not a strict vegetarian. When new acquaintances discover this they are often shocked and wonder, "How can this be??!!"

I'm going to try and explain my answer and see what others think. I contend that being a vegetarian can often act as a hindrance for some Buddhists. They miss the forest for the trees.

One of my own preceding factors for learning about the Dharma was a decision to look deeply at my own consumption of meat and to explore the ethical and moral implications thereof in an honest and heartfelt way that I had never done before. I made a choice not to eat meat and became a vegetarian for five years more or less in parallel to my discovering and contemplating the Buddha Dharma, but to be clear I became a vegetarian strictly BEFORE I became a Buddhist or began practicing Buddha Dharma in earnest.

Over the ensuing years since then I have abandoned being a strict vegetarian and have continued and strengthened in my practice of the Buddha Dharma.

At first, the two seemed to coincide completely, but over time I found myself dwelling on being a vegetarian and being greatly disturbed to find other Buddhists who were not. Upon hearing that another member of the Sangha ate meat I would tend to distrust them and look at them as hypocrites at worst and misguided or lower than me in their ethical understanding of Buddha Dharma at best. I was a proselytizer for becoming a vegetarian to my buddhist/non-buddhist friends alike and worried about what more I could do to convince others. I grew despondent and anxious over my inability to convince others and suffered thinking about and empathizing with all the animals that were being killed on a daily/hourly/second-by-second basis merely to provide the flesh for the insatiable human demand for meat. When I looked at the scale of the problem, billions of animals dying and billions of people consuming their flesh in this carnivorous world I became hopeless that it would ever stop. I thought all of these thoughts indicated progress on the path as my heart opened up with compassion for all these animals.

But there was this nagging thought that I was actually not at all happy and was actually suffering thinking about all this in a repetitive way day after day. It occurred to me that this seemed inconsistent with what my teachers said that progress on the path - on a coarse level - is seen commensurate with an increase in happiness and a decrease in suffering.

Finally, it got bad enough that I more or less confessed all the above to my teacher and his response shocked me. He laughed with a deep and merry belly laugh and advised that I should get over being a vegetarian and the best way to do this was to eat a little meat. He asked me how many animals I had saved today suffering at being a vegetarian and how many I would save tomorrow. He contended that my choice of being a vegetarian had not helped even one animal to escape from samsara and that I had yet to even begin to reconcile with the scale of the problem of samsara as opposed to the nearly insignificant in comparison problem of the human market for meat. He told me I needed to let go of this attachment to being a vegetarian and congratulating myself on how ethical and moral I was compared to all those who were not and to get busy doing the actual work of becoming enlightened so that I may actually help all those animals.

When I look back I think my teacher was entirely correct. Being a vegetarian had become a hindrance for me. And since that time I think of all the people (including fellow Buddhists) who react with outrage at the idea that I am not a strict vegetarian and wonder if they are not all on a similar path that will require them to put down this hindrance in the future in order to make progress.

So there you have it... a question I've been meaning to ask for awhile and inspired by activity in this related post and some of the excellent answers and discussion within.

Can being a vegetarian actually be a hindrance for some?

I have been vegetarian since 1/1/2000. It was originally a New Years Resolution, but it became a New Millenia Resolution. I figured that given impermanence it would not be too hard to keep. :D

That resolution arose out of an understanding that the mindless consumption of meat causes harm and death to many animals. Basically the resolution was simply to exercise restraint and not require the killing of sentient beings.

Only much later did I encounter the suttas, so I started reading about and keeping precepts much later. And at that point the following made perfect sense, since I had already decided it was good principle:

  AN10.172:12.4: Not killing living creatures is a good principle.

I agree that being vegetarian can be a hindrance. Being "vegetarian" is a bit peculiar in that it has for some become a proclamation of virtue and merit that has somehow evolved into an obnoxious and contentious self-righteousness. And that would certainly be a hindrance.

  MN8:12.33: ‘Others will be stubborn, but here we will not be stubborn.’

I have found that gentle restraint suffices in body, mind and speech. A quiet explanation that "I avoid eating meat" is enough. And if asked why, I just reply, "it seems kinder."

As my Zen Roshi used to say, "Road kill is acceptable".


What is the difference between Buddhism, Hinduism and Solipsism? What is the difference between Buddhism, Hinduism and Solipsism? Do all these religions say that other people have no minds? If all these religions are like solipsism, then are all buddhists solipsists?

Solipsism is not a religion or philosophy. It's just a speculative idea: "hmm how do we know the world we experience actually exists? What if our senses and minds are fooling us and nothing else exists at all?". I don't think there are many people, if any, who seriously believe in solipsism and make it one's guiding principle. It's just a philosophical joke people are playing with as they study philosophy.
Note how Solipsism doesn't say "other minds don't exist", no, - instead it says "I definitely exist because I can think and experience stuff, but there's no proof that the rest of the world exists other than in my mind".
Hinduism is not a concrete thing. It's a huge collection of traditions, myths, rituals, and teachings that developed over millennia in many different places on Indian subcontinent. There's no single system there. But in context of your question we can say that most people who roughly belong to this group, called Hindus, believe that people have souls and these souls are parts of the Universal Soul (call it God or Brahma or whatever). Some of the people in this group also believe that this Universal Soul is sleeping and this world is a dream this Universal Soul is dreaming up. Again this idea of the world being God's dream is more like a metaphor or beautiful myth, I don't think all Hindu people take it literally (although some might).
There's no teaching in Hinduism that says that other minds don't exist or the world doesn't exist at all. They usually say this world of separation is an illusion or like a dream, and when the soul wakes up it realizes its unity with God or Brahman, and sees everything correctly as it really is. Note how they don't say nothing else exists, they say the awakened soul sees the true reality, and in this true reality everything is God, basically.
So in solipsism you are the only reality and everything else is illusion while in Hinduism all separate things are illusion and the unity of Everything with God is the true reality.
Now, Buddhism is not a single thing either. It's a huge collection of ideas and teachings that developed from one person's teachings. People were trying to implement this teaching, interpret it, and understand its implications - and this original teaching along with its historical interpretations and implications is what we now call Buddhism.
Many Buddhists (although not all!) will say that soul does not exist, this makes them very different from Hindus who strongly believe in soul. (There are some Buddhist whose faith is more like a hybrid between Buddhism and Hinduism but we can omit them for simplicity). Moreover, most Buddhists do not believe in Universal God or Universal Soul, whatever you call it. In this sense, Buddhists are more like the modern scientific materialists - they think the world works according to some kind of natural laws. Not necessarily same exact laws we know from science but laws nevertheless, not a God dreaming things up.
Now when it comes to mind, most Buddhists will say that mind also works according to some laws, it develops and changes based on causes and conditions - not randomly. When this mind develops, it comes up with all kinds of ideas about the world, including the idea of "I" or "self" - but according to Buddhism all these are just ideas, just concepts the mind develops to approximately understand and analyze its experiences.
So in Buddhism we don't say other minds don't exist or the world doesn't exist, no. We say, the reality or the world we experience is an interpretation we make based on our experience, prejudices, on where we focus our attention and on our emotional state.
In Buddhism we often say that this world is like an illusion or our life is like an illusion, meaning that it seems to look a certain way until you look closely. This doesn't mean the world doesn't exist, it just means when our minds are childish our world is primitive, and as our minds mature - our world becomes much more deep, nuanced, more complex, and a more accurate representation of how-things-really-are.
As you can see, Solipsism, Hinduism, and Buddhism are three very different things. None of them says that other minds do not exist. Only Solipsism says the world outside our mind may not exist. Hinduism and Buddhism both say our experience of the world is not accurate. Hinduism says, in reality everything is one with God, while Buddhism says that every experience of a certain subjective world is a result of causes and conditions.
Solipsism is just a toy philosophy, it's not meant to be a real belief.
Hinduism teaches (among other things) how to strive for unity with God, both in this life and beyond.
In Buddhism we learn how our lives are shaped by causes and conditions, we learn how we create these causes by our actions, we learn how mind works, we learn how it develops illusions and superficial ideas about the world, we learn how these superficial ideas keep us entrapped in certain subjective realities, going in vicious cycles - and we learn how to liberate from all that.


