Desperate for help about intent and my fears I am hoping for help as I’m feeling really horrible right now. I’m not a Buddhist but I have OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) that is focussed on religion. I am sorry for such a long post but I don’t know how else to explain this.

My main fears have always revolved around being the worst person and committing unforgivable sins. When I learned about the unforgivable sin in Christianity I became absolutely ruined with fear of committing it. I do not want to commit it but my OCD drove me insane with this. I am now having these same issues with Buddhism. I think despite not being Buddhist, my fear is that it could be true and I don’t want to do the worst sins.

I have to say this since my fear is about it:

I do not want anyone to die no matter what. Please do not kill anyone no matter what.

My fear is the five cardinal sins/heinous crimes. I keep getting thoughts about this all the time and I don’t want them. I am scared because I will get thoughts about for example killing my father and I absolutely do not want that but the thought worries me so much. What is now making things so much worse is I feel like when I have a thought I am saying things out loud/whispering them by moving my lips. I don’t think I am but I keep thinking what if I am? So I have thoughts like “kill my father” and I fear I am mumbling this and someone will see me doing this and then they will kill my father. This makes me feel like it’s because of me that they killed them. Like I contributed to them dying. But I have no intention for them to die. It’s gotten to the point this happens constantly and I try to cover my mouth everywhere, I am constantly having to say “Do not kill” after every bad thought I have. I feel like my head will explode.

I think in Buddhism it is the intention behind an action that would result in karma. So I tell myself I have no intention to cause harm to my father but when I get these thoughts and feel like maybe I said something like “don’t do X or else kill father” but I want to do X so I try to counter this/cancel it out by thinking/saying “I have to do X or else kill father” but then maybe I cannot do X or don’t want to do X anymore (X can be something as simple as drinking milk) so now I feel like I CHOSE to say that and am willfully going against it so then I am responsible for someone killing my father even though I don’t intend for any harm to my father. I hope this makes sense I am so sorry it’s difficult to explain this.

I am also having the same fear about the heinous crime of killing an Arhat and I DO NOT want to kill them and have no intention for them to die.

I am hoping you can help me in:
-   Would I be committing these heinous crimes/sins if I don’t have any intention to kill/cause harm? Even if I willfully think something/say something and someone kills because of it – I don’t have intention to kill and in my heart I don’t want to hurt anyone.
-   Is my intention what counts? It’s what I am telling myself “I don’t intend for anything bad to happen”

Thank you for reading all this I really just don’t want any of this to happen. I don’t want these thoughts and I don’t want to cause harm to anyone. I would be very grateful if anyone can help me.

"Would I be committing these heinous crimes/sins if I don’t have any intention to kill/cause harm? Even if I willfully think something/say something and someone kills because of it – I don’t have intention to kill and in my heart I don’t want to hurt anyone. - Is my intention what counts? It’s what I am telling myself “I don’t intend for anything bad to happen."

In Buddhism, it's the intention behind an action that counts. It's the intention that's "kamma-potent" and what causes future effects to take place.

Harming or killing another living being can only happen with an impure mind, i.e. a mind that acts with intentions of anger, hatred, ill-will.

If your intention is wholesome, i.e. based in renunciation, good-will, harmlessness and a sincere and honest wish to help other beings, then only wholesome future resultants will take place.

Please read about "Right Intention (Samma Sankappa)", p. 26 in "The Noble Eightfold Path", by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi and the Twin Verses about "Intention", p. 58, in The Illustrated Dhammapada.

  "...I have OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) that is focussed on religion..."

Are you in any medical or therapeutical treatment? If not, you might want to see a therapist regarding the OCD.


Whatever bad deed done with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here In the context of the sutta below, what does the following phrase mean? - "whatever bad deed I did here in the past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will not follow along" (yaṃ kho me idaṃ kiñci pubbe iminā karajakāyena pāpakammaṃ kataṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ idha vedanīyaṃ; na taṃ anugaṃ bhavissatī’ti)

This phrase seems to apply to one who practises the Brahmaviharas.

How is it different for one who does not practise the Brahmaviharas (or the Dhamma in general, for that matter)?

What does deed-born body (karajakāya) really mean?

Also related is the phrase "A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. Mortals have mind as their core." (Itthiyā vā, bhikkhave, purisassa vā nāyaṃ kāyo ādāya gamanīyo. Cittantaro ayaṃ, bhikkhave, macco.). What does this mean?

From AN 10.219:

  “What do you think, bhikkhus, if a youth were to develop the
  liberation of mind by loving-kindness (and also, compassion,
  altruistic joy and equanimity) from his childhood on, would he do a
  bad deed?”

  “No, Bhante.”

  “Could suffering affect him if he does no bad deed?” “No, Bhante. For
  on what account could suffering affect one who does no bad deed?”

  “A woman or a man should develop this liberation of mind by
  loving-kindness (and also, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity).
  A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they go. Mortals
  have mind as their core.

  “The noble disciple understands: ‘Whatever bad deed I did here in the
  past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will
  not follow along.’ When the liberation of mind by loving-kindness (and
  also, compassion, altruistic joy and equanimity) has been developed in
  this way, it leads to non-returning for a wise bhikkhu here who does
  not penetrate to a further liberation.

What does deed-born body (karajakāya) really mean?

It appears to mean "body born of causing".

It's a compound, e.g. kara ("causing") ja ("born of") kāya ("body").

The PTS dictionary entry for Kara includes ...

  Kara (p. 195) Kara Kara [fr. kṛ] 1. (adj.) ( -- ˚) producing, causing, forming, making, doing

... and ...

  ja "born of kamma" in karaja -- kāya the body sprung from action, an expression always used in a contemptible manner, therefore=the impure, vile, low body A v.300; J i.5; Vism 287, 404; DA i.113, 217, 221; DhA i.10; iii.420; DhsA 403. karaja -- rūpa Vism 326.

Also ...

  Ja (p. 277) Ja Ja ( -- ˚) [adj. -- suffix from jan, see janati; cp. ˚ga; gacchati] born, produced, sprung or arisen from.

So it's literally or etymologically kara-ja-kaya i.e. "body born from kara", where kara is defined as "producing, causing, forming, making, doing".

I don't see exactly why kara and kamma are being equated, but they're obviously pretty similar.

Given this translation ...

  Whatever bad deeds I have done in the past with this deed-born body I will experience here.
  yaṃ kho me idaṃ kiñci pubbe iminā karajakāyena pāpakammaṃ kataṃ, sabbaṃ taṃ idha vedanīyaṃ

... I think the literal word-for-word translation is something like ...

  Whatever my something in-the-past I have with this body-born-of-causing bad-deeds done, entirely in-this-world I will know them.

Perhaps you might as well just read it as kaya (i.e. body).

There are other bits in the sutta which just refer to body, e.g. ...

  For neither women nor men take this body with them when they go.
  Itthiyā vā, bhikkhave, purisassa  vā nāyaṃ kāyo ādāya gamanīyo.


How prevalent are siddhis in buddhism? Abilities (such as flying through the air, walking through solid obstructions, diving into the ground, walking on water, and so forth) are performed by changing one element, such as earth, into another element, such as air.

How does one expect to achieve them?

I have read some commentaries which claim they are mere illusions on the path to enlightenment and that the true sadhka shouldn't be distracted by them and should aim for higher realms.

Moreover are these claims made in documentaries true?

Siddhi - a paranormal power possessed by a siddha – is a true phenomenon. These are certain by-products of the practice itself. But just as gain, respect and fame can become obstacles to liberation, so, too, can such siddhi. Such phenomena are categorized under the Tenth Army of Mara. A battle faced by meditation masters, this last army is perhaps the most lethal of all. In the Buddha's time there was even a man, Devadatta, who tried to kill the Buddha under its influence.

There was once a layman who told that the Buddha should widely deploy all of his disciples who had psychic powers and ask them to demonstrate miracles to the people. "People will be really impressed," the layman said. "You'll get a lot of followers that way. The Buddha refused. Three times the request was repeated, and three times it was refused. Finally the Buddha said, "Layman, there are three types of psychic powers. One is the power to fly in the air and dive into the earth, and to perform other superhuman feats. The second is the power to read other people's minds. But there is a third psychic power, the power of instruction. This last power is the most important psychic power. The first two psychic powers can be attained and displayed if this interests you. It is not essential, or a hindrance, if you know it for what it is.

True disciples of the Buddha are more interested in developing ‘the Four Irdhi-paada.’ Iddhiya: of attaining completion or perfection; pado: root or basis -the root or basis of attaining completion or perfection. Hence it is called iddhipada. There are four kinds of iddhipada. But this is another subject/answer for another time/question.


What is the meaning of the word Uncreate? This link mentions that there is an existence of uncreate state of self(opposite of created state of self..correct me if I am wrong..).

  The man who is without blind faith, who knows the Uncreated, who has
  severed all links, destroyed all causes (for karma, good and evil),
  and thrown out all desires — he, truly, is the most excellent of men.

My questions are :

What is the meaning of the word Uncreate?

Is Uncreate state a noun or a verb?

In this case, uncreated means, non-contrived, natural, something that does not require an effort to maintain.

