Should I meditate on one thing or just any sensation that arise? As I research I am hearing people say pick a single point and focus on that. Then I hear other say you should just focus on the sensation that arise in your body. Personal one point focusing is much easier and I often get distract on if I should focusing only on the breath or move it to the inch on my leg or the numbness from sitting. Most people from the east that I hear say single point focusing more western meditator that hear say focusing on different sensation. Which is it?

The main objective of meditation is to maintain a mind of equanimity (calmness).

When the mind is calm, it can also develop insight.

Meditating upon one thing helps establish equanimity (calmness).

The main practise in the teachings of the Buddha is to establish the mind on knowing when the body breathes in & when the body breathes out.

In does not matter where this knowing of breathing in & breathing out is established.

The knowing can be in a small area, such as the nostrils, nose-tip & upper lip.

Or the knowing can be in a larger area, such as the abdomen; or even a larger area, from the nostrils, throat, chest to abdomen (stomach).


A beginner facing Culadasa I am a complete beginner who was looking for a good Buddhist guide for meditation. I discovered the book "The Mind Illuminated" by Culadasa and I thought I had found the grail: the shape of the guide seemed perfect to me. It is simple and clear, based on the anapanasati, up to the jhanas, step by step.

But I have just discovered the scandals surrounding Culadasa and now I totally doubt the quality of his teaching. I attach great importance to the morality of a teacher of these issues.

Where do I go from here? What do you recommend? Is there another guide as good in its form made by a recognized teacher, without scandals?

Thanks.

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

Err... not literally...

The point of this quip is that attachment to a teacher is itself something that must be overcome. Even if you are lucky enough to meet a truly enlightened teacher, that teacher's enlightenment is his enlightenment, and you have to find your way to your own.

I'm not familiar with Culadasa or his issues, but a quick google search tells me he indulged in prostitutes and sex outside of marriage. It could be worse — he didn't seem to misuse the student/teacher relationship, as I've seen too many other teachers do — but it still displays some moral turpitude that shouldn't be ignored. Clearly he has a number of miles yet to walk on the path. That is his concern.

Your concern is whether his work advances you on your path. At this point you are not going to be able to see the path all the way to its end; what you want is something that will give you a reliable map for the next few miles, and when you get to the end of that you'll find something that takes you farther. If Culadasa's work feels 'right' to you, follow it for a while. He may have strayed off off his own map into the mire, but that doesn't mean his map is bad, it just means he lost his way.

Trust me, he spiritual path is littered with teachers who have become object lessons for their own teachings. It's ok to use them as guideposts, so long as you commit yourself to turn right where they turned wrong.


Can or should a Buddhist defend themselves physically? If someone is attacking you to kill you should you defend yourself? Would it be ethical to kill an intruder coming into your home? If not, how did the bushido  samauri warriors justify it? We're they wrong?

If someone is attacking you to kill you should you defend yourself? ...

I think yes, you may. Our religion has never stopped us from doing that.

  Would it be ethical to kill an intruder coming into your home?

you may stop an intruder forcefully. Our religion has never stopped us from doing that.

But for me, being Buddhist, the answer will not end there. Both (two above lines) questions are based on teaching of Ahimsa (not to injure). If it is so then it is important to know how we interpret this teaching. Following are some of the points we can consider-

Buddhism is a religion of principles and not rules. (yes there are rules as code of conduct, but it is not religion of rules). It teaches you basic principles and you are expected to make the decision on basis of that according to the context.
Buddhism is religion with "Metta" (unconditional love). You even are expected to love your enemy. But you are not prohibited from defending yourself.
Ahimsa in Buddhism is not the same as it is in Jainism.

These are the points in short based on which I said you can physically defend and you are not stopped by Buddhism from doing so. I don't want to say that you should (or even you can) kill. But you may defend. Dr. Ambedkar's discussion on Ahimsa is very enlightening in this regard. You can find it here -The Buddha and His Dhamma, Book 4, Part II, Section 3. It is a good read and the best part is it covers the whole debate in two pages. I also found this article interesting discussing the same point.


Shiva's 112 ways to attain enlightenment and Buddha's way I recently came across a video of a guru (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPINIZmQDwI&t=1s) claiming that Buddha's method to enlightenment was just one of 112 methods discovered by Shiva many years before the time of Buddha. ( https://yogitonics.com/shivas-112-ways-to-attain-enlightenment/).

I was wondering if anyone knows if this is a valid claim. Are there other ways out there to attain enlightenment or is the eight-fold path the only way?

Buddha explicitly said that the only way to attain enlightenment is following the Noble Eightfold path. However, the way you enter Nibbana may have many doors. Hinduism doe not fitting to any of these as they do not have Noble Eightfold Path.

Eleven doors. Dasama Sutta.

When this was said, Dasama the householder from Atthakanagara said to Ven. Ananda, "Venerable Ananda, just as if a man seeking a single opening onto treasure were all at once to come upon eleven openings onto treasure, in the same way I — seeking a single doorway to the Deathless — have all at once come to hear of eleven doorways to the Deathless. And just as if a man whose house had eleven doors could take himself to safety by means of any one of those doors, in the same way I can take myself to safety by means of any one of these eleven doors to the Deathless. Venerable sir, when sectarians search for a teacher's fee for their teachers, why shouldn't I pay homage to Ven. Ananda?"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.017.than.html


Text request--Tibetan Buddhism I am looking for some legal, online Tibetan Buddhist texts.

I have been studying Buddhism for a long time (although mostly Theravada) and so I am not looking for something at the beginner level.

Something that involves specific, meditative techniques/instructions and/or deals with emotional development would especially relevant to me. A list of major texts would also be appreciated.

The Gelug tradition expounds on the following five types of meditation.

You find here teachings (for free) related to Tsongkhapa's Middle-Length Lam Rim. They must cover the first, second and third types of the five types of meditation I list below. They were given by my teacher.

You also have the possibility to subscribe to the FPMT Online Basic Program. It provides with study material on twelve subjects. You can chose which subject(s) you wish to study. Again, the Stages of the Path (Lam Rim) module relates to the first, second and third of the 5 types of meditation listed below, while the Ornament for Clear Realization, Ch 4 relates to the practice of the four placements (as well as to actual vipassana, meditation on emptiness).

The five types of meditation you find in the Gelug tradition are:

Of the type of Vipassana (i.e. analytical), but not actual vipassana
Most Lam Rim topics are objects of such analytical meditations.
Ani Karin Valham (a quiet inspiring nun and teacher from Kopan, ordained for almost 40 years now) wrote outlines called beginner's meditation guide. It's best is you already know Tsongkhapa's Middle-Length or Greater Lam Rim text. There are other Lam Rim such as Atisha's Lamp for the path to enlightenment and so forth.
Calm Abiding (non-analytical)
In Tibetan tradition, we cultivate calm abiding mostly by focusing on a [mental image of] the body of the Buddha. Not so much on one's breath. Tsongkhapa's Lam Rim Chen Mo, volume 3, explains the practice. Commentaries on this are:
- Samatha Meditation, by Gen Lamrimpa.
- Balancing the Mind, by Alan Wallace.
- Study and Practice of Meditation, Leah Zahler.
- Gyaltsab Je's Explanation: Ornament of the Essence Chapter 1
Actual Vipassana (i.e. analytical meditation on emptiness)
As commentaries to the 2nd part of the 3rd volume of Tsongkhapa's Lam Rim Chen Mo, the FPMT advises these:
- Tsongkhapa's Final Exposition of Wisdom.
- Insight into Emptiness, by Khensur Tegchok
- Meditation on Emptiness, by Jeffrey Hopkins.
- Emptiness Yoga, by Jeffrey Hopkins.
Four Placements (close to Sathipattana, but not as elaborated as the typically Theravadin practice)
- Maitreya's Ornament of clear Realization (and commentaries by Haribhadra, Gyaltsab Je, etc)
For further study, the four placements are the first of the 37 aids to Enlightenment (Skt.: bodhipakṣa dharma)
Mahamudra
It is meditation of the conventional nature of the mind (clear light - or 'clear and knowing') and its ultimate nature. Exercises such as 'the mind like a mirror', or 'the mind like the sky', or 'four placements without an anchor' are preliminaries to it. One can study The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra from H.H. the Dalaï-Lama & Alexander Berzin. Mahamudra is divided into two: (1) sutra and (2) tantra.


Why is it necessary to scan entire body in Vipassana? Mr Goenka teaches that there are six senses including mind, and that when we observe them in vipassana we eradicate our sankaras.

My question is, nearly all my senses are on my face: like taste, smell, hearing, and seeing. Only "touch" and "mind" I am not sure of.

So why not just focus on the my facial sensations, and do it smartly?

Otherwise, what is the use of observing my legs' sensation, when I am fighting with anger, frustration, love, etc.?

Otherwise, what is the use of observing my legs' sensation, when I am fighting with anger, frustration, love, etc.?

When you are angry the distribution of the sensations through the body may take one form. When in love another. There will be places where sensations are more intense, but nevertheless there is sensations throughout.

So why not just focus on ...
Why is it necessary to scan entire body in Vipassana?

You have to understand the full sphere of experience. You have to understand all sensations in the body. If you move from more gross or intense sensations to another, you will never understand the more subtle sensations. You have to come to a state where you experience any sensation in the body, always, and though the body. This is how you will know the whole sphere of experiences is unsatisfactory.

touch

Throughout your body - skin

mind

head and around the heart
Also keep in mind. When something happens in the mind also bodily sensations arise. When something happens in the body metal sensations arise.