Sexual Desire, Masturbating and Asuba Bawana I have been wanting to ask this question for some time.

So basically caught up in the social norms, i used to watch porn videos and masturbate and got a bit attached to it. Kept on doing it for a few years.

And 2 years back I met a girlfriend and we were so in love and also did different sexual activity (Apart from sex). But our relationship broke one year back when i got to know that she had cheated with another person as a tool to solve certain problems and not for love. When i got to know about it (She herself revealed it) i asked about her whole life story and i got upset by it and sympathized her. Knowing that my mother would not approve her since she also know what happened, I taught her the path of dhamma. Created a path for her to move on through dhamma.To be a better person. And she is still engaging in that path.

So after the break up I was mentally broken down and I somehow needed to satisfy my sexual desire. So i started watching more and more porn and satisfied myself. But it became very upsetting for me due to the breakup.

So one day i decided to start meditating every day and i have been continuing since then. After 2 weeks of meditation i realized that i should stop masturbating and watching porn and i just stopped it then and there. But the following few weeks were very hard. My body was rebelling to watch porn or to at least to satisfy myself. But i fought and fought. There was a time where my body was literally shaking.

And i continued that for six months. There were times where i saw some sexual dreams and i ejaculated. But i didn't do it intentionally.

I meditated different practices and I did a lot of Asuba bawana to control my sexual desire. And I was doing well.

But since recently I have been getting flashbacks of my sexual activities with my ex. And i get these strong urges to masturbate and get it over with. I spoke this with my ex (Since we actually understand each other a lot) and she told me to just do it and accept it.

I have no intention of being a monk at the moment or to live a celibacy life. Whereas i have expectations to find a girlfriend and marry and move on. But i don't feel like masturbating at the moment cause i feel it's just a waste of time and empty since it would make more meaning if i have a girlfriend. So i won't be continuing the anti-masturbating till i find a girlfriend (Why i mentioned this cause by choosing a normal life you will be engaging in these sort pf sexual activities.)

I know for a fact that I will not be watching porn again. Since Stopping it actually made my mind peaceful and to respect women more and to see the beauty in them than to see things perversely.

My question is this

Since I am doing Asuba Bawana if i get an urge to satisfy i would usually try to kill that thought. But there are times where it becomes a big problem in the mind and sometimes my head hurts trying to kill it. Literally.

What should i do at such times? Should i just satisfy myself mindfully or just keep killing the thoughts?

So basically caught up in the social norms, i used to watch porn videos and masturbate and got a bit attached to it. Kept on doing it
  for a few years.

Do not underestimate the harm & addictive character of pornography. Buddhism calls it a 'road to ruin' (DN 31). To ask your questions, you have been learning this via personal experience.

  And 2 years back I met a girlfriend and we were so in love and also did different sexual activity (Apart from sex). But our relationship
  broke one year back when i got to know that she had cheated with
  another person as a tool to solve certain problems and not for love.

Buddhism explains a successful relationship will occur when two people are both moral (AN 4.55 & AN 4.53). Since both you & your girlfriend did not have strong foundations in morality, naturally problems were expected to occur. In other words, your girlfriend was probably not really "in love" but probably clinging to something.

  When i got to know about it (She herself revealed it) i asked about her whole life story and i got upset by it and sympathized her.

Very good.

  Knowing that my mother would not approve her since she also know what happened, I taught her the path of dhamma. Created a path for her
  to move on through dhamma.To be a better person. And she is still
  engaging in that path.

Very good. But also difficult.

  So after the break up I was mentally broken down and I somehow needed to satisfy my sexual desire. So i started watching more and
  more porn and satisfied myself. But it became very upsetting for me
  due to the breakup.

Bad strategy. Instead, try to understand that women with a history often have emotional issues which are difficult to resolve. Such women can try very hard to "love" you & make you attached to them because they are often desperate. Their capacity to truly love & bond does not function well. They need lots of love, trust & counselling.

  So one day i decided to start meditating every day and i have been continuing since then. After 2 weeks of meditation i realized that i
  should stop masturbating and watching porn and i just stopped it then
  and there.

Please stop the porn. It is poison that goes deep inside the neurology of the body & mind. This is why so many people have serious problems with it. Please look upon pornography as though it is heroin or cocaine because it is that dangerous.

  But the following few weeks were very hard. My body was rebelling to watch porn or to at least to satisfy myself. But i fought and fought.
  There was a time where my body was literally shaking.

Your priority should be to avoid the pornography because the pornography is a very strong sense stimulus.

As for the masturbation, this is less serious. Just stop the porn. Put a internet blocker on your computer to stop the porn.

  And i continued that for six months. There were times where i saw some sexual dreams and i ejaculated. But i didn't do it
  intentionally.

There is nothing wrong with sexual dreams & nocturnal emission. Just stop the porn.

  I meditated different practices and I did a lot of Asuba bawana to control my sexual desire. And I was doing well.

Good.

  But since recently I have been getting flashbacks of my sexual
  activities with my sex.

No problem. This is normal.

  And i get these strong urges to masturbate and get it over with. I spoke this with my ex (Since we actually understand each other a lot)
  and she told me to just do it and accept it.

Masturbation is not a sin or grave danger in Buddhism because it is your own mind creating the sense stimuli.

But pornography is the explicit vision of other people engaging in sex and this is a very strong stimuli designed by experts to addict people. Just avoid the porn at all costs.

  I have no intention of being a monk at the moment or to live a celibacy life.

No problem.

  Whereas i have expectations to find a girlfriend and marry and move on.

No problem. But to be successfully married requires firm moral values and particularly clear insight into the advantages & necessity of sexual fidelity.

  So i won't be continuing the anti-masturbating till i find a
  girlfriend (Why i mentioned this cause by choosing a normal life you
  will be engaging in these sort pf sexual activities.)