I once heard a myth, not sure how real, that New York City has a massive underground flooding problem - but because the city infrastructure situation is so insanely complicated, no-one can even dream of fixing the leaks - instead they just have a system of pumps running 24/7 pumping the water. The city can only exist thanks to the pumps, if the pumps were to stop even for an hour, the city would get flooded and the rest of the infrastructure would collapse. This is how the story goes anyway.

Samsara is like that. It requires continuous maintenance. We are not normally aware of this, but we do put tremendous effort 24/7 to maintain Samsara. We do it ourselves.

Our Ego (image of self) is contrived, and requires constant effort to maintain.
Our idea of the world is contrived as well.
Our idea of how the world should be is also contrived.
The pumps that maintain these systems are our narratives that we keep telling ourselves again and again.
The whole mass of suffering is based on these pumps.

Similarly, mere intellectual understanding of Dharma, of Anatta, of Emptiness etc. is equally contrived. Because it is contrived, it does not hold under pressure of real-life circumstances.

The uncreated, the natural, is always there, like the clear sky above the clouds, we just have to stop the pumps in order to see it. Direct experience belongs to this category, and so will hold under any pressure.

This is the meaning of "uncreated" here, not in the active sense as in "deconstruct". Although come to think of it, certain amount of deconstruction (of ego, of habitual illusions) is sometimes necessary too.


Eyes in Meditation Practice Could someone please clarify for me what to do with the eyes? I have heard that we should keep our eyelids half open, but could someone describe it in detail (or refer me to someone else who does)?
Thank you.

The guidance I got from one teacher, of Tibetan Nyingma school, is to let the eyes relax. In detail, this includes:

keep them open but not stare-open - don't strain to keep them half-closed either,
relax the muscles around the eyes, so called soft-eyes,
do not focus the eyes on anything in particular, allow them go a little out of focus but don't force it,
if your eyes wander from object to object a bit, that's totally fine - as long as the objects are not too engaging. You don't have to literally sit in front of the wall but you want your scene to be rather generic.


A path without long meditations? I meditate for the purpose described by the Dalai Lama (in his book The Heart of Meditation: Discovering Innermost Awareness):

  To achieve a friendly attitude, a warm heart, respect for the rights
  of others, and concern for their welfare, we must train the mind. The
  essential objective of mental training is to cultivate an attitude of
  compassion and calm

After 30-60 minutes I am calm and aware, but seeing no further benefit in sitting longer. I don't buy the idea that the Buddha's teachings were only available to the select few who can achieve special meditative states.

Are there any teachers or traditions that teach a path that does not rely on long meditations that last for hours?

(The closest I know of is the Insight Meditation Society, and while they don't appear to emphasize jhanas, they do hold meditation retreats.)

The Buddha's teachings were often tailored to the audience he was addressing.  Teachings like karma, merit making, and securing a good rebirth are available to anyone regardless of how much time they wish to dedicate to meditation.  If you are after true liberation, however, there are no shortcuts.

There is a koan that goes something like this:

  Nangaku (Ch. Nanyue) asks, “What are you doing these days?”
  Baso (Ch. Mazu) says, “These days Dōitsu just sits.”
  Nangaku says, “What is the aim of sitting in zazen?”
  Baso says, “The aim of sitting in zazen is to become buddha.”
  Nangaku promptly fetches a tile and polishes it on a rock near Baso’s hut.
  Baso, on seeing this, asks, “What is the master doing?”
  Nangaku says, “Polishing a tile.”
  Baso says, “What is the use of polishing a tile?”
  Nangaku says, “I am polishing it into a mirror.”
  Baso says, “How can polishing a tile make it into a mirror?”
  Nangaku says, “How can sitting in zazen make you into a buddha?”

You can actually achieve enlightenment without ever sitting.  Since this is going to be my last post on this site, I'll candidly tell you that my first truly deep kensho experience happened before I ever met my Zen teacher.  In fact, it happened on my way to Wendy's to buy a hamburger!  Things like this do happen from time to time.  Unfortunately, this has led a lot of people in the modern age to read this koan as saying that consistent, long periods of meditation are not required for liberation.  That's rubbish.  More poignantly, one of the things this koan is saying is that there is no transactional relationship between enlightenment and zazen.  1,000 hours of meditation does not equal 1,000 credits of enlightenment.  Instead, meditation creates the conditions for enlightenment to occur.  Think of it like planting a garden.  Seeds grow all on their own in the right conditions, but as anyone who has planted a garden will tell you, getting that garden started is a lot of work.  You have to establish decent soil, you have to make sure that your plot has a good solar aspect, you have to ensure that there is adequate water, and you have to sow your seed.  Some gardens need more remediation to get going, others less.  And even then, once your plants are started, your work still isn't done.  In some ways, it's just started!  Now, you have to maintain the plot.  You have to weed it, ensure that it has the right amendments, and you have to keep the critters out.

Buddhist practice is no different.  The seed of enlightenment will grow in a plot tilled with moral discipline and meditation.  For some people, this may happen quickly.  Their karmic soil is fertile and will allow wisdom to grow with little effort.  Others can sit wholeheartedly for decades without experiencing daikensho.  But in either case, the better conditions they create, the better chances they have of seeing success.  Moreover, once they have had an enlightenment experience, the easier it will be for them to maintain it.  As is often the case with spontaneous kensho, as deep as my first experience was, it only lasted for a couple of months.  Eventually, it began to fade - overwhelmed by karmic weeds that could reestablish themselves since I wasn't maintaining my mind with an equally deep meditation practice.

You never reach the end of the path.  There are always deeper strata of karma to tend to - even after enlightenment.  You need sharp tools and strong back to reach the really subterranean stuff.  You develop both with sincere, dedicated, daily practice.  I'm not going to lie, sometimes that work can have the character of drudgery.  Your legs will hurt, you will get frustrated, and you will even be bored.  Let me assure you, however, that as your practice grows, this very same practice will become absolutely transcendent.  In time, meditation will become your favorite thing in the world.  It truly is a wish bestowing gem.  And it is one that is available to everyone.


The difference between a great man and an enlightening being Hope that my question is pertinent here :) ?

Can anyone here help me think about the difference between the two :) ?

An enlightened being is a great man.

A great man is not always an enlightened being.


What is the modern understanding about Four Great Elements and Reality? The 4 elements are:

pruṭhavī-dhātu - solidity or attraction. This holds something together. You feel this as tightness, pressure in the body.

āpa-dhātu - liquidity or relative motion.

teja-dhātu - heat or energy. Body temperature, vibrations in the body you feel in meditation. Difference of temperature in and out meditation.

vāyu-dhātu - expansion or repulsive forces. You feel this as pulsation or expansion and contraction in the body or flow of respiration, rumbling gasses in the belly and passing of wind.

So can we expand our knowledge about "Four great elements" in Buddhism using the knowledge that we have already understood by other means?

Modern Understating

There are infinite number of Buddhas in the past (though only few are recorded), and they preached the same Dhamma. With respect to Science this is always in constant evolution in terms of the understanding and body of knowledge. Though Science generally may not refute Buddhism drawing parallels may not be useful.

Understanding the 4 Elements

Understanding of the 4 elements should be at the experiential level or at the level that is felt. Conceptual understanding falls into the sphere of Perception, through this is also essential, but as stepping stone to the next item which is putting into practice with a view to experience it for one self.


Are these translations of the Sutta Nipata correct? A Hindu site by the name "Agniveer" has claimed that Buddha never rejected the Vedas. To substantiate their claim, they have quoted a few verses from the Sutta Nipata to show Buddha's respect for the Vedas:

  In Sutta Nipat 192, Mahatma Buddha says that:

  Vidwa Cha Vedehi Samechcha Dhammam Na Uchchavacham Gachhati
  Bhooripanjo.

  People allow sense-organs to dominate and keep shuffling between high
  and low positions. But the scholar who understands Vedas understands
  Dharma and does not waver.

  Sutta Nipat 503:

  Yo Vedagu Gyanarato Sateema …….

  One should support a person who is master of Vedas, contemplative,
  intelligent, helpful if you desire to inculcate similar traits.

  Sutta Nipat 1059:

  Yam Brahmanam Vedagum Abhijanjya Akinchanam Kamabhave Asattam……

  One gets free from worldly pains if he is able to understand a Vedic
  Scholar who has no wealth and free from attraction towards worldly
  things.

  Sutta Nipat 1060:

  Vidwa Cha So Vedagu Naro Idha Bhavabhave Sangam Imam Visajja…..

  I state that one who understands the Vedas rejects attraction towards
  the world and becomes free from sins.

  Sutta Nipat 846:

  Na Vedagu Diththia Na Mutiya Sa Manameti Nahi Tanmayoso….

  One who knows Vedas does not acquire false ego. He is not affected by
  hearsay and delusions.

  Sutta Nipat 458:

  Yadantagu Vedagu Yanjakaale Yassahuti Labhe Taras Ijjeti Broomi

  I state that one who acquires Ahuti in Havan of a Vedic scholar gets
  success.

  Now people who post these on internet say that Gautam Buddha didn't
  opposed Vedas he opposed the evil practices done in name of Vedas like
  animal sacrifice, caste system

Now, personally I have found many of the site's claims and quotations unreliable. However, I would still like to verify these verses so could anybody tell me if these quotations are true or fabricated?

The quotes may be real, but their translation is probably not.