Putting "Bhikkhu" before or after name, is there a difference? For example there's Bhikkhu Bodhi and Thanissaro Bhikkhu. What's the distinction?

Below you can see some titles and names.
The title is (Sammasam)Buddha and the name is Kassapa, the title is bhikkhu and the name is Sahaka, the title is Mara and the name is Dusi, the title is disciple (savaka) and the name is Vidhura, the title is brahmin and the name is Kakusandha.
In all the cases, the title precedes the name in the English translation, just like how we say Doctor Fauci or President Obama in English.
But in all the cases, the title comes after the name in Pali.
So both are the same. One in English and one in Pali.
From SN 48.57:

Once upon a time, sir, I lived the spiritual life under the fully
awakened Buddha Kassapa.
Bhūtapubbāhaṃ, bhante, kassape sammāsambuddhe brahmacariyaṃ acariṃ.
There they knew me as
Tatrapi maṃ evaṃ jānanti:
the mendicant Sahaka.
‘sahako bhikkhu, sahako bhikkhū’ti.

From MN 50:

Then it occurred to Māra Dūsī,
Atha kho, pāpima, dūsissa mārassa etadahosi

after attacking the disciple Vidhura
Vidhuraṃ sāvakamāsajja,
along with the brahmin Kakusandha?
kakusandhañca brāhmaṇaṃ.


Does not keeping a promise violate the precept on lying? What if I promised myself? In my opinion, if you promise something to someone and don't keep it, it is equivalent to lying. But what if the promise is to myself and I don't keep it; is it violating the precept on lying?

Does the lying precept apply to oneself, i.e not lying to yourself?

Sutta / Vinaya references would be very much appreciated.

Edit: I meant one vowed/ promised with honest intention at the time did it, but later change mind and don't want to keep it anymore

In order to answer this sort of question, you have to be clear on what the precepts are and what they are not. They are a set of intentional statements of will to keep a finite set of basic moral precepts. They are not an all-encompassing treatise on morality.

So, the fourth precept, as Sankha Kulathantille says in his answer, relates to a specific type of speech; it does not include all types of wrong speech, it only refers to speech that is intended to deceive another person, as per the Cunda Sutta (AN 10.176) for example:

  There is the case where a certain person engages in false speech. When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty [i.e., a royal court proceeding], if he is asked as a witness, 'Come & tell, good man, what you know': If he doesn't know, he says, 'I know.' If he does know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I have seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' Thus he consciously tells lies for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of a certain reward.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html

Therefore, your premise,

  if you promise something to someone and don't keep it, it is equivalent to lying.

is not in accordance with a strict Buddhist understanding of lying, since there need not be at any time during the change of heart an intention to deceive.

As to whether breaking a promise is wrong, Thanissaro has a discussion of this in his BMC:

  The Mahavagga (III.14.1-14) imposes a dukkata on the act of making a promise with pure intentions but later breaking it. Since the texts make no mention of any circumstances beyond one's control that would exempt one from that penalty, a bhikkhu should be very careful of how he states his plans for the future. A special instance of breaking a promise -- accepting an invitation to a meal but then not going -- is treated under Pacittiya 33.

Interestingly, the Mahavagga passage in question does use the word for lying (musāvādā):

  Nanu mayā, moghapurisa, anekapariyāyena musāvādo garahito, musāvādā veramaṇī pasatthā?

  "Has not falsehood been reproved, and abstinence from falsehood been praised by me in many ways?"

But the Buddha only charges him with a dukkata rather than a pacittiya (which would be the case in a true lie), so a distinction is clearly made.

So, first point to make:

Breaking a promise is wrong, but outright lying is worse. Breaking a promise does not, therefore, break the first precept as it is understood in Theravada Buddhism.

Now, on to your question :)

"Lying to oneself" would literally mean knowing something to be false and yet telling yourself that it is true, with the intention that you should believe it to be true. Psychologically, it is certainly possible that over time you could come to convince yourself of something, but only if you let yourself believe it to be true, in which case you would no longer simultaneously know it to be false. This sort of self-deception goes on all the time in our world, of course, but is it lying?

First of all, the five precepts all require physical or verbal acts to be broken; morality in its conventional form always refers only to physical and mental commissions or omissions; mental immorality is considered a lapse of concentration, not morality. (I don't have a reference for this, but if I can find one, I'll pass it along). So you'd have to actually tell yourself out loud, knowing that what you were saying is false, intending to make yourself believe something to be true. I guess that is theoretically possible, but in most cases I think it would be difficult to convince yourself that you were seriously capable of such deception.

More common, I'd say, would be the simple intention to cultivate a belief in what is false; rather than trying to deceive yourself, per se, you simply want to cultivate a distorted belief; e.g. believing that a loved one is still alive, because it's too difficult to acknowledge they are dead. The difference here is there is no breach of trust; you are accepting that something is a lie, but deciding to believe it anyway.

A similar situation would be in the case of hypnosis, where a hypnotist tells the patient to imagine themselves in certain situations, or helps them convince themselves they were never afraid of something, etc., e.g. "You have never been afraid of spiders." The patient allows the hypnotist to make them believe something that is false; the hypnotist cannot be considered guilty of lying to the patient, as the patient knows it is false but simply wants to change their belief.

In short, lying to yourself, while it may be damaging, can't be considered truly lying, since it doesn't involve a breach of trust or an act of deceptive communication. Self-deception is voluntary and occurs after the 'lie' has already been told.


"I want Happiness" / "Remove `I` and `want`" story A man said to the Buddha, "I want Happiness."
Buddha said, first remove "I", that's ego,
then remove "want", that's desire.
See now you are left with only Happiness.
If the story given above true? If not why not?

If the story given above true? If not why not?

It's not canonical -- A man said to the Buddha, ‘I want Happiness.’ is listed as one of the "fake Buddha quotes".

As for whether it's true, yes and no.

Yes to the extent that "wanting" is associated with unhappiness, though even there you might have to split hairs to distinguish between "unwholesome craving" versus a "wholesome desire for enlightenment" -- though even the wholesome desire is allayed once the goal is attained.

And no I guess it's not as simple as that -- it's like going to a doctor and saying, "I have cancer", and the doctor saying, "well take away the cancer then, problem solved" -- the Buddha was more helpful/detailed than that.

Also no because its "truth" depends on the definitions of various words, like "happiness", which are maybe just empty words.


How to cultivate the perception of 'Anatta'? Out of the three marks of existance, 'dukkha' or 'sufferring' and 'annicca' or 'impermenance' are directly understood as a day-to-day experience as well as through the intellect.
However 'anatta' or 'no-self' is neither a normal day-to-day experience nor can it be intellectually understood.
I know that in the first Jhana, 'anatta' is a direct experience, but for those who have not yet reached the state of Jhana how can one cultivate the perception of 'anatta' such that it helps to move towards Jhana? How can one be mindful of 'anatta' off the cushion?

Well, it's actually not that difficult. Stop thinking in terms of persons and start thinking in terms of information, tendencies, and influences.
When you see a person doing something, don't think: "this person has decided to do this and that". Instead, think in terms of influences: there were these circumstances that formed this view and led to this behavior.
Similarly, when you think about yourself, don't think "I have decided to do this and that". Think, "here are the habits, here are the influences, here are the attachments, here are the stereotypes, here are the reactions, here is the knowledge of Dharma - and here's the behavior emerging from the interaction of all of the above."
For those who prefer official Theravada terminology, think in terms of skandhas. The key thing to understand is, they are not found inside a person. They span people and time.
And of course, the most essential Anatta practice of all: never acting to benefit one's ego.


Can I ordain if i have psoriasis? Is one able to be ordained if they have psoriasis? It's similar to eczema but not identical? Will this vary depending on where you go to ordain? Thank you.

It all depends on how severe it is. Two things that are of concern are:

1) Is it visible i.e. on the face or other exposed part of the body such that it puts the faithful followers off?

2) Is it serious such that the itchyness interferes with the cultivation of the practice?

If answers to those two questions are no then there shouldn't be a problem.

I know of a monk who is allergic to wheat and lots who are lacto sensitive.


How does this piece of Vasitha's yoga fit with Buddhist thought? One of my favorite lines from Vasitha's yoga
"I am not,  nor is there other,  nor is there nonexistence."

In what ways does this parallel with Buddhist thought?

In what ways does it differ?

Yes, in regard of Upasaka Thiago Silva answer.

Seems like the approach of what the Buddha called "the Uposatha of the Niganthas (Jains)"

See: Muluposatha Sutta: The Roots of the Uposatha


Can anger be acceptable? When doing physical work, there are times that anger helps to overcome physical obstacles, as a way to arouse energy where force is required, but for the purpose of doing good (thru service, altruism), not harm. But anger is a form of aversion, a defilement, unhwholesome root.

Did the Buddha say any words on whether the use of anger, or force, is ever acceptable?

There is no place for anger in Buddhism for any reason.
Right effort is what is required.


Eightfold path & gender dysphoria Would the eightfold path help someone transcend gender dysphoria? Is gender dysphoria a matter of clinging or a matter of hardwired biology?