No problem.

  I know for a fact that I will not be watching porn again.

Thank you. Please do not. Please have clear wisdom about this.

  Since Stopping it actually made my mind peaceful and to respect women more and to see the beauty in them than to see things perversely.

Most excellent. Beautifully spoken. Pornography misrepresents women. Natural women want to love & be loved and want fidelity (AN 6.52). Pornography is a lie & deception. It does not represent reality.

  My question is this Since I am doing Asuba Bawana if i get an urge to satisfy i would usually try to kill that thought. But there are
  times where it becomes a big problem in the mind and sometimes my head
  hurts trying to kill it. Literally. What should i do at such times? Should i just satisfy myself mindfully or just keep killing the thoughts?

'Mindfulness' means 'to remember' the Dhamma path (MN 117). It does not mean to 'observe'. Therefore, if the asuba path is your goal, it is not possible to masturbate mindfully.

If you are really dedicated to this asuba path, when the sexual urges arise & is difficult to control, possibly consider doing some exercise, such as jogging.

Otherwise, just scream out the urges into a pillow or, otherwise, let the thoughts run (but do not act upon them) until the thoughts lose their energy.

In summary, to have a successful relationship & marriage in Buddhism, what is required is a strong understanding of why sexual fidelity is important.

Generally, masturbation occurs with sexual fantasies. Try investigating & analysing those sexual fantasies, to discern how their content is not really moral (harmless) since such fantasies are based on self-indulgent erotic behaviour rather than long term commitment to a woman.

You already had a girlfriend with many problems. Try to discern with wisdom how sexual objectification of women results in women accumulating emotional problems. If you think more about what loving a woman truly means, your sexual energy may become more pure.

It sounds like you are doing very well, practising with courage & integrity. Best wishes. May you fulfil your aspirations for a truly happy, humane & purposeful life.


Mindfulness when playing chess I want to start with this Buddha quote from the Dhammapada

  As rain breaks through an ill-thatched house, passion will break
  through an unreflecting mind.

Ch. 1: The Twin Verses, verse 13

Last night I was playing chess with a close friend and he beat me 4 times consecutively .The first time I almost beat him but my performance worsened linearly .The last time my performance was the worst.

Aside from realizing that each time I lost the more I wanted to beat him ,I realized that while playing I was constantly thinking about the possible moves and wasn't mindful or aware during the game.Its almost like I was constantly surprised by unanticipated moves

Its during the game that the feeling of defeat struck me and during this I was thinking about the plan .

How can watching and strategic thinking occur,if when I watch there is no thinking?.

A fellow here stated that thinking and watching are antagonistic .I think this has some truth as when I watch the thread of thoughts subsides.

I think this leads to a more general question and that in any sport or activity that requires a certain skill .How can mindfulness be incorporated during that activity?.

I know there are already related questions but,there doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer.

In contrast to the other answers, it is my perception that mindfulness and deep intellectual thinking complement each other.

Sports are not about defeating the other team but rather raising your own performance to a higher level.  The higher level of physical or mental (chess) performance is a result of this alignment between the mind, body and spirit.

As a skilled chess player, my best games come not from furious concentration but rather from an openness to the possibilities and patterns of the board. Indeed many chess players compare their state of mind to Zen or Taoist mindfulness.  As with a koan answer, the right move often comes as lightning.

The mind can be trained to be present and creative at the same time. Both take a lot of practice however.  A novice chess player will be looking for the next move and confused by all the possibilities.  Just so, the novice meditation practitioner will be confused by all the stray thoughts.

I'd encourage you to quiet your mind and emotions during a competitive chess game (not easy) perhaps the deeper possibilities on the board will be revealed.


What are the 3 recollection chants? What are the 3 recollection (protection) chants of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha?

It's told that they can be used to dispel fear.

Thank you for your time.

Here's the chant with translation:

  Itipiso Bhagava (He is indeed the Exalted One)
  Araham (far from
  defilements)
  Samma Sambuddho (perfectly enlightened by Himself)
  Vijjacaranasampanno (fully possessed of wisdom and excellent conduct)
  Sugato Lokavidu (knower of the worlds)
  Anutaro Purisadhammasarathi
  Sattha (unexcelled Trainer of tamable men)
  Devamanussanam (teacher of
  deities and men)
  Buddho (the Awakened One)
  Bhagavati (the Lord skilled
  in teaching Dhamma)

  Svakkato Bhagavata Dhammo (well expounded is the Exalted One’s Dhamma)
  Sanditthiko (to be seen here and now)
  Akaliko (not delayed in time)
  Ehipassiko ( (inviting one to) come and see)
  Opanayiko (leading
  inwards)
  Paccatam Veditabbo Vinnuhiti (to be seen by each wise man for
  himself)

  Supatipanno Bhagavato Savakasangho (that which is the Sangha of the
  Exalted One’s disciple who have practiced well)
  Ujupatipanno Bhagavato
  Savakasangho (that which is the Sangha of the Exalted One’s disciple
  who have practiced straightly)
  Nayapatipanno Bhagavato Savakasangho
  (that which is the Sangha of the Exalted One’s disciple who have
  practiced rightly)
  Samicipatipanno Bhagavato Savakasangho (that which
  is the Sangha of the Exalted One’s disciple who have practiced
  properly)
  Yadittam (that is to say)  Cattari Purisayugani (the four
  pairs of men- those who are in the four pairs of Noble Path and
  Fruition)
  Attha Purisapuggala (the eight types of individual persons-
  those who are with the mind of a Stream Winner up to Fruition of
  Arahantship)
  Esa Bhagavato Savakasangho (that is the Sangha of the
  Exalted One’s disciples)
  Ahuneyyo (worthy of gifts)
  Pahuneyyo (worthy
  of hospitality)
  Dakkkhineyyo (worthy of offerings)
  Anjalikaraniyo (who
  should be respected)
  Anuttaram Punakkhetam Lokassati (incomparable
  field of merit to the world)

(source http://methika.com/pali-chanting/itipiso-chant/)


Difference in Buddhist meditation and meditation in other religions What is the exact difference in Buddhist meditation and meditation in other religions.

One of the key aspects of meditation in Buddhism is that there are, very broadly**, two different kinds (or styles or methods or purposes or ...). One kind is intended to train the person's ability to focus their attention, and to calm their mind. That kind is called samatha (or shamatha) meditation; its aim being various forms of samadhi. The aim of the other kind of meditation is to gain insight into -- that is, to understand and experience -- the fundamental nature of reality, specifically the three characteristics -- i.e. that, contrary to the normal view reality: is impermanent, does not provide freedom from suffering, and does not contain any specific permanent thing that we can call "self". This form of meditation and its aim have the same name -- vipassana.