Sanskrit (and Pali) root "ved-" stands for gnosis, knowledge, understanding. The name of Vedas comes from the same root, they are supposed to be collections of (religious) knowledge. Using this coincidence, it looks like instead of translating the words such as vedehi, vedagu etc. as e.g. having known, expert/erudite etc. - they left them untranslated and made it look as if they were referring to the Vedas.

For example in the first phrase they have quoted

  ...Vidvā ca vedehi samecca dhammaṃ...

probably means something like

  ...having known and having learned, thanks to encountering Dharma...

There is no way vidva and vedehi can refer to Vedas, because these are clearly verb forms, not nouns.

And so on.


What really Sekha means? i'm still a bit confused,
i know that "sekha" means literally "a learner; in course of perfection"
but in some article "sekha" means "a pupil or one under training in a religious doctrine."

what i really want to know is if whether the word "sekha" is used for religious terms only, or it can be used in many terms, for ex. student at school or disciple from someone else to reach knowledge or something like that?

In Saṅgītisutta three types of persons in the world are mentioned: sekkha (learner), asekkha (adept) and nevasekkha nāsekkha (ordinary person or puthujjana)

  Tayo puggalā—sekkho puggalo, asekkho puggalo,
  nevasekkho nāsekkho puggalo
  Saṅgītisutta
  Three kinds of persons, to wit, the learner, the adept, he
  who is neither.
  Saṅgītisutta [en]

A sekha is someone who trains himself in higher virtues, training the mind to a higher degree and training for higher wisdom or basically someone who's training himself in the eightfold path. There are 7 types of sekhas (1) the path to stream-entry; (2) the fruition of stream-entry;
(3) the path to once-returning; (4) the fruition of once-returning;
(5) the path to non-returning; (6) the fruition of non-returning;
(7) the path to arahantship

  Sekho, sekho’ti, bhante, vuccati. Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, sekho
  hotī”ti? “Sikkhatīti kho, bhikkhu, tasmā sekhoti vuccati.
  Kiñca sikkhati? Adhisīlampi sikkhati, adhicittampi sikkhati,
  adhipaññampi sikkhati. Sikkhatīti kho, bhikkhu, tasmā sekhoti
  vuccatīti.
  Sekkhasutta

  Venerable sir, it is said a trainee. How is one a trainee?
  Bhikkhu, one trains, therefore he is called a trainee.
  In what does he train? He trains in higher virtues,
  training the mind to a higher degree and training for higher wisdom.
  Sekkhasutta [en]

An asekha is someone who's gone beyond the training or basically an arahant.

  Asekho asekho’ti, bhante, vuccati. Kittāvatā bhante, bhikkhu asekho hotī”ti? “Idha, bhikkhu, bhikkhu asekhāya sammādiṭṭhiyā samannāgato hoti, asekhena sammāsaṅkappena samannāgato hoti, ... Evaṃ kho, bhikkhu, bhikkhu asekho hotī”ti
  Paṭhamaasekhasutta

  Venerable sir, it is said, `gone beyond the training' How is the bhikkhu gone beyond the training?
  Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu is endowed with perfect right view,
  perfect right thoughts, perfect right speech, perfect right activity,
  perfect right livelihood, perfect right endeavour, perfect right
  mindfulness, perfect right concentration perfect right knowledge and
  perfect right release gone beyond the training. Such a one is gone
  beyond the training.
  Paṭhamaasekhasutta [en]


Can Dukkha be considered as the consequence of a psychological allergic reaction? An physical allergic reaction happens when the immune system is activated when it is not really necessary and harms more than it helps.

Dukkha can perhaps be the result of activity of the ego against things which actionally doens't harm you.

So can you say suffering is due to an allergic ego?

Dukkha can perhaps be the result of activity of the ego against things which actionally doens't harm you.

When you experience a contract, the reaction of consciousness is to give a sensation of pleasantness, unpleasantness or neutral sensation. Another habitual response that follows is craving or aversion to this. [Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta, Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta] This is not necessarily the ego going against anything but habitual reaction. Ego is created due to thought patterns which follow, due to craving. [Tanhā Jālinī Sutta, (Vicarita) Tanha Sutta]. The main thing is not to react to sensations, being completely equanimous and knowing their arising and passing nature. [Pahāna Sutta] If you react - with aversion, craving or ignorance - then only it becomes harmful, as this will create fabrication, which result in future karmic manifestations. Also, in the present, if they are pleasant and change then disappointment follows. [Cula Vedalla Sutta]

  So can you say suffering is due to an allergic ego?

You can say it is due to allergic reaction to sense experiences with craving and aversion.


Am I Bearing the pain or observing it, When my leg hurts during Vipassana? Yesterday I was practicing Vipassana, In starting I observed everything as neutral, then everything was positive, then after 30 minutes, my left leg started hurting badly, i observed it as just negative for 5-7 minutes, then i was thinking am i observing this pain, or am i bearing it ?, whats the difference ?
then i gave up.

I could not move my left toe every single time, after Vipassana, i sit in Sukhasan.

Kindly help and suggest me for betterment.

then i was thinking am i observing this pain,

Thinking as such is creates verbal fabrications. The objective is reduce fabrications. You should look as the sensations arising and passing without creating any craving and aversion. There can be no verbalisation, intellectualisation (thinking and pondering), visualisation, etc.

  or am i bearing it

You should just passively observe and not suppress it by diverting your attention to more pleasant thoughts. If this is what you mean by bearing it then, yes, you are bearing it.

If you want you can try breathing meditation if the pain is unbearable in your body. This is fine. You should always limit are diverted to either Ānāpānasati or Satipaṭṭhāna and between them. You should always be calm.

Also use the pain as a tool to reduce latent tendency (see: Anusaya by Piya Tan) of aversion by not rejecting or being averse for the painful feeling.

    the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings

Pahāna Sutta

This also does not mean you should stay with the painful sensations only as you will miss the more subtle sensation but they need to be also felt.

  I could not move my left toe every single time

This happens but perhaps as a beginner you could try using a small chair or cushion if this might help.


When and how should a layperson declare their achievements? I have on occasion seen commenters here and elsewhere who declare their achievements, such as being a sotāpanna. These comments are downvoted, so they do not appear to be appreciated.

If comments like these show up on public forums then casual visitors may themselves see that the path can be followed, that people living today have found that the teachings work, and may themselves be inspired to study the Dhamma. That would be a good possible outcome from such comments.

So is it considered wrong to write such declarations publically (at least if one is not a monk) and when would be the appropriate time and place to make declarations of achievements?

...then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!'

"I am a stream-winner!", and as for people like Nyom Alexander, at least you can help them with frog-pills. Be aware that a fully awakened person neither lives nor could live in a household, other than the Noble Beggars.

As for a monk, it's not good to do so (toward laypeople) and if doing such as a deliberated lie it is even a reason to fall out of the community.

It may be good to add that a stream-enterer would seldom be able to teach and lead much and as most are still just a householder, give less inspiration for those having real faith.
But it's a great achievement and a great place for mudita with such or sometimes for much karuna, like in Nyom Alexanders situation, not even knowing the Dhamma yet and believing to be awakened. Thats really much place of huge pity and the reality that beings are heirs of their actions, not really to be helped.

See a Noble Ones answer for more details; and keep such people high and protected without the need that they would need to tell.

(not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for your way out) See? ;-)


What does "self" mean? I have had the impression that "self" has at least sometimes been thought of as "something" other than the 5 aggregates.

What does "self" mean?

What is "sense of self"?

The fear about questions about self is misplaced. What is intended by that admonition is refraining from speculations about the origin or destiny, or existence or non-existence of a self.

What the questioner is asking, I believe, is the definition in Buddhism of Self, and that is a legitimate question to ask and answer.

The answer is that it is that which one believes is under one's control (the scope goes beyond the individual body; usually expressed as 'self or what relates to self'). And further, though it is description by negative, it is the idea that a self under one's control would not suffer pain or come to an end.

The Dhamma points out that there is only one thing that is under one's control, and that is one's acts of mind, speech or body. The outcome of one's acts, however, is out of one's control.


What did the Buddha mean by 'development of the body'? When that pleasant feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his development of the body.

from MN 36 Maha-Saccaka Sutta translated by Thanissaro.

Pleasant feeling (vedanā) is not limited to five senses, but can also be experienced by the mind. To understand the sutta, it seems important to understand what exactly is meant by development of the body.

  When that painful feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his development of the mind.

Here the Buddha makes a clear distinction here between 'development of the body' and 'development of the mind', and from MN 119

  [The Blessed One said:] "And how is mindfulness immersed in the body
  developed, how is it pursued, so as to be of great fruit & great
  benefit?

What did the Buddha mean by 'development of the body' versus 'development of the mind'?

Then, how does one develop the body?

I only quickly browsed the sutta (not reading it all) but the question seems to not really be relevant to the Buddha because it was not the Buddha that introduces the phrase: "development of the body". Instead, it was Saccaka the Jain that introduced the phrase, probably from Jainism.

  Then Saccaka the Nigantha...said to the Blessed One, "There are, Master Gotama, some brahmans & contemplatives who live committed to
  the development of the body..."