As already mentioned, any sort of identity matter is dealt with as anatta in buddhism as far as i can tell. That likely goes for any form of gender identity, however it may present itself.
However, i'm not sure that the idea of anatta pertains to transcendence, because the word seems to connotate tanha in my understanding: It may lead us into desiring the notion of an elevated state, whereas anatta is arguably a question of no state at all.
The second half of your question seems like a question deemed unanswerable in buddhism (avyākata). For instance, this is mentioned in the Sabbasava Sutta:

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html


How to choose a career? People say, "Do something that you love. Such that you work does not seem like a burden". This is also something that we hear in pop-culture. Like "Follow your passion"
On the other hand, in Buddhist practices it is taught that we should let go of attachments. Like, We should try and experience everything without being judgmental about how we react to it. 'An enlightened one, has no attachment, takes no delight in pleasant experiences, has overcome the sign of "pleasant", has no fear, has no resistance to difficult experiences'. Then, how should someone choose a career path if s/he also wants to be a practicing Buddhist?

It depends on what your goals are.
If you are a practicing Buddhist who’s goal is to become enlightened, my advice is to find a profession that will bring about as little discomfort and personal conflict as possible. Work that brings anger, guilt, frustration, etc will naturally be distracting from your goal, and will make it more difficult to achieve. You want to find a job that you won’t “take home” with you. One that doesn’t encourage suffering within yourself. Or, if you have the luxury, become a monk! Becoming a monk is the fast track to removing yourself from situations that impede progress towards enlightenment. The bottom line here is, if you want to become enlightened, do a job that isn’t going to distract you from your goal.
If you are a practicing Buddhist who’s goal is just to live under the guidance of teachings, I would suggest just choosing a job that doesn’t violate the precepts. That way you can feel good about what you are doing, and will run into less conflict overall.


Why did first gerneration followers of Gautama Buddha chose oral method instead of written verbal method to preserve his teachings? According to this wikipedia article on Gautama Buddha,

  Accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later.

Why were the teachings of Buddha not preserved in writings by his first generation of followers? In other words, what is the reason for adopting an oral method instead of written verbal method?

I don't know but maybe writing hadn't been invented there yet (or not introduced from elsewhere), or at least it wasn't common.
Wikipedia says,

First appearance of writing in the Indian Subcontinent
The first introduction of writing to the Indian Subcontinent apart from the Bronze Age Indus script, which is undeciphered and may not be an actual script, is mostly identified as the Edicts of Ashoka from c. 250 BCE.

The same is true of Hindu texts, i.e. the earliest records of writing dates from a couple of hundred years after the Buddha,

Sanskrit -- Origin_and_development
The earliest attested Sanskrit texts are religious texts of the Rigveda, from the mid-to-late second millennium BCE. No written records from such an early period survive, if they ever existed.

The article on Brahmi script says,

Brahmi (brāhmī) is the modern name given to one of the oldest writing systems used in South and Central Asia during the final centuries BCE and the early centuries CE. ... The origin of the script is still much debated, with most scholars concurring that Brahmi was derived from or at least influenced by one or more contemporary Semitic scripts, while others favoring the idea of an indigenous origin or connected to the much older and as-yet undeciphered Indus script.

So, who knows, perhaps that kind of writing was introduced via the Alexandrian empire.


Is being skeptical bad? Vicikicca or skeptical doubt, some interpret this as perplexity, is known to be one of the mental hindrances. But why is having doubt bad for one's mind?

For me, doubt is what makes me think more harder to understand certain issues. Doubt leads to creative thinking as well. I am sorry if I have misinterpreted vicikicca but would much appreciate if you could help me out with this

In the mundane world:

Doubt on One's Ability

You might not undertake beneficial action because of lack of confidence

Doubt in a Teacher or Doctor

You will not learn what is been taught or take the treatment given

Doubt Something Will Work

If you have doubts on if something will work or has a chance to succeed you will not attempt it

If you doubt something works for you specifically

You have confidence something will work but doubtful if it will benefit you. Say you are doubtful a certain fitness routine works on you due to some reason you will avoid such routine or not follow through with earnest

You have doubt something will work in current times

If you think something worked in the past but not any more you might not follow through with it in earnest
You are too old or too young to do something

Similarly when practicing meditation. You have to have confidence in:

Teacher
The technique
The benefits to be reaped
One's ability to execute and come out successful
It will work for you
It will work currently and also regardless of one's age

Also some forms of doubt is wholesome and will not be a hindrance if done in the spirit of free inquiry. E.g. Kesa,puttiya Sutta (or  Kālāma Sutta). Also the Buddha mention that doubt is justified in couple of Suttas including Kutūhala,sālā Sutta. As I see it any of these instances are skeptical on what is been heard or taught by others or skepticism arisen due to logical fallacies in reasoning with the accepted norms of the day. Also the people were in a stage prior to doing serious pratice of the path and training. So doubts before serious pratice and arisen from what has been taught or inferred the general acceptable knowledge is justifiable but so when you pratice or regarding the path and training.

In essence being skeptical in any endeavour diminishes your ability to accomplish the end goal. When you initially approach a task or endeavor you can have your skepticism but when your you start executing you ideally should be void of doubt.

More broadly speaking with respect to all the hindrances including doubt. What needs to be done is to starve the hindrances and feed the awakening factors. [(Nīvaraṇa Bojjhaṅga) Ahara Sutta] Since hindrances weekend wisdom and the awakening factors enhances wisdom. [Āvaraṇa Nīvaraṇa Sutta]. The hindrances are also dependently arise based on the unwholesome roots. [(Akusala,mūla) Añña,titthiya Sutta]. Couple of way to overcome them are given in [Nīvarana,pahana Vagga], [(Satipaṭṭhāna) Nīvaraṇa Sutta], etc.

Coming back to doubt specifically. The reason for doubt is unwise attention. [Nīvarana,pahana Vagga] With unwise attention you begin to believe something not inline with reality (more on these perversion see: Vipallasa Sutta) and start doubting the teacher, teaching, benefits of the pratice. Not being able to clearly see the truth of the dhamma, teaching and practice leads to perplexity. Unwise attention should be overcome by seeing or experiencing the truth. [Sabb’āsava Sutta]

Also see:

Vicikicchā by Piya Tan,
The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Selected Texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries compiled and translated by Nyanaponika Thera,
The Wings to Awakening: An Anthology from the Pali Canon translated and Explained by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Geoffrey DeGraff) - on awakening factors which you should strengthen


Among 9 jhanas which is deep sleep? Please provide suttas
I plan to do a meditation until I can achieve the same experience as my deep sleep but I don't know whether it's the first jhana or even cessation of feeling and perception or even nibbana hence my question
After that kind of meditation I won't sleep forever because I think that meditation is enough that meditation itself is deep sleep
I am inspired by dipa ma who did meditation for 2 days non stop and buddha Siddhartha(7 weeks non stop)
I think my meditation should be more sublime than my deep sleep if it's not then it's a shame it just doesn't make sense that my deep sleep gives me more peace than my meditation
Because bhikku thanissaro states that even during 4 rupa jhanas you can still hear sound while during my deep sleep I can't hear any sound I assume the deep sleep experience can be attained after the 4th jhana but I am not sure which
I think it's not cessation of feeling stage either because during cessation your upper brain won't function (flat zero brainwave) while deep sleep still gives you delta brainwave but I am not sure
Thanks
May you all be happy my friends,
Sorry for my bad english I am still learning friends

I've got a simple answer for you: Sleep is not a jhāna. The Buddha never says, not in Pāli not in Chinese not in Sanskrit, that sleep is a jhāna. Sleep is also not nibbāna. Sleep is also not nirodha. You just forget your dreams when you wake up and it seems like you were up to "nothing," but your mind was quite active despite you not remembering it.


Am I holding the right views? Apart from right view of stress , origination of stress, cessation of stress and path to cessation of stress, I hold the view that humanity,which is under stress, must be saved.

My question is :Am I holding the right view that humanity must be saved from stress?

Mankind should be introduced to the Dhamma and taught the Dhamma. But it is up to the individual to choose whether he or she wants to become free of suffering, or not. Not everyone wants to be liberated from suffering.

From MN75:

  "Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.

From MN26:

  "Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is
  deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this
  generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys
  attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by
  attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent
  co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the
  resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all
  acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.
  And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me,
  that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'


Rarity of the Human World I've read in Buddhist texts that being born into the human world is a rare and privileged event.

If that's the case, then why are killers and "bad" people allowed to be born into the human world?

I'm not sure if Buddhists teaching elaborate on the ability to predict a person's future actions but it is my belief and understanding that a person's past karma can foreshadow such a thing.

The word translated as 'human' namely, 'manussa' means 'high minded'. It does not mean a 'homo sapien'. SN 56.47 describes the meaning of what is not the human state, as follows:

  Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole
  than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the
  human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus...

  ...there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails
  mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because,
  bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The
  noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the
  cessation of suffering.

Therefore, it can be discerned quite plainly, without any dispute or contraversy, the human state refers to living a harmless righteous enlightened life, which is indeed extremely rare in this world of people devouring, exploiting, abusing, raping & harming themselves & each other.


How can the world's youth discover careers that are aligned with consciousness and Buddhism? Millennial's and the young workforce are faced with a difficult choice of discovering alternate careers/gigs. Can spirituality, universal consciousness, meditation, environment trigger a human-plus careers?

Yes certainly!!

But let me make a couple of points clear.

So long as one thinks of a career in terms of a money-making exercise and therefore looks at Buddhism, one will make a business out of it and render it extremely useless, if not harmful. Any teaching of compassion demanding money in return is not compassion at all.

But if one thinks of a career as a means to earn livelihood to live in the world, there is no problem.

Now about which career.

That is a question each should think for herself/himself. Buddhism certainly doesn't tell anyone what to do in their lives in terms of career.