The first of those two kinds is not specific to Buddhism, and can be found throughout Hinduism and other religions. Buddhism's unique offering to the world is the second kind, Vipassana. That said, it's not clear that it's entirely unique to Buddhism in the sense that there are practitioners of other religions who appear to have achieved the outcomes that vipassana is intended to achieve. For example, it's arguable that St Teresa of Avila, a Catholic Christian nun, was describing stream entry (one of the major attainments in vipassana meditation) in her seventh mansion in her "The Interior Castle". Of course that may be because Christianity, especially contemplative/mystical Christianity, was being influenced by the earlier Buddhism. Regardless, the point is that in practice a style of contemplation (meditation, prayer, etc) leading to fundamental insight does exist today outside of Buddhism.

--

** It can be argued that there aren't two different kinds at all, but in typical "western" discussions, that's how it's spoken of. It's not, as far as I can see, a gross error to speak of it like that.


Mind full Meditation I Have been training third eye meditation for past three months,now the tingling sensation on my forehead never goes off and i couldn't go proceed and thought of trying mind full meditation,where we see everything in bare sense of view and i found about Buddha's teaching, i found it very interesting,and found some basics to start mind full meditation where they have said to keep my mind on raising and falling of abdomen during breathing.Which they told would help us realizing nothing is permanent and we should mind fully note everything that happens when we breath.this was basic. NOW THE PROBLEM IS MY FOREHEAD SENSATION IS ALWAYS THEIR MAKING MY MEDITATION TASK TOUGH.

Depending on what method of meditation you are practicing there are different options.

If you are practicing Samatha (tranquility) meditation, simply return back attention to whatever primary meditation object you have chosen, e.g. the belly or entrance to the nostrils.

If you are practicing Vipassana (insight) meditation, observe the tingling feeling and note it as "feeling, feeling" or "tingling, tingling", while keeping attention on the phenomena. Note it 2-3 times and then return attention to the feeling of the rising and falling of the abdomen (primary object).

In Samatha meditation one is gently shifting attention away from all other phenomena except the breath.

In Vipassana meditation one is changing object according to whatever arises at the sense doors.

For more info on how to meditate I would suggest Ven. Yuttadhammo's booklet and video series on how to meditate (Vipassana meditation).


...or does it mean that the conditions might also dependant on a or all things? A central concept in the Buddhist tradition that all things (X) arise in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions (C).

Does this imply a certain causality or order ( C -> X ) or does it mean that the conditions might also dependant on a or all things (C <-> X)?

The question arose in a comment to the question if "Axioms are non-empty?", saying that "Axioms are basically constructed for theorems. So they are still created things, and thus dependent. "

I always wondered if the dependance concept also works the other way round...

Quate from ~ NO INNER CORE ~
An Introduction to the Doctrine of Anatta
by Sayadaw U Sãlànanda pg-26

  Furthermore, we must remember that nàma-råpa or khandhas are merely
  abstract classifications made by the Buddha, and, as such, they have
  no real existence as groups. That is, there is never the functioning
  of an entire entity or group known as corporeality or feeling or
  perception or mental formations or consciousness, but only the
  functioning of individual representatives of these groups.

  For
  example, with one unit of consciousness, only one single kind of
  feeling can be associated. Two different units of perception cannot
  arise at the same moment, and only one kind of consciousness,
  For example seeing consciousness, can arise at one time. A smaller or
  larger number of mental formations can arise with every state of
  consciousness. The groups never arise as a totality; only constituents
  or bits from a certain group can arise depending on conditions.

  There
  are no integrally functioning groups which can be called a self or a
  mind.

My Story,

  The conditions might also dependent on a or all things (C <-> X).

Consider a group of ants. willingness to talk each other the group emerge (Pali:"Uppaggathi").

What is group?
(each ant is not the group, the group is not the collection of ants, without ants also no group, group is not a separate thing from ants, ......).

What is reality?
Actually there is no group( according to our view only ants), but according the view of ants there is a group.("Avijja")

Due to communication, The group behave it's own will.(Consciousness -Intelligent/Madness)

What is the madness?
I am a Group. (My name is 'G'). I have my ants...and getting the feelings of pride, satisfaction...lost, die, decay, feel bad etc..

What is the intelligent?
Get understand  the reason for the process.
Find the way to stop this suffering.

What is Nibbana?
realize How it create and process. Hence escape from suffering.

(c <-> x)
c = Group's Consciousness.
x = Group Concept( with ants).

====================

Exsample 2.  "Players change but Team continues"

By considering a team the players always join and replace. but the team has its popularity glory etc continues to generations.

Is there a team? we can't say 'yes' or 'no'.

1).If some one is considering the team then the team is.
2).If anybody considering the players then no team.

we can't say both is correct, or wrong.
3). The team is relative to the viewers.(May be players or audience)

Like wise what we believe the "Soul" or "person(personality)" is a "Thing". But it is relative to the perception(subject) and precept(object).

So, We cant say there is something in every process. Also we cannot say there is nothing in any process. To be a process there should be a process viewer.
again the viewer is also a process. That is Interdependent.

c = players, x = team, so (c<->x)


Energy and diligence I'm wondering what the best ways to increase mental and physical energy are. I'm often fatigued, and feel slightly lethargic quite often. I have a lot of energy for intellectual tasks, but seemingly, I am fatigued by mundane chores or such things. I also lack willpower for resisting certain tasks.

I believe that a good way to deal with this would be to simply commit to exercising more, but I wonder if there are other ways that Buddhism recommends.

Thank you

Edit: I think my previous post on lying might be relevant. Could it be that integrity--something encompassing effort, willpower, honesty and consistency--be something that I am currently lacking? Something akin to, perhaps, virya? I'm not sure. Any thoughts?

For mental lethargy you can try the techniques to abandon sloth and torpor.

To overcome physical lethargy you can do walking meditation with a quicker pace.


What is the difference between love, compassion, sympathy and empathy in Buddhism? The Buddha has been said to be compassion however i have not seen compassion described.

What does it mean to be compassionate?
How is it different to love, sympathy and empathy?

How is it different to love, sympathy and empathy

There's a description of compassion, empathy, and love in the Brahmavihara article on Wikipedia,

  Loving-kindness (Pāli: mettā, Sanskrit: maitrī) towards all: the hope that a person will be well; "the wish that all sentient beings, without any exception, be happy."[11]
  Compassion (Pāli and Sanskrit: karuṇā): the hope that a person's sufferings will diminish; "the wish for all sentient beings to be free from suffering."[11]
  Empathetic joy (Pāli and Sanskrit: muditā): joy in the accomplishments of a person—oneself or another; sympathetic joy; "the wholesome attitude of rejoicing in the happiness and virtues of all sentient beings."[11]

What the word means in English

"Compassion" is from a Latin word, "co" meaning "with" and "pati/passio" meaning "suffer", so "compassion" means "suffer with".

For example:

If someone is hungry then you think, "I wouldn't like to be hungry" so you feed them.
If someone is being bullied then you think, "I wouldn't like to be bullied"  so you stop whoever is bullying.
If someone is suffering for any reason then you think, "I wouldn't like to suffer for that reason" and so you try to help them.

If you're unable to help then it might mean literally suffering with: someone said of the earliest Christians that they'd love (have compassion for) each other; that if for example they didn't have enough food for two some day, then they would fast together and then eat together on the next day.