The Buddha answered as follows, which is just the standard teaching about development of mindfulness & wisdom in relation to the six spheres of sense contact:

  And how is one developed in body and developed in mind? There is the case where a pleasant feeling arises in a well-educated disciple of
  the noble ones. On being touched by the pleasant feeling, he doesn't
  become impassioned with pleasure, and is not reduced to being
  impassioned with pleasure. His pleasant feeling ceases. With the
  cessation of the pleasant feeling there arises a painful feeling. On
  being touched with the painful feeling, he doesn't sorrow, grieve, or
  lament, beat his breast or becomes distraught. When that pleasant
  feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain
  because of his development of the body. When that painful feeling had
  arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his
  development of the mind. This is how one is developed in body and
  developed in mind."

When suttas are read, such the often cited SN 44.10 which is about 'self' & 'no-self' (rather than about the Buddha's doctrine of 'not-self'), I suggest we should be very careful about putting words into the Buddha's mouth based on terms used in questions made by non-Buddhists.

Another example is the Tevijja Sutta, in which the Buddha answers questions to Brahmans, yet some scholars believe it is about Nibbana.

  Asked about the path to union with Brahma, the Buddha explains it in terms of the Buddhist path, but ending with the four brahmaviharas;
  the abbreviated way the text is written out makes it unclear how much
  of the path comes before this; Robert Gombrich has argued that the
  Buddha was meaning union with Brahma as synonymous with nirvana.
  Wikipedia

Similarly, the Buddha often uses the term 'nama-rupa' in answers to questions made by Brahmans. Since the Brahmans did not know the Buddha's teachings, the term 'nama-rupa' in these contexts probably retains the Brahmanistic meaning.


Humbled by fate, punishment or push to right path? Not long ago, I encountered tough "barrier" in life, tried to break through it but ended up greatly humbled and forced to take step back.
This got me thinking whether I should decouple from earthly desires like career, consumerism and similar.
Was my experience divine punishment (karma) or display of better way ?
Note: I realize this question is not necessarily specific to one religion over other, but I think this community is more accepting to this type of question.

Was my experience divine punishment (karma) or display of better way ?

Kamma doesn't need some divine intervention to take place. It's a natural law like physics. You throw a ball against the wall with a certain force and angle, and it'll bounce back and hit you. You touch a hot kettle, and it'll burn your hand.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow. ~~ Dhp I ~~


Does God exist in Buddhism? I'm new to this site. So I'd like to ask a question about God.

Do Buddhists believe in the existence of a God?

Does Lord Buddha mention anything about this?

Unfortunately, this is one of the first questions people ask, especially if they are coming from a theistic background. As a result, many who require the belief of a 'God' as a precondition, turn away from Buddhism without even practicing and finding out for oneself. Likewise, many atheists also get turned off when they hear about hells/heavens/rebirth in Buddhism.

To answer your question, if by 'God', you mean a creator/omnipotent/all governing entity, the answer is No.

'God' is a Christian term. At the time of the Buddha, words like 'Mahābrahmā' or 'Brahma' were used to describe such concepts. Brahmajala sutta talks in detail about how this belief was originated.

The concept goes directly against one of the core teachings of Buddhism: "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta" - all phenomena are non-self or devoid of a soul.

Even a Jataka story questions the belief in such a being:

"If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?"

"If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?"

"If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!"

Here's a related article: Buddhist attitude towards 'God'

Buddhism teaches that all misbeliefs(beliefs that block the path to Nibbana) are variations of 2 fundamental misbeliefs.

Sassata Vada - Eternalism
Uchcheda Vada - Nihilism

The belief of 'God' falls under the first category.

Even though holding onto such a belief does not prevent one from being born in heavens(given that they do many good deeds), it does block the path to Nibbana(Enlightenment). That's why it is called Maggavarana. Buddhism has very little to offer to such people until they are ready to give up that belief.


Why living beings like / dislike things in the world? All living beings (animals + humans) like something, and they don't like some another things? What is the reason for liking and disliking.
Eg: Imagine there are two best friends let's call friend A and friend B. Friend A likes a lady call X (very pretty lady) meanwhile friend B doesn't like lady X. What's the reason according to the buddhism.

To narrow down the question the point is though lady X is very pretty for friend A but not for friend B. Why is it?

Upasaka Isuru Gunawardana,

Touched by an pleasing object on the senses, and unwise thinking (avijjā, or improper attention) is the cause that greed arises.

Touched by an unpleasing object on the senses, and unwise thinking (avijjā, or improper attention) is the cause that aversion arises.

In short avijjā-phassa is the cause of domanassa, somanassa and indifferent mindstates, feelings. Good to keep in mind that the third is actually often miss-discriminated as real equanimity, beyond householder-equanimity.

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but for release from this bonds in the world)


Is there any advice in the Buddhist scriptures that would help a leader balance a safe economy with people's concerns about sickness & death? Is there advice in the various Buddhist scriptures that a leader
could use in this Coronavirus situation?
Is there advice in the Buddhist scriptures that a lay-person could
use in this Coronavirus situation?
What are Buddhist leaders doing about this Coronavirus situation?

The government and leaders should provide just protection and security to its citizens. Basically, they should undertake the right measures to take care of their people.

From DN 26:

‘But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle—honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court,
troops, aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of
town and country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let
injustice prevail in the realm. Pay money to the penniless in the
realm.

The lay Buddhist should play the role of a good patient and heed the advice of competent authorities.

From Kucchivikara-vatthu of the Vinaya, the Buddha taught:

"A sick person endowed with five qualities is easy to tend to: he does
what is amenable to his cure; he knows the proper amount in things
amenable to his cure; he takes his medicine; he tells his symptoms, as
they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying
that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are
improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and
he is the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful,
fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A
sick person endowed with these five qualities is easy to tend to.

Buddhist leaders should set a good example as the Dalai Lama had done (from this article).

The exiled Tibetan spiritual leader His Holiness the Dalai Lama has
received his second dose of the Covishield vaccine at his residence on
Monday, according to CTA run Tibet.net. He received the first jab on
March 6 at Zonal hospital in Dharamshala.
“The vaccine was administered by a medical team of Delek hospital led
by Dr Tseten Dorjee, personal physician to His Holiness,” Tibet.net
reported. The entire staff and security details of His Holiness,
including those living in the residence, were also vaccinated, the
report further stated. ...
The Nobel laureate wrote that he has been following the alarming news
of the pandemic across the world, especially including in India. “May
I take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation for all the
efforts that are being made to tackle this devastating pandemic,
especially by those courageously working on the frontline. I pray that
the pandemic threat will end soon,” he wrote. ...
The Dalai Lama cancelled all his public engagements since February
last year and engaged with the pubic through virtual platform for
teachings and other interactive dialogues with students, Buddhist
followers, and various organizations from all across the world. The
Buddhist leader’s only public appearance since the lockdown was during
his first Covishied jab at the local hospital last month, where he
urged others to take the injection, “I want to share that more people
should have the courage to take this injection.”


Automatic Habit of Meditation In psychology, a habit is defined as a behaviour done automatically, requiring little conscious effort. I have meditated recently pretty much every second day, but I fail to see any automaticity; its incredibly effortful to sit and meditate for me still.

Does Buddhism have anything to say about forming such habits? Is there any knowledge -- whether in the scriptures or from personal experience -- suggesting the ideal frequency of meditation (to form a habit)?
Here, I mean the frequency which would enable consistent and automatic sitting and meditation.

Also, does consistency relative to the hour of the day of meditation matter at all?

Any information is welcome, thank you.

Does Buddhism have anything to say about forming such habits? Is there any knowledge -- whether in the scriptures or from personal experience -- suggesting the ideal frequency of meditation (to form a habit)?

I realize you are asking about forming habits, but sometimes the road to effortless habits goes through eliminating hindrances. If we're talking satipatthana, a big deal is actually investigating hindrances to overcome these obstacles, as it is also conducive towards further cultivation of your meditation regime.

Generally speaking (vitarka), the five hindrances are:

Sensual Desire
Ill-will
Sloth and Torpor
Restlessness and Remorse
Doubt

Insights regarding hindrances are most likely not only beneficial for your meditation practice, but can likely be generalized to life as a whole.

More reading, and not least suggested antidotes to the hindrances:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html

  Also, does consistency relative to the hour of the day of meditation matter at all?

You may benefit from looking at prolonging the time for meditation rather than increase the frequency or timing during the day. It will expose you to important observations for deepening dhyana.

I'd argue that the more overall time spent in dhyana the better.


Is this concept of Non-self correct? **

I was trying to figure out the meaning of Non-self one day and
stumbled upon this idea. Please bear with me as this is a bit long...

**
There are four great elements which are responsible for all conceivable objects and forms. If we take a human being, we have a body made of the 4 great elements and a consciousness. As we know there is no such thing called a person beyond the grammatical meaning, therefore neither mind or body is a person or a soul or any such thing.
Let's expand this to a universal level, the same way a body host a consciousness, the universe hosts all consciousnesses. So the assumption here is that 4 great elements provide the infrastructure for the birth of a consciousness. if we forget the identities like human,animal,heavenly,etc, what we have is a sea of 4 great elements that facilitate the existence of all so called "beings". this shows an uncanny resemblance to what we call a being.
- Allow me to elaborate -
A body is a housing for a consciousness, the body consist of the 4 elements.
The universe is a housing for consciousnesses, the universe consist of the 4 elements.
Take into account that according to the teaching, the consciousness is not a permanent one, it is explained as a static that occurs and ceases with every though,recognition,comparison,etc.
Taken as a static, a consciousness does not even last a second. Bearing this in mind, allow me to end the question.
*

If consciousness is a static like phenomenon, and the body taken out
of its uniformed identity resembles the universe itself, can one find
that the non-self idea within this context?