One can learn from Buddhism, how to be at peace and achieve long lasting happiness and avoid all negative emotions. Buddhism really is a teaching about winnng the war within, aligning oneself with spirituality, consiousness, nature, wisdom, compassion. When one is at peace within, happy within, then career choices and the exercise of career itself will bring nothing but peace and happiness to oneself and others.


Five aggregates vs dependent origination What is the relation between the five aggregates and the dependent origination?

We can't see five aggregates as it is. We can see a men, animals, Devas. Or good thing, bad thing. Or a beautiful thing, a ugly thing etc. But in reality, there is nothing like that. Everything just a thing or collection of several things. We only making things matter to us. Nothing else.

Refer this answer.

  If we took a tower build by stones, actually there is nothing called
  'tower' but set of stones. Like wise, if we consider a person, there
  is nothing but set of things. Lets say you are 40 years old now. What
  are the things you have in your body when you are 1 year old? Nothing
  right? But how you can be recognize now as same you in age 1? because
  of the connection between things changed.

How we see

Since we can't see things in their actual state, we make wrong decisions and doing things and making desires, clinging(උපාදාන) etc. (May be a man really loves his parents. May be we will kill animals to feed our children etc). This cause us to rebirth and we will reborn according to Karma we made. This cycle of born and death is dependent origination.

Most of the times lord Budhdha preaches not knowing things correctly is the starting point of the cycle. and then sanskaara, vinnana etc.


How important is lineage in Buddhism? I practice with the Triratna Buddhist community and while I am personally very comfortable with the organisation and its values, it has been criticised for a lack of lineage.

Generally speaking how important is lineage in Buddhism? Do some schools take it very seriously and others less so? If a school has a shaky or unclear lineage is that seen as a bad thing? If so then why? What does lineage give Buddhism?

The only truly important lineage is the lineage of the Buddha. Unfortunately, everyone has their own idea of what that means. Even the eightfold noble path (described by the historical Buddha himself as the indication of a true lineage in DN 16) is interpreted differently by different schools. As a result, lineage becomes somewhat important, in that it determines which interpretation of Buddhism you subscribe to; they can't all be right, after all.

Further, even with mutually compatible interpretations, it is unreasonable to suggest that one could progress according to two divergent paths (e.g. become a bodhisatta and an arahant) at once, so choosing a school is likely to be beneficial in terms of maintaining focus. On the other hand, it may be that such schools can work in serial cooperation. It is said (MN 141) that Sariputta and Moggallana worked in this way, Sariputta teaching students up to sotapanna and Moggallana leading them on to arahantship.

The danger I can see in not choosing a school is that one may become a "jack-of-all-trades and master of none"; in other words, wandering from path to path and never really climbing the mountain.


What is circumambulation? I read about this from time to time-- usually in reference to the stupas in India that held the Buddha's relics.

What was the point of circumambulation? Do any sects of Buddhism still practice this?

Circumambulation (Walking around something clockwise) is still a very common practice in most schools of Buddhism as a form of veneration of something.

It is done for Stupas containing relics of the Buddha most famously, but also for other things as well. For example, in the Theravada tradition it is common that on certain occasions one would circumambulate the entire temple or monastery, and I think this sometimes done in other traditions as well.

In Chinese and perhaps Vietnamese Buddhism it is common to circumambulate the main Buddha image of a temple and so temples often have an open path that goes around the image so you can easily do so.


How to prevent self-deception? I have recently attended my first Vipassana 10-day course. I observe the moral precepts fully, practice diligently and attempt to proceed wisely on the path. I came into contact with Vipassana because of my ex, who, both in showing me to the path and in harming me, has been my precious teacher. In harming me, in failing to observe the fourth precept and sila, in seeking passion as a distraction from his suffering and a confirmation of his ego, without apparently being aware of this and even if being aware, not changing his behavior, my ex has caused me concern with regard to my own attempts at leading a proper life. I know I am not in a position to help my ex, as he has harmed me (also, I tried and he reacted with hostility), so what I am left with is the striking fact that this amount of delusion is possible in someone who calls himself a serious Vipassana meditator, which worries me with regard to my own practice. If someone who has been practicing for over 10 years thinks they are aware and are everything but, what am I going to do? I have fled into passion as well, in a quest for distraction from suffering as well as from a need for guidance and affirmation of my own ego.
The obvious answer is to truly feel and accept painful feelings without reacting by fleeing into passion. But these impulses are strong and the mind is clever. What can I do to prevent this behavior? Can there be a mistake in the meditation practice itself that causes such obscurations to persist?

Additionally, I do hope to find a partner who observes truthfulness towards himself and others. How do I go about avoiding the blinding capacities of passion and idealistic desires in judging any such “romantic" situation accurately? I imagine working on one’s own mental and emotional hangups will diminish obscurations — how is one advised to go about this other than meditating?

I know these are big and difficult questions. Any and all input is appreciated.

If someone who has been practicing for over 10 years thinks they are aware and are everything but, what am I going to do?

I think this issue you are raising is not really related to Buddhist meditation practices but to the individual. Some individuals, be they Buddhist or non-Buddhist, religious or non-religious, have a keen sense of not harming others & being responsible towards others. Others do not.

That said, about Buddhism, my impression is cultural Buddhism, both Western & Asian, is quite weak in its explanations of sexual misconduct to its lay followers since I get the impression monks don't want to put pressure on people by over-moralising. Therefore, it can be expected that people may practise Buddhist meditation for 10 years but have no real sense of the purpose of the precepts. In fact, there are enough Buddhist teachers that practise sexual misconduct.

Sexuality is a very strong emotion/drive thus many people struggle to manage it.

  The obvious answer is to truly feel and accept painful feelings without reacting by fleeing into passion. But these impulses are
  strong and the mind is clever. What can I do to prevent this behavior?
  Can there be a mistake in the meditation practice itself that causes
  such obscurations to persist?

There are probably many suggestions to this question. One suggestion is to reflect on (think about) what benefit & what harm will come from impulsive fleeing into passion? Will impulsive passion really help yourself? Will it really help the other person involved in the impulsive passion? Or will it create more hurt, more confusion, more regret? Is it really something you really want to do?

Buddhist practises about wise reflection are described in MN 61 and MN 19.

  Additionally, I do hope to find a partner who observes truthfulness towards himself and others. How do I go about avoiding the blinding
  capacities of passion and idealistic desires in judging any such
  “romantic" situation accurately?

As has been mentioned by Chris, the teachings in Buddhism about finding the right partner are not based in "romance". Instead, they are based on determining what your life goals & values are and then finding a partner that can fulfil/meet your life goals & values, i.e., a partner that shares your same goals & values.

This includes things many take for granted, such as having children. There are occasions when two people are together, romantically, for many years and suddenly one person raises their want for children and the other person objects to this. Ideally, the matter of having children should be sorted out before beginning the relationship.

Thus, Buddhism does not really recommend get "romantically" or sexually involved with a prospective life partner before determining whether that prospective partner is suitable. It may sound very unromantic & clinical but I assume it is like interviewing another person for a job. An employer does not employ a prospective employee until determining & assessing the suitability & qualifications of that person.

Often, this is how traditional cultures operated. Parents would get together & assess whether a partner was suitable for their son & daughter in marriage. The Buddhist approach is similar, i.e., more rational or cerebral rather than "romantic".

Once "romance" (sex) occurs, that itself starts to make the situation less flexible since two people become attached to each other sexually (with the various demands & expectations) even though they may not be suitable in terms of individual aspirations or temperament.

Thus, Buddhism encourages the development of 'metta' (friendliness; loving-kindness). We should learn to relate to all people as 'friends' first; putting their welfare first. In meeting a prospective partner, ideally, we put friendship first. We become friends for a significant amount of time before committing to romance.

  I imagine working on one’s own mental and emotional hangups will diminish obscurations — how is one advised to go about this other than
  meditating?

This can be done by learning about & reflecting upon the Buddhist teachings about relationship. By doing this, we can learn about the mistakes we make in our past relationships & the way forward for the future.

For example, if we can see the necessity of the Buddhist qualities prescribed for a suitable partner, we can realise our previous partner never did have the qualities or abilities to fulfill our expectations. But doing this, we may stop blaming them & instead focus on our own choices.

The main teaching of the Buddha can be read in AN 4.55 however the link already provided explains the main relevant teachings of the Buddha.


If you cannot can save others then why is your practice more worthy than anything else? If you have doubts on whether your practice (i.e. of the Eightfold Path) will free anyone from saṁsāra in your lifetime, then what reasons can you give for why your practice should take precedence over anything else, namely, alleviating the suffering of others in whatever mundane way you can (even if it does not free anyone from saṁsāra, (e.g. ordinary acts of charity, career in public service, etc.))?

Generosity, kind words and helpfulness are all meaningful in Buddhism, however small. Every Buddhist and non-Buddhist should practise it. See the next 3 quotes from the suttas.

From Vaccha Sutta:

  "I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or
  a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals
  live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say
  nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is
  given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is
  given to an unvirtuous person.

From Itivuttaka 26:

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing,
  they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of
  selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite,
  their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if
  there were someone to receive their gift. But because beings do not
  know, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they eat without
  having given. The stain of selfishness overcomes their minds."

From Itivuttaka 75:

  "And how is a person one who rains everywhere? There is the case where
  a person gives food, drink, clothing, vehicles, garlands, scents,
  ointments, beds, dwellings, & lights to all brahmans & contemplatives,
  to all of the miserable, the homeless, & beggars. This is how a person
  one who rains everywhere.