"Sympathy" is I think essentially just the same as "compassion", only it derives from Greek instead of Latin: "sym" means "with" and "pathos" means "feeling".

What the word means in Buddhism

Wikipedia's Karuṇā article seems like a fair introduction. It says,

  The Pali commentaries distinguish between karuṇā and mettā in the following complementary manner: Karuna is the desire to remove harm and suffering (ahita-dukkha-apanaya-kāmatā) from others; while mettā is the desire to bring about the well-being and happiness (hita-sukha-upanaya-kāmatā) of others.

I guess that the Dhammapada includes one classic example, at the start of the chapter on Violence:

  All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.


Dhamma riddle? What does it mean? I found a dhamma riddle below.

What do we think it means?

The first one represents desire, grasping something whose roots are impermanent.

The next ones look like Tathagatagarbha.


What is "vital formations"? In this answer by @yuttadhammo, he quotes a section of the Visuddhimagga:

  After reciting the Pātimokkha, it seems,
  on the Uposatha day of the full moon, one of the two elders who were brothers
  went to his own dwelling place surrounded by the Community of Bhikkhus. As
  he stood on the walk looking at the moonlight he calculated his own vital
  formations, and he said to the Community of Bhikkhus, “In what way have you
  seen bhikkhus attaining Nibbāna up till now?” Some answered, “Till now we
  have seen them attain Nibbāna sitting in their seats.” Others answered, “We
  have seen them sitting cross-legged in the air.” The elder said, “I shall now
  show you one attaining Nibbāna while walking.” He then drew a line on the
  walk, saying, “I shall go from this end of the walk to the other end and return;
  when I reach this line I shall attain Nibbāna.” So saying, he stepped on to the
  walk and went to the far end. On his return he attained Nibbāna in the same
  moment in which he stepped on the line.

  -- Vism. VIII.244 (Nyanamoli, trans)

I'm echoing @Parag's inquiry, from the comments, here: what is meant by "vital formations" above?

Here is a quote from "The Majjhima Nikaya 43 - Mahavedalla Sutta: The Greater Series of Questions and Answers" that explains the term "Vital Formations":

  VITAL FORMATIONS

  "Friend, are vital formations states of feeling or are vital formations one thing and states of feeling another?"

  "Vital formations, friend, are not states of feeling. If vital formations were states of feeling, then when a bhikkhu has entered upon the cessation of perception and feeling, he would not be seen to emerge from it. Because vital formations are one thing and states of feeling another, when a bhikkhu has entered upon the cessation of perception and feeling, he can be seen to emerge from it."

  "Friend, when this body is bereft of how many states is it then discarded and forsaken, left lying senseless like a log?"
  "Friend, when this body is bereft of three states - vitality, heat, and consciousness - it is then discarded and forsaken, left lying senseless like a log."
  "Friend, what is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a bhikkhu who has entered upon the cessation of perception and feeling?"

  "Friend, in the case of one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily formations have ceased and subsided, his verbal formations have ceased and subsided, his mental formations have ceased arid subsided, his vitality is exhausted, his heat has keen dissipated, and his faculties are fully broken up. In the case of a bhikkhu who has entered upon the cessation of perception and feeling, his bodily formations have ceased and subsided, his verbal formations have ceased and subsided, his mental formations have ceased and subsided, but his vitality is not exhausted, his heat has not been dissipated, and his faculties become exceptionally clear. This is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a bhikkhu who has entered upon the cessation of perception and feeling."

  -- The Middle Length Discourses in the Majjhima Nikaya, Ch. 5: The Shorter Division of Pairs, (Culayamakavagga), p. 392-393, by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi

Here is another quote from the same book. This is from the chapter "Notes to sutta MN 43":

  "Vital formations" (ayusankhara), according to MA, denotes vitality itself. They cannot be states of feeling because they are required to keep the body of a bhikkhu alive when he has attained to the cessation of perception and feeling. This special meditative attainment, in which all mental activity ceases, is accessible only to non- returners and arahants who also have mastery over the eight attainments on the side of serenity. For a brief discussion see the Introduction, p. 28, and for the full scholastic account, Vsm XXIII, 16-52. The cessation of perception and feeling will be taken up again in MN 44.

  -- Ibid, p. 1237

Lastly, here is a quote from the "Visuddhimagga" explaining the term "Vital Formations":

  “‘Vital formations’ are the same as life span; though some say that they are the life span, heat and consciousness. These are the object only of his normal consciousness. There is no death during cessation because dying takes place by means of the final life-continuum [consciousness]. He should attain only after adverting thus, ‘Let sudden death not occur.’ For in the case of sudden death he would not be able to declare final knowledge, advise the bhikkhus, and testify to the Dispensation’s power. And there would be no reaching the highest path in the case of a non-returner” (Vism-mhþ 904).

  -- Visuddhimagga - The Path of Purification, p. 740, by Ven. Buddhaghosa


Important Commentaries? Q:

  1) Can someone name the most important commentaries, sub-commentaries,
  etc. I should read while reading the Tipitaka?

In my opinion commentaries and sub commentaries are important. Even the Tipitaka is a tabulation by certain Arahants.
In any case, I ask a similar question in the Dhamma Wheel.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=35754


Significance of hand placement in forming mudra In Suzuki's "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind" (online copy here), instruction is given on how to form the specific hand position (mudra) when meditating. He advocates "put[ting] your left hand on top of your right." This is the position I have been using in my short months of meditating, and is the position also taught to me at my local Zen center.

However, this resource, by Ven. Mahathera Nauyane Ariyadhamma, advocates the opposite: "back of the right hand over the palm of the left."

Question: why the difference? and, Does it even matter?

Short Answer: It doesn't matter.

Long Answer

Some postures are said to be more conducive to concentration, and perhaps this is true to a certain extent.  Perhaps there is something with certain hand placements which may help keep people a bit more focused (maybe the bare attention required to keep fingers barely touching, for instance). However, don't make too much of this.  Ultimately, how you sit is a means to help facilitate your concentration and mindfulness, unless you believe that your suffering in life can be solved by how you hold your hands.


What is the equivalent scientific term for samsedaja? What kind of beings on earth are born from samsedaja? Are there any beings on earth that are samsedaja (born or arisen from moisture)? Are bacteria samsedaja?

Mahasi Sayadaw says:

  Conception in moisture-laden media such as moss etc. (sansedaja), represents the coming into existence of some larva etc.

  http://static.sirimangalo.org/mahasi/Dhammacakkappavattana%20Sutta.htm

In this view, the larva seems to be seen as an embryonic stage.

Nina Van Gorkom says:

  Queen Padumavati was conceived in a lotus blossom and Queen Veluvati in the hollow of bamboo plant. Cincamana who slandered the Buddha took rebirth in a tamarind tree.

  http://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/abhidhamma-in-daily-life_2/d/doc3179.html

These allusions are to cases where a human being was born miraculously outside of the womb; somewhat apocryphal.