I know that this is very philosophical, but this is how Buddhism's discussions have happened in the canon and the only way to discuss
deeper concepts. as i expecct my friends here to be more than
signposts that point directions, i have asked this here and i hope the
question is not going to be flagged or deleted because of its long and
philosophical nature.**

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

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

  The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who
  would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
  questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
  would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
  Why? Because it lies beyond range."
  - Sabba Sutta

Universe is a concept. What you call universe in reality is just eye & forms, ear & sounds etc. etc.

So the eye & forms are not-self, ear and sounds are not-self...
This idea you have been contemplating represents(in reality) just the mind and thoughts which are also not-self.


Are monks allowed to travel during the rain retreat? AFAIK, monks are not allowed to be away from their monasteries for more than 3 days during the rain season. But a monk I know had to travel out of the country due to some personal matter during this period for more than three days.

So I'm curious to know whether there are specific situations in Vinaya where the monks are allowed to break this rule?

If so, are they capable of receiving the Kathina robes?

It's seven days and only if there is a reason, in a specific (but long) list of potential reasons, mostly pertaining to Buddhist practice. The only true exception I can think of to the rule is the case of obstacles to keeping the rains. As Thanissaro explains:

  Mv.III.9.1–Mv.III.11.13 gives a long list of valid obstacles, which Pv.VI.4 divides into
  four sorts: dangers to life, dangers to the holy life, a threatened split in the Community,
  and an actual split in the Community.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc2.pdf


Which Chinese Buddhist schools were gradualist? There is a famous multicentury argument in the history of Chinese Buddhism as to if enlightenment is something achieved after gradual practice and improvement or something you realize or achieve in a flash of inspiration.

Which schools were gradualists? Was this an actual distinction or was this a rhetorical device? Are there any surviving (as in existing right now) gradualist schools? Was Tien Tai/Tendai/Nichiren Buddhism gradualist?

I'm not a scholar of Chinese Buddhism, all I known is that the gradual enlightenment tradition was referred to as "The Northern School of Chan" and the sudden enlightenment got known as "The Southern School of Chan". Googling for these two terms turns up some useful references. Let's see what we can learn from these...

Wikipedia articles on Chan Buddhism - Southern School, East Mountain Dharma Gate, Subitism - Chan, and Shenhui provide some historical information about the two approaches.

From all the evidence it looks like the distinction was made up and promulgated by Shenhui, the student of Huineng whose adversary Shenxiu was later portrayed as that infamous monk in the Platform Sutra who lost the famous verse contest for their common teacher Hongren of East Mountain Dharma Gate (the original Chan school tracing back to Bodhidharma himself).

Shenhui sharply criticized Shenxiu's Northern School's emphasis on ceremony and sutra study - and contrasted it with seated meditation of Huineng and the original East Mountain Dharma Gate:

  Shenhui traveled north to live amongst his ideological enemies in the capital city of Luoyang. While in the city he spoke publicly against the teachings of the Northern School:

...

  "[Northern School teachings] are the methods of the ignorant. ... In the six generations that have come before [!!! - AV], not a single person performed the practices of Shenxiu."

...

  This was a polemical exaggeration, since both schools were derived from the same tradition [of Bodhidharma, Daoxin, and Hongren - AV], and the so-called Southern School [the Shenhui's sect - AV] incorporated many teachings of the more influential Northern School [which was a direct descendant of the original Chan! - AV]. Eventually both schools died out, but the influence of Shenhui was so immense that all later Chan schools traced their origin to [Shenhui's teacher - AV] Huineng, and "sudden enlightenment" became a standard doctrine of Chan.

So it looks like it was a rhetorical device coined by Shenhui and popularized by the later Chan tradition to make a case for their "Meditation leading to A-ha Realization" method as an antipode to mere "ceremony and sutra study" which they felt was a degradation of Dharma.

From this standpoint I suppose we could say that any school that does not have a notion of Aha Realization could be considered a gradualist school.

Apparently the gradual approach traces its origins to Yogachara and even further back to Shurangama Sutra and Lankavatara Sutra (According to Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche, "The Surangama Sutra and the Lankavatara Sutra were the inspiration for Asanga and Vasubandhu to build their system of philosophy.") - while the sudden approach goes back to the prajna-paramita family of sutras.

From this I guess we could infer that those schools that taught Lankavatara and/or Shurangama sutras exclusively were probably the gradualist schools you are looking for.

Late Chan schools should be excluded by definition. It does look like the early East Mountain Dharma Gate was not gradualist either:

  [Daoxin, the founder of East Mountain Dharma Gate, advocated for] the unification of the teachings of the Lankavatara Sutra with those of the prajnaparamita sutras [family], which includes the well-known Heart and Diamond sutras.

One Chan school that stands apart is Caodong, the Chinese predecessor of Soto. Apparently it's a school that emphasizes silent illumination (through sitting meditation) without any end result whatsoever. There is simply "no goal to be attained beyond the practice itself." This makes this school neither gradualist nor subitist.

Before Bodhidharma and Chan, the Hua-yen school taught Avatamsaka Sutra, which apparently "integrates the teachings on śūnyatā and Yogacara thinking" - shunyata being an element of sudden realization. Before that, Tiantai school included Avatamsaka Sutra in its "classification of teachings" scheme, and mentioned "Gradual Teaching, for those with medium or inferior abilities vs Sudden Teaching for those with superior abilities". So Hua-yen and Tiantai are not gradualist in the strict sense of the word - although we can't call them subitist either.

The only remaining Chinese schools that I know of are Tangmi (tantric), Faxiang (yogacara), and Pure Land.

Looks like Tangmi did teach Surangama Sutra - and its Wikipedia article says:

  In Chinese Buddhism there was no major distinction between exoteric and esoteric practices and the Northern School of Chan even became known for its esoteric practices of dhāraṇīs and mantras.

Faxiang reportedly studied the Heart Sutra among other texts, which would put it into the "integrationist" camp in my book, along with Tientai and Hua-yen. As for the Pure Land, they say unlike in Japan in China it was never a distinct school but rather a tradition permeating other schools - including Chan.

To summarize, it looks like the only school that we can definitely call gradualist was Tangmi, the Chinese precursor of Shingon. If we were to grade schools from completely gradualist to integrative to subitist, Pure Land and Tangmi would be on the far left, then the integrationist schools like Faxiang, Tiantai and Hua-yen in the middle, followed by the early Chan (the first 5 generations from Bodhidharma to Hongren), followed by the late Chan, and finally Linji (Rinzai in Japan) on the far right with its kicking, yelling and koans. I'm not sure where to place Caodong and Soto Zen though - they could either go to the far left if we consider them "infinitely gradual" or somewhere near the middle if we assume their "the path is the goal" to be a clever upaya designed to help the student attain the non-attainment.

Alas for simple theories but this was fun. I learned a lot while working on this answer, so thank you for an interesting question.


How and when does one not invest in others in Buddhism? It is my understanding that there were instances that the Buddha discontinued the teachings to a number of people.

Putting aside the concept of me and others, i am often in the situation whereby i have continued to demonstrate that there are better ways to a given situation e.g. conflict, methodology, etc. People often continue down this path where it often leads to the very situation that could be avoided. This in turn results in more conflict, distrust, etc.

This often leads to a moment of befuddlement since i am unable to comprehend the nature of people. Although we appear to have evolved and consider ourselves civilized, rather than direct conflict, these often result in passive aggressiveness which further erodes relationships and growth since now people harbor negative or non-conducive emotions.

It also requires substantial emotional, mental and physical investment to help others.

How does one step away from 'teaching' or 'imparting' to others especially if one is in regular contact with them and depend on them to complete their responsibilities?

These kinds of questions will always be difficult to answer because we only have one side of the story. We lack the vital perspective that comes from a. knowing you, and b. knowing the people that you are in conflict with. The fact that you are in conflict, but don't seem to be able to acknowledge your part in creating the conflict tells me that I don't have the full story. However, one of my teachers gave me some excellent general advice on communication some years ago: he said that if a communication goes badly, then assume that you have not expressed enough mettā.

In order to relate empathetically one must drop one's own agenda (as teacher or benefactor) and try to feel what they feel and then ascertain the reasons they feel that way. One has to put oneself in their shoes. To do this one must drop all pretence of being superior and of having something to teach them. Drop all the conceit. If you have something they value, they'll ask you about it. That the situation has devolved to the extent you intimate, suggests that you are in conflict with their values. Perhaps you present yourself to them incongruously - you see yourself as having something to teach them, but they don't think of you as having anything to teach them.

I think one is already in trouble if one is modelling oneself on the Buddha or if one is relating to people on the basis of "teaching" them or having something to "impart". It sounds like this is getting in the way of you establishing an empathetic relationship with them. Is the problem that they refuse to see you as a "teacher"? Is that why you are labelling their response to you as "passive aggressive"?