  A person responsive to requests,
  sympathetic to all beings,
  delighting in distributing alms:
  "Give to them! Give!" he says.
  As a cloud — resounding, thundering — rains,
  filling with water, drenching
  the plateaus & gullies:
  a person like this is like that.
  Having rightly amassed wealth
  attained through initiative,
  he satisfies fully with food & drink
  those fallen into the homeless state.

The next quote from Iti 100 however shows something different. It says that the gift of the Dhamma (Buddha's teachings) is superior to all other types of gifts.

From Itivuttaka 100:

  "There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
  gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.

  "There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
  sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
  Dhamma.

  "There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
  things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
  with the Dhamma.

  "There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
  material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
  supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

Why is this the case? Other types of gifts relieve one's sufferings temporarily. But with the Dhamma, even if one would not become free from samsara in this lifetime, it would still guide them (and us) to cleanse our mind, and at least bring us to happy destinations both in this lifetime and the next.

For according to Dhammapada 1:

  "All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as
  their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil
  mind, suffering follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of
  the ox that draws the cart."

So, even if learning the Dhamma does not free one from samsara in this lifetime, at least it will guide them to be more skillful mentally. Since the mind is the forerunner to all types of sufferings (see MN 135), becoming skillful in mind, will reduce all sufferings in future.

And according to AN 3.99:

  'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind
  [i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there],
  developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with
  the immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual
  is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

This shows how one could reduce his or her suffering by becoming developed in body, virtue and mind.


If Buddha had unconditional love, why did he "kill" some of his monks? I recall there is a sutta where the Buddha said he "kills" some monks, that is, completely ignores them or something similar.

Is this contrary to metta (unconditonal love)?

The "killing" reference would be this one probably -- Kesi Sutta (AN 4.111)

Perhaps that's analogous to a doctor's not giving medicine to a patient who won't benefit from it.

And perhaps the Buddha had the welfare of others -- the whole Sangha -- to consider too.

Another instance is Channa in DN 16.

And there are a few other examples on pages 89-90 of Piya Tan's analysis of the Kesi Sutta:

  The untamable

  Those who cannot be tamed. While most of the suttas record how the Buddha’s
  teachings convert many and inspire others, there is a handful of important discourses where,
  apparently, the protagonists lack the capacity for spiritual change. Interestingly, in all such cases, the
  Buddha does indeed teach them the Dharma. However, for some reason, the protagonists remain
  unmoved despite being admonished by the Buddha himself.

  Such discourses are very few, that is, where the protagonists (one may even call them “antagonists”) are “dead” to the Dharma-Vinaya.
  The best known of these are:

  the Mahā Taṇhā,saṅkhaya Sutta (M 38), where the monk Sāti holds on to the wrong view that our
  consciousness passes on unchanged in rebirth;34
  the Alagaddûpama Sutta (M 22), where the monk Ariṭṭha wrongly views that sensual pleasures
  (including sex) are not “stumbling blocks” to the celibate holy life;35
  the Udumbarikā Sīha,nāda Sutta (D 25), where, despite listening and accepting a long inspiring
  discourse from the Buddha, the wanderer Nigrodha and his followers still neither renounce nor go for
  refuge.

  The most notorious case of one who is “dead” to the Dharma-Vinaya is clearly the monk
  Deva,datta. Despite being the Buddha’s cousin and listening to numerous Dharma teachings, he still
  shows antagonism against the Buddha, desiring to take over the leadership of the monastic sangha from
  the aging Buddha. The Devadatta narrative where he is depicted as the Buddha’s antagonist is, however,
  not without problems, and should be carefully studied to understand its significance.

  The most famous case of a person who seems to be intractable is the elder Channa, the erstwhile charioteer of the Bodhisattva himself.38 On account of Channa’s closeness to the Bodhisattva and
  then the Buddha, he became arrogant, thinking “Our Buddha, our Dharma,” besides his inherited conceit
  of being a kshatriya (khattiya,māna). Channa’s “butler” narcissism and arrogance were, in the end, selfdefeating. He failed in his tasks as a monk even while the Buddha lived. While dwelling in Kosambī, he was
  unwilling to acknowledge an offence he committed that the Buddha decreed a formal act of suspension
  (ukkhepaniya,kamma), forbidding him commensality (eating together) and dwelling with the monks.

  He continued to commit other offences, especially disrespecting and reviling senior monks. One of
  the Buddha’s last acts was to instruct Ānanda to impose the “supreme penalty” (brahma,daṇḍa), that is, a
  total boycott of Channa by the sangha.41 After the Buddha’s death, Ānanda executed the order.

  The closing of Culla,vagga 11 of the Vinaya records how when Ānanda conveys the supreme penalty to
  Channa at Ghosit’ārāma, in Kosamb, he faints at the thought of being boycotted by the order. Almost
  immediately Channa diligently works to correct himself—as movingly reported in the (Lakkhaṇa) Channa
  Sutta (S 22.90; V 2:292).

  The (Lakkhaṇa) Channa Sutta (S 22.90) records in an almost humorous tone, how he
  attempts to seek Dharma instruction from other monks. Apparently, no monk actually boycotts him,
  since they try to answer his questions, albeit careful to not offend him. Finally, Ānanda teaches him the
  Kaccāna,gotta Sutta (S 12.15) on how dependent arising counters the two extreme views of eternalism
  and annihilationism, and how self-view is replaced by the realization that it is only dukkha that arises and
  ceases—and he breaks through to the Dharma. The supreme penalty is automatically lifted at the
  moment of Channa’s final attainment.

  This is perhaps the only account we have of any monastic close to the Buddha who is apparently
  declared “dead” to the sangha. However, by his own efforts, Channa returns alive and well to be with the
  sangha, in due course, as an arhat.

The Kesi sutta is about tameable and untameable. I think you've quoted "little dust in their eyes" yourself. Maybe it's not appropriate to question how the Buddha handles the supposedly "untameable".

Whether the Buddha behaves morally and maintains a mind of good-will is presumably unconditional, unaffected by the behaviour or temporary misbehaviour of others.

You might read Positive Response -- How to Meet Evil With Good for example if you can.

It suggests that "tit for tat" is a common strategy in the world but, it says, never works in the realm of spirituality. It references the (famous) Parable of the Saw, for example.

One other thing I'd note about the Buddha is his ability to enter the minds of others and to know when they are ready or not ready -- I think you see that in suttas like AN 8.30.

It might be a mistake for you to imagine that you can do the same -- to enter the minds of others.

It might also be a mistake to assume that they can behave unconditionally -- and unaffected by real or imaginary misbehaviour of yours, by their own projections, etc.

But by definition it means to try to behave well and with good will even if someone else doesn't.


How is negligence dealt with? Negligence is unintentional, so at least for the first offence due to negligence, there should be no punishment or kammic results (imo). What of recurring negligence?

Content with that ...(see sutta)..., he does not exert himself further in solitude by day or seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedlessly, there is no joy. There being no joy, there is no rapture. There being no rapture, there is no serenity. There being no serenity, he dwells in pain. When pained, the mind does not become centered. When the mind is uncentered, phenomena do not become manifest. When phenomena are not manifest, he is reckoned simply as one who dwells heedlessly


Is it necessary for a Buddhist to believe that existence is suffering? It appears that Buddhism depends on a central premise -- that all worldly existence = suffering / dukkha.

Are there Buddhist teachers or traditions that teach a joyous approach to worldly life?

Are there any teachings that profess existence is a joyous, if sometimes painful experience, or at least a tolerably pleasant experience? An eternal roller-coaster ride of birth-and-death, joy and sorrow, that one need not seek to escape?

The gateway premise is not that "existence is suffering", it is that "something is wrong here". In other words, if you are perfectly satisfied with everything (are you?), if you are clear about the purpose of life, if you are a master in dealing with all possible kinds of situations -- then there is no reason for you to look out for anything at all, be it wisdom or liberation. If that is the case, then you are in a temporary heavenly state (to use Buddhist metaphorical language, wink-wink), which temporarily precludes any motivation to set on a spiritual quest to get to the bottom of things.

However, if you feel that you are not living the life you should be living, if you clearly see society as fundamentally messed-up, and are not willing to be complacent about that, if you are haunted by the underlying feeling of wrongness, of incompleteness, if you feel that something is missing - then obviously you will be very motivated to seek a solution!

Even if life is relatively good - still, if you are any attentive and smart, you may find yourself not being satisfied with superficial success, with solving problems at superficial level -- instead you may want to take a step back and solve the underlying problem, and the problem underlying the underlying problem, and the problem underlying that problem, and so on - you want to get leverage over things, you want to find the fundamental solution, the universal principle... You have a sense that the way you deal with things, however well, still leaves something to be desired - but what?

This feeling of deep buried wrongness, of aching incompleteness, of fundamental restlessness, of subtle unsatisfactoriness - that's what we're talking about here. This is where Buddhism begins: "something is wrong here". This is known as "the ground". You begin with what you have right here and now, the feeling of underlying incompleteness - and you are determined to not stop until you solve this most fundamental of all problems. The having solved the problem is known as "the fruition". And the steps from here to there are called "the path". These are the basic rules of the game. Makes sense, huh? :)


Conscious death and afterlife meditation Lets keep the rebirth concepts aside for a moment.

Is there a way we can die consciously? (i.e.) Being aware of our death.
And can we still meditate after death without a human body?

If yes, then in what thing we concentrate on. Let's say we are on concentrating on breath while we are alive. But after death we don't have breath and also we don't have any bodily sensations too...

What happens to the awareness after death, Does it still exist? Is the awareness eternal? Is the after life awareness is called soul? Do we need a human body to meditate??