She also says most insects are samsedaja, but that doesn't seem technically correct.

As for bacteria, I'm only going to state as an opinion that given that stem cells are not sentient, I'm not convinced that bacteria are either. There seems to have to be a higher level of organization for sentience to be possible. At any rate, there is no reason to assume that just because something is alive and reproducing that it is also sentient; unless the mind takes hold of the organism, there will be no sentience even in the case of a fertilized egg.


What are the differences between vipassana and mindfulness meditation? I have been reading about vipassana and mindfulness meditation but so far I haven’t fully understood the differences. Is mindfulness meditation an aspect or a variation of vipassana meditation?

When Buddha taught meditation he did not explicitly separate it in different types. If you read Anapanasati Sutta, Satipatthana Sutta, Kimattha Sutta, Cula-suññata Sutta, and any number of suttas mentioning the Jhanas, you will see that the overall progression is to first learn to pacify the mind at will, then learn to gladden the mind at will, then develop deep quiet satisfaction, then deep non-judgmental awareness, then turn the mind to seeing the implications of how things work (impermanence, corelessness, dukkha etc.), and then turn the mind to liberation.

The earlier stages of this process are referred to as Samatha and the later stages -- as Vipassana (or Shamatha and Vipashyana in Sanskrit).

Because the goal of samatha is to "tame" the mind, samatha is designed to be rather invasive. One target object is picked (a certain physical or a visualized object - depending on the nature of disturbances dominating the practitioner's mind) - and then a one-pointed concentration on that one object is cultivated. This requires mindfulness aka non-distraction: the ability to hold the object of concentration firmly without forgetting what you're supposed to be doing.
Once the mind gets minimally pliable and you can hold attention on one object for several minutes, you can switch to anapana-sati (mindfulness of breathing) meditation. This is when you use your breathing as a feedback to gauge the state of your mind and calm the mind. This type is what's usually called "mindfulness meditation" in the West. As you cultivate this, you develop a type of concentration that gives you direct access to the overall state of your mind, what used to be largely subconscious. Some people call this vipassana, but in my opinion this is somewhere in the middle between samatha and vipassana.
Once you learn to calm the mind using the breath as an indicator, you switch to gladdening the mind using specially constructed narratives. Basically, instead of telling yourself a sad story in which "how it is" and "how it supposed to be" mismatch, you tell yourself a joyful story in which "how it is" and "how it supposed to be" match gloriously. As you cultivate this, you learn the functioning of dukkha/sukha in context of Second and Third Noble Truths. These are already first elements of vipassana. At this point the object of your meditation is not as much breathing, as the thoughts in and off themselves - as explained in the Satipatthana Sutta.
Once you learn to gladden the mind using the narratives, you switch to generating joy/pride directly by consolidating the mind around experience of surety and rightness. At this point the object of your meditation is not as much thoughts, as the mind in-and-of itself - as explained in the Satipatthana Sutta.
The next level is to get over the generation of joy and cultivate the quiet state of satisfaction, grounded in the experience of inherent purity and harmony. There is still a little bit of samatha in this.
The next level after cultivation of satisfaction is cultivation of pure awareness. Just sit and watch whatever happens inside and outside without making any qualitative assessments of the experiences. Don't go with thoughts, don't go against the thoughts. We could call this 100% mindfulness meditation and 100% vipassana. This is the level at which the Heart of Prajnaparamita Sutra should be studied.
The next level is pondering the real-life implications of the core Buddhist principles: impermanence, corelessness, dukkha etc. while keeping the level of calmness and concentration achieved on the previous levels. In my opinion, this is no longer mindfulness meditation, but is still 100% vipassana. This is the level at which the Realization happens.
The next level is what's known as meditation of non-meditation, or cultivation of non-cultivation: experiencing uncontrived natural mind. This is no longer vipassana nor mindfulness. You go beyond abiding in any station and enter what's known as the Diamond Samadhi.

So, as you can see it is hard to say what is mindfulness and what is vipassana. Most of the time things are not so cut and dry:

Some Tibetan schools prefer to emphasize samatha meditation, and require their students to master a complete one-pointed samadhi-with-seed before proceeding straight to the pondering meditation - something I personally found very frustrating... In this case the watching / tuning one's mind phase is implicitly included in samatha.

The Theravada schools seem to teach very strict vipassana as a watertight attention radically focused on microscopic level of phenomenological experiences. IMHO this is very prone to having some practitioners miss the forest behind the trees...

Some Zen schools have their students practice all of the above all at once, without separating it into any levels or giving any hints about the method or the goal. The idea is that a capable student will figure out the path by intuition. Not everyone does. You could call this kind of undifferentiated watch-and-figure-out meditation as "mindfulness meditation"...

Other Zen schools (like Thich Nhat Hanh's) actually teach the whole progression step-by-step: calming, gladdening and all -- and call that "mindfulness meditation"...

This whole Buddhism thing is a mess. People call things however they want. If you understand what is actually going on, like the levels above, you will not be fooled by names anymore and your practice can proceed without confusion.


How does the craving or clinging to existence survive after death? As per my understanding when a person dies his aggregates dissolve(his self dissolves) and if the dead person has any cravings,clinging left for the existence then he is reborn(aggregates reassemble).

Craving or clinging is personal. A person craves or clings. But death causes the dissolution of self. So I am unable to understand who clings or craves after death?
If we the take the simile of lamp then my question would be: who passes the flame from one lamp to another ?

My questions are :how does the clinging or craving remain when there is no person,immediately after death, to crave or cling?
What remains after the dissolution of five aggregates ?

I guess I have found an answer in Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spence(page 394).
It mainly states that Upadana and Karma lives on after death, due to which another being is reproduced.However the exact mechanism is not known.

  The cleaving to existing objects is upadana. There are two properties
  inherent in all sentient beings, except the rahats :—first, upadana,
  and secondly, karma, literally action, the aggregate result of all
  previous acts, in unbroken succession, from the commencement of
  existence, in the births innumerable that have been received in past
  ages. At death, the five khandas are dissolved. As they no longer
  exist in combination, they can maintain no reciprocity of influence ;
  their mutuality of operation has ceased for ever. But the ^upadana
  still exists, and the karma lives on. The cleaving to existing
  objects, or the breaking up of the khandas, by some unexplained
  instrumentality, produces another being. The upadana cannot but exert
  its power ; another being must necessarily be produced. It is as
  impossible, under ordinary circumstances, to separate reproduction
  from upadana, as it would be to separate heat from fire or solidity
  from the rock ; the one follows as naturally as the other, and all are
  equally mysterious in the manner of their operation. As it is the
  grand tenet of Budhism, that all existence is an evil, it thus becomes
  consistent with right reason to seek the destruction of upadana, which
  alone can secure the reception of nirwana, or the cessation of being.


Is there any buddhist explanation for deja vu? I'm not sure we will find that in the pali canon (per haps in Abidhamma?), but is there any thera/senior bikkhu that wrote about it? Is it related to past lifes or any special power of the mind?