The general principle of Buddhist ethics is that when things go wrong, that we looks for our own unskilful motivations. The unenlightened (dare I presume you are one of us?) are always motivated by attraction and aversion. Sometimes when things go wrong, one must just own up to one's own unskilful motivations. It can be difficult, because it is humiliating or humbling (depending on how you see it). In relating to other people we only have control of our side of the relationship. If things don't go right, we can only ask ourselves if our own attraction or aversion has soured things.

Of course there are times when it is better to walk away. If one realises that one is too entrenched in attraction and aversion to make a change, for example. Sometimes the necessary change is too great to manage in the short term. But one cannot blame the other. For this. If relations break down, it is our own failure. Generally speaking if we are expressing mettā rather than conceit, there is no need for relations to break down. Of course, it's a big ask.

But if the thought is "if only these people would follow my advice" then I would see this as problem of conceit, not of unreceptiveness.


Nirvana with benefits? Is the state of Nibbana the state of "not existing at all in any way" or is it nonexistence with benefits that are too deep to understand from the perspective of samsara? Does the only "bliss" pertaining to  Nibbana happen during the Arahant's life or when an arahant dies? Just to be clear (because I hear conflicting words concerning this) we will be "no more" if we become enlightened and the path is learning how to accept this, right?

My limited understanding is that 'I' never really was in the first place.  That which never appeared cannot vanish.  That which was never born cannot die.  The cycle of birth and death is broken by truly realizing that the entire cycle is predicated on ignorance.  Practice is the road to the eradication of ignorance, though doing good, avoiding evil and purifying this mind.


What is the significance of the 28 Buddhas within Buddhism? Recently, I discovered in the Pāli Canon there is a text titled Buddhavamsa that describes the lives of 28 Buddhas.  Now, I am familiar with the significance of Gautama Buddha and Maitreya Buddha, however not the previous 27 Buddhas.  I am curious, what is the religious significance of the previous 27 Buddhas for teaching  the dharma?  How does reflecting on the 27 or 29 Buddhas help one reach enlightenment?

Buddhist men at the Sule Pagoda in Yangon, Myanmar, paying homage to the 28 Buddhas described in Chapter 27 of the Buddhavamsa. Courtesy of DiverDave.

As a quick answer, I think we can think about how rare it is to have a Buddha and his teachings. It took so many Kalpas (aeon) for 28 Buddha to appear. So we can reflect on this and think how urgently we need to practice the Dhamma.


How is a Buddha able to do things beyond the laws of cause-and-effect? A Buddha/Bodhisattva is one who has Awakened and is free from some basic laws of the universe such as karma, reincarnation, the fetters, and various other afflictions.

In the sutras, such as the Surangama Sutra and Diamond Sutra, such Ones are also able to manifest many other effects -- well beyond beyond cause-and-effect, able to shape shift, squeeze thousands of beings into a small house, etc.

This is understandable considering that a One is already beyond cause-and-effect and thus would be able to manifest such things skillfully and according to needs.

So my question is... how is this possible?

According to my teacher, it is the transformation of the aggregates including form and volition... it is still within realm of cause-and-effect... a Buddha is not free from all laws of cause-and-effect.
I'd like to know what others know about this rather unimportant topic.

That sounds like it might be one of the Four Unconjecturables.

  "There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

  "The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[ 1 ] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

  "The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[ 2 ]

  "The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

  "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

  "These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

  Notes

  1.
  I.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha.

  2.
  I.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana.

But that is an interesting question. :)


Non duality - must it be transcendent I am exploring non duality. I tend to believe it's true but I'm not sure if I accept the transcendent element. Is it possible that this awareness is simply a deeper level of the mind ? That it's not part of God or a higher power. Not eternal?

From AN10.29:

  Someone perceives the meditation on universal earth above, below, across, non-dual and limitless.
  They perceive the meditation on universal water …
  the meditation on universal fire …
  the meditation on universal air …
  the meditation on universal blue …
  the meditation on universal yellow …
  the meditation on universal red …
  the meditation on universal white …
  the meditation on universal space …
  They perceive the meditation on universal consciousness above, below, across, non-dual and limitless.
  These are the ten universal dimensions of meditation.
  The best of these ten universal dimensions of meditation is when someone perceives the meditation on universal consciousness above, below, across, non-dual and limitless.
  Some sentient beings perceive like this.
  But even the sentient beings who perceive like this decay and perish.

Yes. It is not eternal.

The sutta ends with the Buddha declaring:

  But I do advocate the complete understanding of sensual pleasures, sights, and feelings. And I advocate complete extinguishment by not grasping in this very life, wishless, extinguished, and cooled.”

Regarding transcendance and theories of a self, SN12.2 may be of interest:

  There are these four kinds of grasping.
  Grasping at sensual pleasures, views, precepts and observances, and theories of a self.


Was Anuruddha, one of the ten Great Disciples of the Buddha, born in Sri Lanka? When I was searching for the translated name from Chinese 阿那律 to Sanskrit while attempting a comment on one post, I entered 阿那律 or Anuruddha to Google it came up with the list and the usual short brief at the right corner of the screen, to my amusement the brief said:

Anuruddha
Born: Sri Lanka

Though I open the brief the Wikipedia full page is Born: Kapilavastu, India
Is there a movement to relocate Buddhism (not just relocate, but part of the grand scheme to invent in the sense of re-invent Buddha's teachings) to be originated from Sri Lanka since the Sri Lankan Pali Canon is splendidly adored as the only authentic plus the most early Buddhism's teaching? - As the first step. Now here comes the next step to relocate Buddha gradually first by migrating :D !! one of his ten major disciples? I'm diligently waiting to be enlightened in this context.

Anuruddha-mahāsāmi (thai:anuruddhācāriya) was one of ancient saṅgarāja in sri lanka. He author abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, that is popular summary of  abhidhamma-pitaka.


Are there rules that prevent chaos in our world? Is it right to say that, if there is no supreme god, there must be a power or set of rules that prevents chaos in our world?

Isn't it natural that if the world is not ruled by god it must be exposed to some set of predetermined rules that prevent total chaos. I mean that the laws of physics are not enough power to keep the world (particularly our earth life) from running into total disorder.
For example according to Aggañña Sutta, the universe shrink and then expand in repeated cycles. I see here one of these predetermined rules - cycles.

My scientific education tells me that:

The world is as it is and behaves as it does (and is observed by people).
People (scientists) observe that behaviour and then invent rules which describe (or define) the behaviour.

Note that:

Those rules are not necessarily "pre-determined" (instead they're invented by people to describe the behaviour-of-the-world which they observe)
The world doesn't obey the rules, instead the rules are chosen to describe the world.

A Buddhist word for those rules is Dharma or Dhamma.

The Buddha is praised for his Dhamma, i.e. the Buddha discovered and explained a useful set of "rules" which we use to understand the world.


If someone says publicly that he has achieved nirvana , can it be true? When you achieve nirvana , you have given up yourself. There is no person anymore. But my question is , if someone says publicly that he is arahant, is there a possibility that it can be true?

From a Theravada perspective, the answer is probably "no".
While not being a sutta, the Milindapanha states if a layperson attains to Arahatship they either ordain as a monk or die.
If the layperson Arahant ordains as monk, the Vinaya forbids them making a public declaration.

Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed.
Page 263

As for the Buddha & monks that declared arahantship in the Pali suttas, if they used the personal pronoun "I", they were only speaking in conventional language. Refer to SN 1.25.


Is it true that arahants don't have sati? A couple of months ago someone tried to convince me that arahants no longer have sati.

He said that sati is like a raft in the sense that it should be given up as soon as the goal, arahantship, has been reached. To give more strength to his claim he also pointed out that sati is not one of the 10 parami (perfections).

I myself think that his claim is absurd, I think that arahants have nothing but sati. But, I'm neither a scholar nor an arahant. So, I can be wrong. I also don't understand the link he makes to the 10 parami.

Does someone have a reference or source from the tipitaka that would support or deny his claim without a doubt and put my mind at ease? And does someone understand the link he makes to the perfections?

He said that sati is like a raft in the sense that it should be given up as soon as the goal, arahantship, has been reached.

Sati is "non-forgetting" of the Dhamma Truth.

  To give more strength to his claim he also pointed out that sati is not one of the 10 parami (perfections).

This does not make sense because effort, determination, patience, etc are parami. Why would a mind that has destroyed/uprooted the defilements need effort, determination, patience, etc? Regardless, the Buddha never taught the 10 parami; particularly for Arahants.

  I myself think that his claim is absurd, I think that arahants have nothing but sati.

When the defilements are destroyed/uprooted; naturally the sati of a non-arahant (which includes the abandoning of wrong view) is not required. The sati of a non-arahant or learner is described as follows:

  One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.

  MN 117

This being said, the mind of an arahant obviously cannot forget the Dhamma Truth. Thus MN 117 also says:

  Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.

  MN 117

In short, the sati of an arahant is automatic because an arahant can never forget the Dhamma Truth.


What is kriyacitta according to various Buddhist schools? And to whom does it arise?
Also know as the Smile of the Arahant (hard to look On google)

Asking for a friend. Pass this on wont you?