I suddenly feel weird getting this idea? So is there any concepts based on this???

You might follow Buddha's example who entered the fourth Jhana, but it is only possible while you are aware of your peaceful death, the fact that you are dying slowly, so therefore - not very reliable advice.

Apart from that, only thing I know of about conscious death is Maraṇasati, which are only preparatory contemplations and meditations on death. These are closely related to Right effort. But it is not really same as meditating through death.

For Vajrayanic approach, Tibetans have the whole technique and special meditation practice on the moment of death and what follows (Bardo), which is divided in many phases of dying, also including the clear light you see at the moment of death. I presume you're not into Tantra so this is of little use though.


Why is Zen/Chan thought to be more related to Buddhism than to Taoism? According to the book The Tao of Zen, Zen/Chan is esentially a form of Taoism. This makes sense to me, as it's hard to understand what is the common ground between the relative simplicity of Zen and the baroque belief systems of the other Mahayana traditions.

However, this is not a predominant opinion about the origins of Zen. I understand that it is generally believed that Zen is a branch of Buddhism, with some Taoist influences. What are the arguments that support this opinion? Has anybody provided counter-arguments to the ones presented in The Tao of Zen?

the relative simplicity of Zen and the baroque belief systems of the
  other Mahayana traditions

Are we talking about style? Yes, the records of the Zen masters resemble the style of the Zhuangzi more than they resemble the style of the Avatamsaka Sutra. But we should be more interested in content when evaluating where a tradition belongs. - The Sutras are written in a highly intricate, metaphorical language. Like the Zen master Bassui said: "Before we can read the Sutras, we have to open the mind that can read them." The Sutras are addressing a reality that is sometimes not available to an unenlightened mind.

  it is generally believed that Zen is a branch of Buddhism, with some Taoist influences. What are the arguments that support this opinion? Has anybody provided counter-arguments to the ones presented in The Tao of Zen?

Every scholarly book written on the origin of Zen is a counter-argument.

Let's look at a few salient points - off the top of my head:

1) The Zen school was not called that at first. It was known as the "Buddha-Mind School" and the Zen masters were referred to as "the Lankavatara Masters":

  In its beginnings in China, Zen primarily referred to the Mahāyāna
  sūtras and especially to the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. As a result, early
  masters of the Zen tradition were referred to as "Laṅkāvatāra
  masters". In other early texts, the school that would later become known as Zen is sometimes even referred to as simply the "Laṅkāvatāra school" (Ch. 楞伽宗, Léngqié Zōng). Accounts recording the history of this early period are to
  be found in Records of the Laṅkāvatāra Masters (Ch. 楞伽師資記, Léngqié
  Shīzī Jì).

(cf. Dumoulin, Heinrich (2005-A), Zen Buddhism: A History. Volume 1: India and China, World Wisdom Books, ISBN 978-0-941532-89-1 )

The whole school was called after a specific sutra, named the  Laṅkāvatāra.

The First Patriarch of Zen is said to have handed this sutra to the Second Patriarch as containing the essentials of the school teachings.

If you study that Sutra closely, you will realize that it has all the essential teachings of Zen, and since it predates Zen, it is only reasonable to conclude it is the source. The main idea there is that "mind is buddha", that it all comes down to the mind of the sentient being; that everything is a projection of the One Mind (which is also what Huangbo says verbatim).

2) The Sixth Patriarch in the Platform Scripture says quite explicitly that to practice Zen, one has to study and recite the Diamond Sutra. Why does he single out that sutra and not the Zhuangzi or the Daodejing?

3) All the Zen masters used Mahayana Buddhist language and terminology: samsara, nirvana, bodhisattva, tathagata, etc. compare with how often they use terms such as qi, yin/yang, Heaven (in the Taoist sense), etc. It's not even up for debate. They overwhelmingly use Buddhist language.

4) They were all Buddhist monks, with Buddhist robes, shaved heads, etc. I mean, this is an obvious fact. Why stay in a Buddhist monastery if you're a Taoist?

5) All they say is traceable back to Mahayana Philosophy. Everything. The One Mind, transcending samsara, non-duality between samsara and nirvana, mind being buddha, truth being beyond language, silence as a teaching etc. Even the dismissal of Sutras is ultimately traceable back to the Sutras!

There's nothing original in the ideas of the Chan school:

  There is nothing unique about Ch'an doctrine; it is an eclectic form
  of Mahayana philosophy. So there is no contradiction involved in a
  tradition of meditation practice co-existing with the sectarian
  doctrines of the various sects of Chinese Buddhism. Masters whose
  names appear in the succession-lists of both Ch'an and another
  sectarian tradition would simply be both dharma- and dhyana-masters in
  their respective monasteries.

Charles W. Swain, The Emergence Of Ch'an Buddhism, Chung- Hwa Buddhist Journal vol.2/Oct, 1988 P.391-399

In fact, if there's anything original, it's the style. If there's anything that cannot be traced back to Indian Mahayana - is exactly the style, the form their upaya takes, and not their doctrines, not their insights.

But why call that style "Taoist" and not instead call it "Chinese"? Perhaps there's some common source both Chan and Taoism are drawing from, and that has more to do with the Chinese character, that manifests there as abrupt and direct? What makes more sense instead is that Buddhism is adaptable, and so it takes many forms depending on the country and the spirit of the country where it takes root.


How does one know the difference between aversion and danger? How does a Buddhist know when to tolerate a situation, and when to exit a situation? For example, a lay Buddhist in an abusive relationship: is it correct to accept the abuse, or avoid it?

Disclaimer: I am not referring to my own relationship. I just chose this scenario as a hypothetical example.

Very interesting question. I'd say, as long as you can keep learning from it, it's OK to stay in an abusive relationship, may even be useful. But only if you know what you're getting out of it, what is it that it helps you practice.

May be patience, may be metta, may be egolessness etc.

But once you have exhausted learning possibilities, I would say it's time to move on. In my mind this pertains to all types of difficult situations: abusive relationships, difficult job conditions etc.

If the pressure is so strong that it flips you into a victim mode all the times, and you completely forget that you are there to practice (as you would in a master mode) - that's probably a good indicator that the issue is more on the danger side than on the aversion side, I think it's a question of strength. There's no reason in subjecting oneself to what one just cannot handle, that stops being practice and becomes self-harm at that point.

So to summarize: 1) can you keep learning from this? 2) Are you not overwhelmed to the point of not being in control of your learning anymore?


Is Near death experience in enlightenment true? I have been meditating intensively according to the Advaita tradition where self inquiry is practiced till realizing that I and effort are just feelings and that the watcher of even identity is the true self which isn't a phenomena that manifests.

2 days ago I had what I felt as a near death experience ,or maybe a great death of the ego ,at night I suddenly had an awakening in trance where there was a clear seeing of the "I" that I thought was  me,then I woke up with a vibration feeling in my head and after lying on my back I suddenly felt as if a light was going to replace me as the identity of the body and me that I thought was my identity all my life was just an idea that was going to be replaced by that light ,I couldn't accept that happening and chose to stay as myself, and I actually cried cause I felt that I was going to die, not realizing that this "I" was more intimate that expected .

Is this a paranormal experience or is it actually how enlightenment should occur ?

I believe such peculiar experiences may be significant, or may not; but in Buddhism one shouldn't cling to them. Enlightenment would involve an understanding of the three marks of existence: impermanence, no-self, and suffering. I mean, if you delve into that experience and gain enlightenment, good! But if you do so and then everything remains exactly the same, you might be discouraged. Just do not cling to the whole phenomenon.


Anapanasati Buddhist meditation So I thought I really need to ask this question about Buddhist meditation specifically, Anapanasati. Basically I sit cross legged and count breaths for 15 minutes as advised on the Internet for beginners. Correct me if I am wrong but I think I might be overdoing my breathing towards probably the last 5 minutes. The breathing becomes heavy and I work harder to take deeper breaths . And I feel some sort of stiffness in my mouth and neck. And at the end of 15 minutes, I wake? Or get up all giddy (probably due to the heavy breaths) and feeling something out of this world for a while like say a minute.

Is this the way you're supposed to feel after doing a Anapanasati? Because it feels so odd probably due to the processes the brain undergoes during heavy breathing or rather forced heavy breathing. Would like some insights from meditation practitioners.

It is more gentle than that. Consider the first tetrad of anapanasati:

Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long';
or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.'
Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short';
or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'

And the second:

He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to pleasure.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming mental fabrication.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming mental fabrication.'

Emphasis are mine. These are strong hints.
From my understanding, stiffness, rigidity, force should be absent -- only the minimum should be allowed so one doesn't fall on the ground, or sleep; any small amount of extra effort disturbs the mind.


According to the Buddha, how is one freed from suffering? I'm a bit confused about how, according to the Buddha, one is freed from suffering.

I have read that suffering is one of the marks of existence. So can one be freed from it at all? If it's an aspect of existing, is it just something to accept? So the freedom is in accepting the suffering?

I have also read that suffering is only caused by ignorance of the nature of reality. So to be free what does one have to understand?

No-self and impermanence?
Or does it mean to be mindful and see how things are at this very moment? Notice the breath, and your feelings, including the painful ones?

I'm a bit confused about how, according to the Buddha, one is freed
  from suffering.

Glad to hear you are interested in the end of suffering.  Buddha laid out the Four Noble Truths as his very first sermon/teaching and they form the foundation of all Buddhist schools and thinking.  Don't be fooled into thinking it is a pessimistic doctrine simply because it talks so much about suffering.