The psychology of C. G. Jung who wrote a preface to Bardo Thodol (The Tibetan Buddhist Book of the Dead) may explain the deja vu experience as restimulation of experiences of the collective unconscious in the bardo interval between death and the next rebirth, that he called "archetypes" or universal prototypes for ideas. However before drawing such a conclusion, know that the Sabbasava Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 2) warns against questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self. They include: Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past?


Could a software model of Abidhamma ( human thought Process - citta) help in Psychology? As of my understanding, Abidhamma explains the initial thinkings (citta -thought process) and models the final thinking patterns. If someone implements this known patterns in software, wouldn't it be helpful to identify possible abnormal mental conditions of people?

I am an Abhidhamma teacher and used to be a software programmer. Your suggestion is very noble and innovative. I am not sure that the sensing process / thinking process found in the commentaries is the right starting point for such a software program.

My impression is that the sensing process / thinking process were developed to show how sensing and thinking can be natural processes (without a "self" who senses or thinks). The Abhidhamma focuses on the "micro" scale whereas the problem that you are trying to solve is at the "macro" scale.

As an analogy, the "water cycle" (evaporation - condensation - precipitation) that we learned in primary school shows how rain is a natural phenomena. The "water cycle" is not useful for meteorologists in predicting weather; they use other tools.

As another analogy, the models of how atoms and molecules are constructed are not going to help much if you want to build a house.

There are aspects of Buddhism that can help people with problems such as MBSR (mindfulness meditation) or the application of natural decisive support condition (from the Abhidhamma). My impression is that these do not naturally lend themselves to software programs.

You asked specifically about software model of the thought process, but the more general question "Could Abhidhamma help in Psychology?" is even more intriguing (at least for me). I have a couple of interesting books by Mirko Frýba ("The Art of Happiness" and "The Practice of Happiness") that connect Abhidhamma with modern Psychology.


Is practicing Buddhism to be happy a wrong view? One of my teachers has said that practicing Buddhism isn't about having a good time. That's always struck me as a bit harsh. If I practice Buddhism to feel a bit better about myself and to be happy is that a wrong view. If it is, then why would anyone start to practice at all unless they had been brought up in that tradition and it was a cultural thing.

“Ethan santhan ethan paneethan, sabba sankhara samatho, Sabbhupathi patinissaggo, tanhkkhayo, virago, nirodho, Nibbanan ti“

“It is the only peace, the only happiness: prevent sankhara from arising by eliminating tanha and excess greed, and thus stopping the arising of defilements, which is Nibbana“.

This above mentioned contemplation is the most effective  kammatthana when cultivating Ariya Jhana. But we can never achieve such jhanic states that is helpful in furthering the Noble Eightfold Path if there isn’t a sense of happiness within us. The sati sampajanna that one dwells in should be one of inner happiness and peace of mind. Sati is mindfulness. The Pali word for alertness is sampajañña. It doesn’t mean being choicelessly aware of the present, or comprehending the present. Sampajañña means being aware of what you’re doing in the movements of the body, the movements in the mind. This is why mindfulness and alertness should always be paired.

Our happiness, our lack of happiness, depends on our actions. So that’s where we focus our attention. When you create a frame of reference here in the present moment, there are lots of things you can tune in to. You can choose the body in and of itself. You can choose feelings, mental states, mental qualities in and of themselves.

Of all the sensory input that comes in at any one particular moment, you make a choice of what you’re going to pay attention to, what memories, what frame of reference you’re going to bring to that particular moment. And it’s an important mental skill to be able to shift your frame of reference as necessary.

Being mindful means being very deliberate and clear about what you bring to whatever you’re doing: what you’re going to remember, what you’re not going to remember, what you’re going to recollect, what you’re going to let go, which things are useful to recollect right now.

If you wanted to, you could sit and spend the whole hour thinking about facts that would make you totally miserable, but what does that accomplish? In walking the Path we are to think about things that are useful for the mind, so remember the things that are useful for the mind, that will help it develop. As for the other voices coming in and out of the mind, listen to the ones that are helpful and ignore the ones that are not. You can be selective.

This way, mindfulness becomes a quality we can apply to everything we do. And instead of making us unable to function, it heightens our ability to function, because we understand the process that the mind goes through, and we are in a state of happiness within.

Just because your teacher and almost all the books in the present day say as to how could one be happy when everything is suffering, you should not accept such a statement as true. For one to advice another on Dhamma, one has have at least come to the ‘Stream Entrant’ stage of the Path. This is like someone trying to teach another to ride a cycle, when he himself doesn’t know how to ride one. Sadly that is the state of affairs in the present day and age.

You can sing, dance, and have an enjoyable time while being grounded in reality, in knowing the underlying nature of anything in this world. It is fully engaging in life with an understanding that we will not be able to maintain anything to our satisfaction over long times. Thus we can see suffering - there not being anything of true inherent value in mundane life activities – but still participate in the activities in a rather detached way. If one truly understands this fact, that itself leads to the Stream Entrant stage of Nibbana.


What is the meaning of Rahula? I am speaking of course of Siddhartha Gautama's son. I was told Rahula means obstacle. Is this true?

"Rāhulajāto, bandhanam jātam"   the word rāhula meaning bond

(Source: http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/r/raahula.htm)

edit: see comments below


Can a one-pointed mind and a unified mind alternate? During meditation i notice that the mind tends to alternate between one-pointedness (breath touching the tip of the nose while breaking off any upcoming thought) and classifying upcoming thoughts into thoughts about the past, future and related to ego, before breaking off the thought, or observing the upcoming and cessation of all sensations in the realm of body and mind while always keeping adhithanna in posture. Is this inconsistent or can a unified and one-pointed mind exist alternately or even simultaneously?

It's either one or the other.  One-pointedness means exactly that - the mind is fixed in one place.  Anything apart from that single point detracts from concentration.  What can happen is that as you develop one-pointedness, your attention can get somewhat "smeared".  You'll still have some hold of the single point, but your attention isn't fully fixed on it.  In this case, your vitakka or applied thought is [mostly] there, but your vicara (e.g. sustaining thought) is either slipping around or is intermittent.

If you find yourself moving away from single-pointedness on a fixed object, my best advice is to switch to something a little less subtle like the full inhalation and exhalation as it travels through your body.  It is much easier to maintain sustained attention on something that is moving.  In a sense, the motion keeps your interest more than would a single point.  As your concentration deepens, you can begin watching the where the breath makes contact again.

Bonus point - don't watch the breath, wait for the breath.  What I mean by that is that your attention should be passive as if you were waiting for a train to arrive, a gaggle of geese to cross the road, or your Hot Pocket to cook in the microwave.  Westerners especially can be overly aggressive when they actively try to watch the breath.  The pin the poor thing down with their efforts and don't give it any room to...well...breath.  As the Hsin Hsin Ming puts it, "when you try to achieve passivity, your very effort fills you with activity".  Strong arming your attention like that arouses needless agitation.  If you take a more patient approach, your concentration will be correspondingly deeper.