Kriya citta is functional consciousness, meaning it performs a function without being karmically potent. In an arahant, it replaces kusala citta. An arahant does not create karma so their seemingly wholesome mind states are called kriya (functional).

Specifically, there are eight types of sahetuka-kāmāvacara-kriyā-citta - functional consciousness in the sensual sphere which have wholesome roots (non-greed, non-anger, non-delusion) and nine sahetuka-kriyā--jhāna-citta corresponding to the nine jhāna which also have wholesome roots. All of these arise only in arahants.

There are three additional ahetuka-kriyā-citta (rootless functional consciousness), one of which is the smile producing consciousness that occurs only to arahants. The other two are the adverting consciousnesses present in every mind process.


Explain consciousness (viññāna) to non-Buddhists Problem

In discussions on Buddhist term consciousness (viññāna) with non-Buddhists, it's imperative to start with talking about life in general because---to my understanding---life after all is the physical body we possess with consciousness, i.e., we wouldn't call a physical body without consciousness a life form.

Some non-Buddhists I talked with define life as simply an arbitrary biological phenomena. For example, we humans have sensors, sensor signals are interpreted by a complicated neural network in the brain, decisions and interpretations made as a result are conveyed around the body accordingly, and the motor actions take care of the rest. That's with regard to actions. Thinking is simply a neurological decision process made in the brain. Also, according to them the birth is a result of a sperm and an egg and death 'cos the heart stops.

All fair explanations. But, before even introducing the concept of this continuous consciousness that continues from one life form to another, all is understood biologically. Life is birth + (actions + thinking) + death. All done.

The continuous consciousness that I'm addressing here (that I want to explain to others) is what I have learnt to be what continues whatever the life form we take till Nibbana.

Question

How would you initiate one to step out of the above box of reasoning and get 'em to think of consciousness? What would be your line of reasoning to counter the above biological reasoning?

Note:
 1. Feel free to change the question if you think its wording is not exact or not understandable.
 2. The counter arguments I requested are purely for the sake of explanation. I've no personal interest in engaging in word-fights!
 3. Consider all sub questions in Question above as one question.

It sounds like you're trying to explain consciousness within a framework that supports rebirth to people who understand consciousness in a (materialistic) framework that won't allow for rebirth. Seeing consciousness as tied to an organism and the development of consciousness in an organism leaves no room for the "migration" of consciousness required for rebirth to work.

Am I correct in understanding this difficulty?

If so, you could try the following...

Get people to abandon materialism.  For many, this is the same as asking them to abandon science.
Explain rebirth in a materialistic framework.  If consciousness is a property of structure, rather than organism then a rebirth mechanism exists by simply having the same structure arise in the future.  Karmic imprints could be explained by neuro-plasticity (which is said to be affected by meditation).  Still, they may ask what happens if this structure is replicated now (and why wouldn't it be, given how much life we have?).

An alternative is to look at the big picture.  If you are trying to introduce people to Buddhism, why mention rebirth?  The Buddhist path is identical, whether or not one believes in rebirth.  Further, many are attracted to Buddhism (or at least it's secularized variant popular in the west) precisely because of its less supernatural nature.  Introducing rebirth therefore might cause them to abandon Buddhism.  For many, if it's a choice between Buddhism and Science, then Science will win, no contest.


Is it correct that dependent origination will cease to exist if one doesn't have 12 nidanas? From Pratītyasamutpāda - Wikipedia:

  dependent origination refers to nothing else but the process of mental conditioning as described by the twelve nidanas

So to check if my understanding is correct, will dependent origination cease to exist if one doesn't have 12 nidanas?

In my understanding, dependant origination is just an extended understanding of "condition". For example, if I say "plants need water, soil and light to grow", then water, soil and light are the originations. This doesn't seem to relate to the mental condition of the observer. So how do the two relate?

And in general, how does one know that all dependent originations of a thing are "depleted"?

will dependent origination cease to exist if one doesn't have 12 nidanas?

Yes.

  In my understanding, dependant origination is just an extended understanding of "condition". For example, if I say "plants need
  water, soil and light to grow", then water, soil and light are the
  originations. This doesn't seem to relate to the mental condition of
  the observer. So how do the two relate?

'Paticcasumuppada' ('Dependent Co-Arising') is the subset of 'Idappaccayatā' ('Conditionality') that explains the 12 conditions for the arising of mental suffering. The suttas say:

  And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
  condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
  condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition
  come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
  condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
  feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
  craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From
  clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering.

The conditionality related to the arising or coming-to-be of trees is not called 'Paticcasumuppada'. The arising of trees is merely an example of general 'Idappaccayatā'.

  And in general, how does one know that all dependent originations of a thing are "depleted"?

This question is not valid because not all examples or occurrences of 'Idappaccayatā' are 'Paticcasumuppada'. The mind (while living) can experience the depletion of 'Paticcasumuppada' but the mind (while living) cannot experience the depletion of 'Idappaccayatā'. Even though the suffering of 'Paticcasumuppada' can end; the 'Idappaccayatā' of Nature will continue to be discerned. In short, suffering can end but trees will continue to grow, clouds will continue to form, the body will continue to live nourished by food, consciousness will continue to operate conditioned by sense organs, etc.


Dhammapada is not "a teaching of the Buddha himself"? A "moderator" from certain sect, corrected a post (not sure why it came up there...), telling:

Dhammapada is not "a teaching of the Buddha himself". Jains have a text which is 90% the same, so looks like it comes from before Buddha.

It would be interesting to read this pre-Buddha-Dhammapada, is such actually exist, to possible look then if it is "the same" or just as such assume-able, as:

...there are Jain anthologies that contain verses clearly related to some of those found in these Buddhist anthologies...

So the question here would be to react, either with support or with rejecing such claims (which have serious effects if wearing a mods hat), in ways that may provide things possible new to the Buddhas gathering.
Wishing inspired and concentrated googleing.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]

None of the teachings were from the Buddha "himself".
Although, that is the "truth" I cannot explain why; and neither can anyone else that knows.
Experience for oneself the teachings as real... that's all to be grasped at, until "beyond teaching" occurs. Living Dhamma is basically the same thing Christians call the living word. However, expecting anyone else to "save you" is delusion the concept of Christ is the same as the Buddhist concept of: Anagamin (once returner) To hell with all that waiting and suffering those those poor people are bringing and doing to the world!
Arhat same thing as a Buddha. A Buddha is said to arise once every hundred years from any and all traditions from all walks of life...
Get to know the skandhas... that's my advice; those are the bridges built between the three poisons. See Jealousy trying to be a bridge between greed and hate; without jealousy greed and hate can't even form can't even link up... the entire mass known as house builder falls apart.


How important is javana to the jhanas? What role if any do javana play in learning and entering the jhanas? I'm reading a book on jhana and javana was brought up but i couldn't really understand the role it play in the jhanas.

I would say that this word has been conflated and in my experience unnecessary for entering jhana. please refer to the instructions on how to enter jhana found in the Sutta Pitaka.


What are the scientifically proven benefits of mindfulness meditation? Has anyone got a good idea which benefits of mindfulness meditation have got decent scientific evidence supporting them. It would be great it someone could point to good publicly available research or authoritative sites and maybe summarise the research and perhaps the people/organisations doing it.

I'm personally convinced of the benefits due to my own personal experience but I'm interested what the scientific community is saying. I'm sure there is a lot of research out there but I find distilling it overwhelming.

The USA's NIH has an NCCAM page for meditation with links to up-to-date research on the benefits of meditation:

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/meditation

Asking for scientific proof is a bit misguided, I think, and in the case of meditation it's difficult to obtain even conclusive evidence. Many of the studies are suggestive at best, but the topics studied include:

Smoking Cessation
Reducing Risk of Suicidal Thoughts
Treating Ulcerative Colitis
Effecting Genetic Changes (esp. prostate)
Treating Acute Respiratory Infections
Reducing Severity of IBS in Women
Effecting Structural Changes and Improving Information Processing in the Brain
Coping With Stress
Improving Cell-Level Processes Related to Disease
Cultivating Empathy


How do we help people who have wrong views? There are lot of wrong views in other religions but there are even some Buddhist who have wrong views. They don’t believe in rebirth and karma. And they say that they are metaphors. They seems to be clinging to the annihilationist view. According to MN 117 and other suttas, right view is believing that there is the fruits of good and bad karma and this is this world and the next world. The next world is where you will go according to your karma after death.

  "Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view.

  "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

  "And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.

How do we help them abandon wrong views? If the Buddha was still alive then he could perform some miracles to show that there are more than just what we see with the eye.

Before proceeding further, we should note that miracles should not play any role in convincing intelligent and rational people. Devadatta, the monk who tried to injure the Buddha and cause a schism in the monastic order, was reportedly able to perform miraculous feats. Buddhism does not teach that miracles are any kind of proof of correctness or enlightenment.

When you see people around you, you may think some of them hold wrong views and some of them hold right views, and you want to help them.

Of the people whom you think hold wrong views, I think we should separate them into two categories.

The first category are people who act in obviously unvirtuous ways, causing harm to themselves and others. For e.g. people who kill sentient beings, intentionally harm others, steal from others, deceive others etc. These are people who need urgent help, both for their own benefit and for the benefit of society.