The basic idea is that everything in the world arises due to causes and supporting conditions.  This is like saying that everything that you feel, see, taste, sense, smell, touch, and experience, arises due to causes coming together in the proper conditions.  A cause is like a seed and the proper conditions are like fertile soil.. water.. sunshine.  When all the conditions are there and the cause is present, there will be a result very naturally.  This is the way things are.

Buddha taught, out of compassion for the plight of all sentient beings, that some actions (of body, speech, and mind) are wholesome and some are unwholesome.  Those which are wholesome and virtuous are the causes of happiness, those which are unwholesome are the causes of suffering.

By abandoning that which creates the causes of suffering, and by acting in ways which create the causes of virtue, one is gradually eliminating the possibility of suffering to manifest in ones experience and increasing the growth and abundance of happiness, prosperity, joy, wealth, comfort, ease, and so forth.

Now, if you want to know more about what actions are harmful and which are helpful, you can read sutras and learn the teachings and thanks to our karma this life we have a good connection with the Buddhas and we can learn a great deal to eliminate what are known as the Obstacles and Obscurations from our mind streams.

Mindful awareness is indeed the greatest remedy of all.  With consistent practice, virtuous actions naturally increase and defiled actions naturally decrease.  One is no longer ruled or overcome by thoughts, and does not need to identify with emotions or thoughts, and one gains freedom from the extremes of "existence" and "nonexistence" as those are also just thoughts.

Historically, the Buddha laid out what is known as the Noble Eightfold Path.  They are like 8 threads which weave together to form a complete solution to our how-does-one-live-a-good-life question.  It is still very much about using our knowledge and understanding to make wise choices, but I think you would benefit from checking out this fundamental presentation of the way to the end of suffering.

Contemporary teachers and Buddhas of our day teach a variety of approaches, and so I would encourage you to develop strong aspirations to meet qualified teachers and sages in order to help you along the way.  We are truly blessed to live in a world where the teachings are available and people are gaining interest in their value, and we are truly fortunate to have so many noble beings and enlightened masters living in our world today.

In short, practice being aware of your bodily sensations, your feelings, and the current instant of the world you are in where-ever you may be.  Practice leaning into the awareness that recognizes and cognizes without identifying with what is recognized or cognized, and with consistent practice you will certainly see great benefits in your life.

Dharma is vast and there are many teachings one can read about but it is most important to put them into practice and really reap their value.  To contemplate them and to put them into your daily life and actions.


Stopping Tanha or craving If one of the goals to becoming enlightened is to lose all craving, desire or Tanha how is one to do that without the craving, desire or tanha to do just that. In other words, is wanting to eradicate all craving and desires a craving or desire itself?

This is a very common misreading of the four noble truths.  Don't feel bad; you've got a lot of company!  The Buddha never actually said that all craving is bad.  In the 2nd noble truth, he is very specific about the kind of craving his path seeks to eradicate.

And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the
craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &
delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.
from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

The third noble truth is the extinction of that kind of craving -

And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the
remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment,
release, & letting go of that very craving.
from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

The desire that truly seeks liberation is not the same mind that craves for sensual pleasure, becoming, or not becoming.  Sure, there are people who begin practice because they believe that enlightenment will add something to their personality - as if nirvana will bring about something they are otherwise lacking.  Perhaps they crave for the pleasure of meditative absorption or believe that the wisdom that the path generates will give them a sense of personal power.  Perhaps they believe that the Buddhist path will lead to some sort of Schopenhauer paradise of pure nothingness.  Those lesser desires  for liberation need to be given up if one is to proceed past a certain point.  But the desire to put a final end to suffering?  If it's pure, there's nothing wrong with that.


Are there any cultural or religious guidelines for Buddhist tattoos? I've notice people on Instagram are getting tattoos of Mahakala and other Buddhist deities.  Are there any cultural or religious guidelines to consider when getting a tattoo of a Dharmapala or any other Buddhist religious deity?

Japan- tattoos are taboo in general, since the assumption only criminals, prostitutes and other low class sorts have tattoos. I think it would be hard to distinguish a religious from a classist objection in Japan.

Sri Lanka- recently a tourist was ejected from the country for having a Buddhist themed tattoo

Thailand - Buddhist themed tattoo are very common among lay Buddhists. Called Yantra, also practiced in other SE Asian countries, Laos, Myanmar, Singapore, Cambodia.  Ironically, Thailand seems to want to ban Buddhist tourist tattoos (or tourists with tattoos or both)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yantra_tattooing

Tibetan Buddhism- No problem, but put sacred symbols up high on your body, not on feet or ankles.

Chinese Buddhism, quote from Brahma Net Sutra

  "44. Failure to Honor the Sutras and Moral Codes A disciple of the
  Buddha should always .. receive, observe, read and recite
  the Mahayana sutras ... He should copy the sutras and
  moral codes onto bark, paper, fine cloth, or bamboo slats and not
  hesitate to use his own skin as paper, draw his own blood for ink and
  his marrow for ink solvent, or split his bones for use as pens....  Hence, if he does not make offerings to the sutras and
  moral codes, in accordance with the Dharma, he commits a secondary
  offense. "

So either A- this is just hyperbole, or B- using your skin for sutras is fine.

Americans seem to be split on the idea from for arguments I've seen, but I would say that the tattooed are highly overrepresented (i.e. more Buddhist tattooed than tattooed people in the general population).


Buddha's past lives in the Jatakas In multiple Jataka stories, the Buddha tells of his different past lives, multiple of which occurred under King Brahmadatta. Am I missing something here? How is it that the Buddha was living multiple past lives, all during the lifetime of one king?

for example :

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j1/j1010.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j1/j1008.htm

It doesn't say that it is the same king Brahmadatta. It's probably a different king with the same name or a descendant of the original Brahmadatta. Just like king Edward the 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th...

Samsara is very long and it's not unlikely that the Bodhisatta met many kings with similar names ruling the same land. Once there was a Brahmin who wanted to bury his corpse in a place where no other person has been buried. He found a large tree with roots sunk deep into earth. He thought "surely there can be none buried here". But when he was ready to uproot the tree, the Buddha told him that he had been buried in the same place with the same name for fourteen thousand times in his previous lives.


Does samsara exist or not exists? Does samsara exist? Or does samsara not exists and it just looks to us that it exists, but in reality it is all the same "thing"?

Here's the updated question, to make it clearer:

UPDATE

Nibanna is the cessation of all that is conditioned, i.e. samsara.

As I understand it, when you attain Nibanna which is unconditioned, then you are out of samsara.

Does this mean, that when you attain Nibanna, samsara:

does not exist but it exists for other beings in samsara?
does not exist, and neither it exists for the other beings in samsara, because Nibanna is unconditioned, so there is no samsara, and consequently there are no beings?

Which one is it? 1 or 2?

The traditional Mahayana formula is that "Samsara is Nirvana". This is explained in depth in Madhyamaka literature. Here is one quote from Jay Garfield commentary on his translation of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika:

  It is [possible] to grasp after nirvana – to reify it as a state and to crave it as a phenomenon inherently different from samsara and as highly desirable since it is indeed characterized as liberation from suffering. But this grasping onto the end of grasping is itself a grasping and so precludes the attainment of nirvana. Nirvana requires, according to Nagarjuna, a complete cessation of grasping, including that onto nirvana itself. While that might seem paradoxical, it is not: To grasp onto something in this sense requires, inter alia, that one reify it. By refusing to reify liberation, in virtue of seeing it as the correlative of bondage, which itself is not inherently existent, it is possible to pursue the path to liberation without creating at the same time a huge obstacle on that path – the root delusion with regard to nirvana itself.

And from Master Dogen's Genjokoan:

  When everything is buddha-dharma, there are Samsara and Nirvana, Path, birth and death, Buddhas and sentient beings. When myriad things are without self, there is no Samsara, no Nirvana, no Buddha, no sentient beings, no birth and no death.


Translation of 'ekayano maggo' In the Mahasatipatthana (DN 22) sutra the Buddha speaks about ekayano maggo. What is the exact translation in English: is it: 'direct way' or 'only way'?

The analysis quoted here says that, literally, it could be either; but that, looking at various places in which it's used in context, it makes more sense if it means 'direct'.
The people on that site seemed to agree that that's the best analysis.

And, this article makes a similar argument to explain why 'direct' is a more fitting meaning than 'only'.


Is there anything one can do to save the deceased from the consequences of their Kamma? I generally had the understanding that there is no way one can save the deceased from the consequences of their Kamma. At most, we can send Metta to the deceased which may comfort them wherever they exist. This understanding of mine is based on this story, wherein the Buddha using the analogy of butter and stones in two earthen pots makes the son of a deceased father understand that one cannot help the deceased escape from their Kamma by performing rites and rituals.

But I was surprised to come across the Ullambana Sutra  in another answer in this forum, where the Budhha seems to suggest the contrary - recommending rites and rituals for the benefit of the deceased and in fact their liberation from woeful states.

Can anyone clarify this contradiction and elaborate on how one can help the deceased? Is Metta for the deceased effective for their well being?

P.S. My question is not to create controversy. I'm more interested in learning the right view than the contradiction, if that helps anyone answer. I would be glad even if anyone answered the question without touching upon the contradiction part.

I like to make the following points (from a Theravada standpoint.):

Sañcetanika Sutta and Loṇa,phala Sutta deals with how Karma can be eradicated or results can be limited.