Is consciousness immaterial? I've been doing a lot of scripture reading on consciousness (vijnana, mana, citta, etc) in the pali canon and Mahayana doctrines. Buddha never seemed to accept materialism, or that mind was material, in much of the scripture.

But as someone who also observes the empirical sciences, I am a bit confused.

If it is true we are all evolved beings from microscopic organisms over millions of years via cell growth and evolution, would this not verify, then, that consciousness is truly material in origin? That our thinking minds evolved and gradually arose, over the years, from some material and previously mindless thing like a single celled organism?

Basically, my concern is this: if science is right that consciousness is just chemicals and nerves in the human brain, would a large part of Buddhism be disproved? If consciousness is really just a material reaction, would rebirth be impossible then since the mind would exist as brain functioning and cannot transmigrate?

Basically, I seemed to have run into a block in my practice. I just have fundamental doubts about everything now. Is there a way we can prove the mind is immaterial or experiences the birth/death cycle...and is not just the evolved brain?

Thank you to all.

Buddha never seemed to accept materialism, or that mind was material, in much of the scripture.

A being has a material structure and mental structure (Namarupa).

  If it is true we are all evolved beings from microscopic organisms over millions of years via cell growth and evolution, would this not verify, then, that consciousness is truly material in origin? That our thinking minds evolved and gradually arose, over the years, from some material and previously mindless thing like a single celled organism?

There are fine material and immaterial planes where thinking is not linked to a material organ like the brain. Thinking is linked heart in the Abhidhamma. In immaterial spheres since there is no materiality thinking cannot be material base.

As for organism in this world, Buddhism does not seems to contradict Darwinism but Buddhism evolution is much more, where the evolution began from celestial beings.

    Their body was still coarse and roughly shaped. Thus, after a very long time, the mud-like substance began to be exhausted. Then, mushroom-like plants began to grow so fast that they replaced the mud-like ocean. The creatures began to devour them as well, and they also found it delicious, like sweet honey and milk. Their body hardened more and details began to turn finer.

    After another very long time, the mushrooms also began to be exhausted, replaced by cassava or turnip-like plants. They also began to devour them night and day, and thus they began to notice differences amongst them. As the changes of their bodies varied between each other, the concept of difference arose. The concepts of the beautiful and the ugly were born. The beautiful scorns the ugly and they became arrogant because of their appearance.

    Then, after the turnips, the earth was grown with rice plants. ...

Source: Aggañña Sutta

  Basically, my concern is this: if science is right that consciousness is just chemicals and nerves in the human brain, would a large part of Buddhism be disproved? If consciousness is really just a material reaction, would rebirth be impossible then since the mind would exist as brain functioning and cannot transmigrate?

There is both a physical and non physical part. Science cannot proble not non physical aspects hence. So any scientific proof and disproof is not considering all the facts.

  Basically, I seemed to have run into a block in my practice. I just have fundamental doubts about everything now. Is there a way we can prove the mind is immaterial or experiences the birth/death cycle...and is not just the evolved brain?

This you have to mediate. If you develop any higher knowledges then it is possible, but only a few are capable of this.


Five Hindrances Right Mindfulness Interrelated? Dear Buddhist Community,

Would someone help to explain how eradicating/suppressing the five hindrances and right mindfulness can go together?

According to the Buddha: (http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/II/Feeding_the_Hindrances.htm)

  "Just as this body, is sustained by food, is dependent on food, and
  cannot  continue without food, even so, friends, are the five mental
  hindrances  indeed also sustained by a kind of food, they are also
  dependent on food,  and cannot continue without ever renewed feeding!

  And what, friends, is feeding for the arising and growth of
  sense-desire?  It is frequent and careless attention to the alluring
  and attractive features! This food makes sensual lust arise, and feeds
  also growth of habitual greed…

  And what, friends, is feeding for the arising and aggravation of
  ill-will?  It is frequent and careless attention to the displeasing
  and repulsive features! This food makes aversion arise, and boosts
  also any habitual irritation…

  And what feeds the emergence and deterioration of
  lethargy-and-laziness?  It is frequent and careless attention to
  drowsiness, and too much  eaten  dullness! This is feeding makes sloth
  arise, and feeds also worsening of habitual laziness…

  And what feeds the arising and escalation of restlessness-and-regret?
  It is frequent and careless attention to the excited, agitated, and
  stressed up mind! This food upsets and stirs the mind, and intensifies
  also habitual anxiety and worry…

  And what feeds the arising, deepening, and  expansion of
  doubt-and-uncertainty? It is frequent and careless attention to
  doubtful theories and speculative views! This food bewilders the mind,
  and feeds also the escalation of habitual confusion..."

Notice, the key phrase the Buddha used is: IT IS THE FREQUENCT AND CARELESS ATTENTION to the hindrances listed above. So, are we supposed to be simply ignoring these thoughts of hindrance as they arise?

Or, more generally, would someone explain how hindrances and right mindfulness go together?

I know that it might be a silly question, but this question has bugged me for some time now.

Thank you for your help everyone!
Reid

The Pāḷi phrase for "frequent and careless attention in the Sutta (SN 46.2) is "ayonisomanasikārabahulīkāro".

ayoniso = unwise, manasikāra = attention, bahulīkāro = continuous practice

The role of manasikāra is to direct the mind, just as a rudder steers a boat. Manasikāra can be wholesome or unwholesome.

When manasikāra is steering the mind in a way that is in concordance with the dhamma, this is called "wise attention" (yonisomanasikāra). Wise attention is a proximate cause for non-attachment (alobha), non-aversion (adosa), equanimity (tatramajjhattatā) and understanding (paññā).

When manasikāra is steering the mind in a way that is not in concordance with the dhamma, this is called "unwise attention" (ayonisomanasikāra). Unwise attention is a proximate cause for delusion (moha), restlessness (uddhacca) and doubt (vicikicchā).

Accoding to Iti 1.16:

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "With regard to internal factors, I don't envision any other single factor like wise attention as doing so much for a monk in training, who has not attained the heart's goal but remains intent on the unsurpassed safety from bondage. A monk who attends appropriately abandons what is unskillful and develops what is skillful.


How to have a relationship Every intimate relationship I have ever had has ended in a lot of pain and grief. The last one lasted for 17 years but eventually broke down. That was a year ago and the pain is still very raw at times.
My question is this. If attachment causes suffering then I was obviously very attached but how do you have an intimate relationship without becoming attached? It seems just like the normal human thing to do. You like someone, you fall in love and it hurts when they're gone.
You kind of don't even realise it's happening until it ends and then you feel like you want to die. I'm not sure if it's possible to have a close relationship on the Buddhist path anymore but I also don't want to live life alone. I know Buddha left his family but in these modern times there seem to be plenty of teachers who have partners/spouses.

Impossible. When there's relationship, there's bonding. When there's bonding, there's pain when it ends.

The only thing you can do to minimize pain is to stay as independent as possible, and be your own source of joy and acceptance. Which means playing an active role in your life, instead of relying on your partner for initiative and values.