If these people are close to you, like your friends or family members, you can try to help them. After all, sharing of Dhamma (the teachings of the Buddha) is considered the greatest type of sharing according to Itivuttaka 100.

You could gently influence them to think in this way (according to AN 5.57):

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

The second category would be those who you think do not understand the teachings of the Buddha, as well as you do. I think we should tread carefully on this, because it might lead to some Buddhists pointing fingers at other Buddhists, creating a culture of accusing others of heresy and having hostile debates, as we have seen even right here on Buddhism.SE.

According to MN 28, to understand dependent origination, is to understand the Dhamma fully. Also see this answer.

According to DN 15:

  There Ven. Ananda approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
  bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting
  there he said to the Blessed One: "It's amazing, lord, it's
  astounding, how deep this dependent co-arising is, and how deep its
  appearance, and yet to me it seems as clear as clear can be."

  [The Buddha:] "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Deep is this
  dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It's because of not
  understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is
  like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and
  reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of
  deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.

Dependent origination or dependent co-arising is not a simple topic and many people who think they understand it, may not fully understand it. Without understanding dependent origination completely, it may not be possible to have complete and unblemished Right View.

But to gain a complete understanding of dependent origination and the Dhamma is a long journey that involves studying the Dhamma, practising the Dhamma and gaining insight into the nature of things. An afternoon of reading or discussion may not be sufficient.

With regards to the topic of rebirth, you can direct others to read the essays "The Truth of Rebirth: And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and "Rebirth" and "Does Rebirth Make Sense?" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. I think they are clear enough. Also this answer on Buddhism.SE is pretty concise and accurate.


Where is the Buddha quoted as saying do not believe anything I say until you can prove it by yourself? If I remember rightly the Buddha is quoted as saying something along the lines of:

  Do not believe anything I say until you can prove it by yourself

In what text(s) of the Buddhist cannon is this quoted?

The quote comes from Kalama Sutra (AN 3.65) and is often taken out of context, hence misunderstood.

People of Kalama found themselves bombarded by tens of spiritual teachers, each claiming authority and expertise in spiritual matters. These teachers' doctrines were rather different from each other, but each was presented as The truth. Each teacher seemed quite certain of himself and was able to articulate the teaching logically.

When Buddha on one of his tours around the country arrived at Kalama and presented his teaching, the citizens honestly told him, that what he posits as The truth, to them looks like yet another teaching. "Is there any way" they asked, "that we can figure out which of these teachings is real?"

And that's when Buddha gave his famous answer, the point of which:

It is by its results that a teaching should be evaluated.

A teaching can be elaborate and logical, with precise definitions. According to some people's preconceptions, these are the marks of a true teaching.
A teaching  could be profound, deep and mysterious. Some people assume, if chasm is deep and they can't see the bottom, there must be something in there.
A teaching could match student's view of the world, e.g. the scientific worldview, or a spiritual worldview, or both. Many people interpret Kalama Sutra this way, that they should not believe a teaching unless it matches "common sense". They don't seem to realize that what they assume as common sense is in fact the very tangle of preconceptions that holds them in Samsara.
A teaching could go against student's preconceptions and introduce a completely new theory of everything. Some students are very excited about such esoteric teachings and their eyes glaze over teachers that, in their opinion, profanate Dharma by assuming it speaks about our everyday lives.
A teacher can look confident and speak well, or be soft-spoken and funny, like Dalai Lama. Many people find it hard to relate to a teacher who mismatches their archetype of Sage or Wise Old Man.

According to Buddha, all these are secondary factors, that can't be used as identifying markers of Sat-Dharma (True/Eternal Law/Tradition). Instead, it is by the effects it brings out, both in student's psyche as well as in the world, that a teaching should be measured.

Sat-Dharma is famously good in the beginning, good in the middle and good in the end.

Good in the beginning means, even the outermost layer of Dharma, the one seen by non-Buddhists, has good influence on people. Even the laypeople who don't really practice, but are merely guided by basic Dharma principles, benefit from it. They find that Dharma not only happens to match their highest secular moral and wisdom, but that while secular moral is often too flexible, the compass of Dharma never wavers. When followed at large, True Dharma must lead to reduced suffering and increased harmony in daily lives of common people.

Good in the middle means, when someone practices a slightly superficial version of Dharma, without fully understanding it yet, it greatly reduces amount of suffering one generates inside and around. Student learns to watch his mind and recognize its state, learns to stay mindful of the body and notice arising emotions, learns to not let harmful thoughts and emotions control him, learns to let go of attachments and preconceptions. This leads to increased quality of life, as the student can now stay cool through various life challenges.

Good in the end means, one eventually arrives at Liberating Realization, whereby one is no longer dominated by arbitrary formations, but can instead juggle formations freely.

While some kind of "Good in the end" is obviously the goal of all alternative teachings, it is "Good in the middle" and "Good in the beginning" that is a characteristic mark of True Dharma.

So when Gotama said, "do not believe anything I say until you can prove it by yourself" (or however you want to put it), this is what he meant. He did not mean we should reject a teaching unless it matches our preconceptions. He meant we should evaluate a teaching by its effect on our lives. The proof is in the pudding.


Can meditation strengthen the sense of self? When I practice mindfulness meditation I can sometimes become acutely aware of my sense of self. It seems to go from a dull background awareness of self to a feeling that the sense of self is very pervasive and almost invasive into all aspects of experience. Naively I would expect that meditation would have the opposite affect and weaken the sense of self. In fairness sometimes it does but sometimes it appears to have this opposite effect.

Is that a documented result of meditation. Is there advice out there from established teachers (of any schools) about working with this? Is it just me? Has anyone got advice based on their own experience?

Just do what you're doing. When you notice your self, don't fight it. Your sense of self is there for a purpose. The purpose is to find out the cause. Once the cause of self is found, the cause is removed. When the cause is removed, self ceases.

When meditation is done gently, spontaneously, peacefully, one becomes absorbed in meditation. When one is absorbed in meditation, thinking ceases. When thinking ceases, self ceases.


What dietary practices are most helpful for reaching enlightenment? Gandhi, a Hindu ascetic, was adamant that the spiritual well being of a person was not disconnected from one's diet.  He said "The body was never meant to be treated as a refuse bin, holding all the foods that the palate demands."  Do the different sects of Buddhism have recommended dietary regimens?  If so, what are they?

In some of the Suttas in which the Buddha describes the gradual training leading to enlightenment there is the following stock passage:

  "Now, when a disciple of the noble ones is consummate in virtue in
  this way, guards the doors to his sense faculties in this way, knows
  moderation in eating in this way, is devoted to wakefulness in this
  way, is endowed with seven qualities in this way, and obtains at will
  — without trouble or difficulty — the four jhanas that constitute
  heightened awareness and a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now in this
  way, then he is called a disciple of the noble ones who follows the
  practice for one in training, whose eggs are unspoiled, who is capable
  of breaking out, capable of awakening, capable of attaining the
  supreme rest from the yoke."

(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html)

This is explained in other places like so:

  "And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case
  where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not
  playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for
  beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this
  body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life,
  thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new
  feelings [from overeating]. Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless,
  & live in comfort.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating."

(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.037.than.html)

As for Monks in the Theravada school, they only eat a single meal a day and do it before noon (although they are allowed to divide that meal into portions and have rice gruel before almsround). This kind of practice is also part of the 8 precepts that laypeople sometimes voluntarily undergo. The Buddha described the benefits of this practice here:

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was wandering on a
  tour of Kasi with a large community of monks. There he addressed the
  monks: "I abstain from the night-time meal.[1] As I am abstaining from
  the night-time meal, I sense next-to-no illness, next-to-no
  affliction, lightness, strength, & a comfortable abiding. Come now.
  You too abstain from the night-time meal. As you are abstaining from
  the night-time meal, you, too, will sense next-to-no illness,
  next-to-no affliction, lightness, strength, & a comfortable abiding."

(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.070.than.html)

As can be seen, it isn't so much what you eat as how you relate to eating. If you eat with the attitude of caring for your health rather than for sheer pleasure, that will support your practice. Because this teaching is aimed at monks however, it is not required for a layperson to renounce eating food for the purpose of pleasure. It is only a recommended practice for laypeople.

On the subject of eating meat, the Buddha laid down three restrictions. In the Jivaka Sutta the Buddha said:

  "Jeevaka, those who say, that living things are killed on account of
  the recluse Gotama, and he partakes that knowing, because it was
  killed on account of him. They are not my words, and they blame me
  falsely. Jeevaka, I say that on three instances meat should not be
  partaken, when seen, heard or when there is a doubt. I say, that on
  these three instances meat should not be partaken. I say, that meat
  could be partaken on three instances, when not seen, not heard and
  when there is no doubt about it."

(Source: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/055-jivaka-e1.html)

In this particular sutta the Buddha not only permitted meat, but rejected the idea that eating meat is inherently evil. This fits in with the Buddha's other teachings on morality that Karma goes by intention. The killing involved with meat is too far removed from the eating of it to automatically make eating meat morally wrong.

That doesn't mean that it is wrong to be a vegetarian however. If out of compassion one desires to support the welfare of animals by vegetarianism I think that is a beautiful thing. It is just something above and beyond what is morally required of a person.