If you have done a large amount of +ve Karma then a litter -ve Karma has limited effect
Your Karma ceases to exist when you experience the result. This is something you want to avoid if it is a bad Karma but when doing Vipassana your old stock of fabrication come into the surface and gives you a sensation and passes away if you are equanimous to the experience. These experiences tend to be more milder than Karma giving results in the normal course. See: The Discourse Summaries

Rights and rituals have a place in Buddhism:

This is to keep the institution going and as means to attract people to Buddhism especially who are not yet ready or mature for deep insight
Rights and rituals can be a steppingstone to liberation if the rights and rituals foster morality (sīla,vata), as in (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta
Rites and rituals cannot eradicate Karma at least as per Theravada tradition


Does Mahayana Buddhism discourage attaining enlightenment under the Gautama Buddha Sasana? As far as I've heard, Mahayana Buddhists aspire to become Buddhas themselves in the future or want to become followers of a future Buddha like Buddha Maitreya. So, are Mahayana Buddhists discouraged from attaining enlightenment within the Gautama Buddha Sasana? If yes, wouldn't that be limiting the scope of enlightenment compared to Theravada Buddhism? Wouldn't that also make the taking refuge in the Triple gem meaningless, as they do not want to follow the teachings of the Gautama Buddha to attain enlightenment.? If the answer to the first question is 'no', any links to Mahayana specific texts which encourage one to attain Nibbana within this Sasana would be appreciated.

In early Buddhist texts one gains nibbāna and is freed from ever having to be reborn again. Many people achieved this and in relatively short time frames. The Buddha of the early texts seems to have expected the enlightened practitioners he left behind (hundreds if not thousands of them according to the texts) to teach others how to achieve this. If each disciple themselves freed only two other people, the whole world would soon be free. The traditional Buddha told his followers that the Dhamma should be their refuge and teacher when he was gone.

However by the time the Mahāyāna sutras were being composed a significant level of doubt and insecurity seems to have crept into their minds. At the same time they began to inflate the role and the capabilities of the Buddha in their retelling of the stories. (This trend is covered in my article: Escaping the Inescapable: Changes in Buddhist Karma. Journal of Buddhist Ethics Vol. 21. 2014). The dilemma is this: if the Buddha was truly compassionate, how could he die and leave us behind? Something of this dilemma is openly expressed in the opening of the Suvarṇabhāsottama Sutra (Fantastic Golden Light) in which Ratnaketu asks why the Buddha only lived 80 years if merit increases lifespan and the Buddha had infinite merit. The answer is that the Buddha only appeared to live and die, but that in fact he is eternal. This is typical of the hyperbolic response of the Mahāyāna and the gradual conversion of Buddhism into a more theistic religion, with Buddha as God.

In order to deal with this problem the Mahāyāna intellectuals conceived of the bodhisatva as getting to the threshold of awakening, and having more or less all the advantages of being awakened, but not attaining nirvāṇa which would ensure they could not be reborn. In this view the bodhisatva eschews enlightenment in favour of repeated rebirth to come back and help beings. In this view also we see a vastly inflated role for the bodhisatva. The Mahāyāna seems to have anxiety about the Dharma not being sufficient. One needs the (increasingly god-like) intervention of a Buddha or bodhisatva. Interestingly some Theravādins also lost heart. This view is seen, for example, in Peter Masefield's book Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism. Masefield, a respected translator and practising Theravādin, argues that without the physical presence of a Buddha nibbāna was not possible - and that the possibility of enlightenment would have died out within a generation of the Buddha's death. It's a view that is relatively easily refuted, Masefield cherry picks his Pāḷi quotes and studiously ignores any contradictory information. (see my unpublished review of his book).

Thus we are left with the image of the bodhisatva with many magical or godlike powers, a kind of messianic saviour figure, who helps otherwise helpless beings by being repeatedly reborn amongst us to lead us to the goal that we are otherwise incapable of reaching ourself.

In many ways this is a profoundly pessimistic view of humanity, though a very positive view of bodhisatvas and buddhas. It reaches its apotheosis in the teachings of the Japanese Buddhist, Shinran, who entirely abandoned the idea that human beings could become enlightened and preached reliance on the vows of Amitābha (recorded in the Sukhavativyūha Sūtras) a Buddha who lives in another universe but who has promised to meet people after they die and lead them to his Pureland from where they can become enlightened with no effort.

So yes, in Mahāyāna Buddhism one typically vows to become a Buddha, but a Buddha once dead cannot be reborn, so one, as it were, puts off Buddhahood until all beings are free, which at the present rate of beings being freed is essentially forever.


Can Buddha Damma be reduced to Paticca Samuppada? Can the teaching be reduced to Paticca Samuppada? Has lord Buddha preached so in any Sutta? During vipassana meditation, the practitioner focuses on impermanence, dissatisfaction and non-self. After this, when getting Arhantship, is it Paticca Samuppada that is understood by the disciple?

The Buddha's Dharma is beautiful in the beginning, beautiful in the middle, and beautiful in the end. Absent need for addition or reduction. It would be overly simplistic to reduce the entire teaching to one doctrinal aspect - even if it were dependent origination.

Having said that - one who sees dependent origination, sees the Dharma. One who sees the Dharma sees dependent origination. Without realizing the knowledge behind paticcasamuppada, it would not be possible progress to sainthood. For even Sotapannas need to see the Dharma in order to eradicate the first three fetters.

Rather than postulating what it is that an arahant realizes at the point of fruition that successfully eradicates the asavas, focus more on the cultivation of morality and concentration. This will arm you with the tools you need to investigate phenomenons for yourself. As your paramitas mature, you will realize these truths progressively.


Citta experience during meditation During meditation if no doer and knower operate citta come for knowing. Means thoughts coming with spaces without external object. Is this  what  do you call citta?  Is thoughts  are due to citta operate  without  self  ?when loba dvesa moha cease citta subjects to cease. Is it like that?

Citta is the emotional mind-heart. When defilement of greed, hatred & delusion cease, the citta is pure, luminous & liberated (as explained in the Pabhassara Sutta).


How much time it takes to experience 4th jhana? Right now sometime if i try to concentrate i can feel the calmness in mind. Before 2 years i used to feel inner joy after doing meditation. If i do meditation everyday for 2 -3 hours, how much time will it take for me to leave the rupa jhana?

Or simply, is their any time intervals in which meditator experiences all the jhanas one by one?

"Suppose a hen has eight, ten, or twelve eggs: If she doesn't cover them rightly, warm them rightly, or incubate them rightly, then even though this wish may occur to her — 'O that my chicks might break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely!' — still it is not possible that the chicks will break through the egg shells with their spiked claws or beaks and hatch out safely. Why is that? Because the hen has not covered them rightly, warmed them rightly, or incubated them rightly. In the same way, even though this wish may occur to a monk who dwells without devoting himself to development — 'O that my mind might be released from effluents through lack of clinging!' — still his mind is not released from the effluents through lack of clinging. Why is that? From lack of developing, it should be said. Lack of developing what? The four frames of reference, the four right exertions, the four bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.101.than.html


English translation of Vipallāsakathā I need English translation of Pali sutta Vipallāsakathā.

I am mainly interested in the following part :

  Anattani  anattāti,  asubhaṃ asubhataddasuṃ;  Sammādiṭṭhisamādānā,
  sabbaṃ dukkhaṃ upaccagun”ti.

Anattani anattāti (Seeing) non-self as non-self

asubhaṃ asubhataddasuṃ; Unattractiveness as unattractiveness

Sammādiṭṭhisamādānā, (he is) holding on to right view.

dukkhaṃ upaccagun”ti. (He is) above sufferings


Is there mention of Maitreya Buddha in Pali Canon? How did this idea of next Buddha formed? Is it the influence of other religion where they say Kalki or Christ will return.

Also does Pali Canon mention many other Buddha before Gautam Buddha?

How did this idea of next Buddha formed? Is it the influence of other religion where they say Kalki or Christ will return.

No need for outside influence, just simple logic. It doesn't make any sense to have only one single Gautama Buddha arisen in a universe (or multiverse) with unfathomably long history without descernable beginning and end.

  Also does Pali Canon mention many other Buddha before Gautam Buddha?

Yes, see the Buddhavamsa, the 14th Book of the Pali Canon's Khuddaka Nikaya for the list of 24 Buddhas predecessors to Gautama Buddha. See DN 26 for infos. on Metteyya, the future Buddha.


What is the essential difference between citta and vinnana? What is the essential difference between citta and vinnana?

I refer to this text of Ajaan Nanasampajanno in his book 'Arahatthaphala-The Path to Arahantship' p. 53:

'The citta is the essential knowing nature at the core of our being. It consists of pure and simple awareness: the citta simply knows. Awareness of good and bad, and the critical judgments that result, are merely conditions of the citta. Et times, their activities may manifest as mindfulness; at othet times, as wisdom. But the true citta does not exhibit any activities or manifest any conditions at all. It is simply a state of knowing. The activities that arise in the citta, such as awareness of good and bad, or happiness and suffering, or praise and blame, are all conditions of the consciousness that flow out from the citta. Since they represent activities and conditions of the citta that are, by their nature, constantly arising and fading, this sort of conscious awareness is always unstable and always unreliable. Understood in this way, sanna, sankhara and vinnana are all conditions of the citta.'

Is this citta—pure and simple awareness—the same as what is mentioned in Bahiya's teaching (Udana 1.10): ‘In seeing there is mere seeing, in hearing mere hearing, in smelling mere smelling, in tasting mere tasting, in touching mere touching, and in cognising only cognising.'

More info. from the wiki page here, in the 'Overlapping Pali terms for mind' section..