Helping Others Who Still Need to Suffer due to karma I was wondering if helping others who are suffering prevents them from receiving their karmic dues.

For example, if Person X caused great suffering to others, then according Buddhism, his Karma will come back to haunt him in the same life or a next life. Now suppose, he does suffer in another future life but a Good Samaritan rescues him before all his karmic debts are paid. The Good Samaritan improves his karma account with the good deed but he has still rescued someone who still has a debt to pay to society.

How can one justify helping others in this case? I'm not trying to find fault with Buddhism.

Karma is not meant as a punishment or retribution or debt to be paid which you are not to interfere with. It is complicated with many interactions. The environment has to fall into place for its results to be seen.

If the environment can influence the effects of Karma, it can be eradicated or changed in some cases. Since Karma is complex you you cannot say for sure.

By helping others your can help lighten the burden of their Karma and in some cases counteract the bad Karma altogether.

Also this is the good Karma for the person doing it.


You are simply seeing light touching your eyes I was listening to a buddhist monk talking about masturbation addiction and his advice about it:

When you see the human body or these sexual acts on a screen or
magazine page you are not actually seeing these things. You are
simply seeing light touching your eyes. And when you can come to
this realization, where seeing is simply seeing, then you will have no
thought of the person's hair, teeth, beasts, etc. There is only
seeing. So you are able to see anything and see it simply for what it
is. Thus there is no connection made. Seeing is seeing, because that's
what it is. You don't see a human body and say that it is beautiful,
because you realize it's ridiculous to say that, because this is
simply light touching my eyes

I have difficulty to understand what the monk means by that, what is the difference between seeing a screen and the "seeing light touching your eyes"
Could you give me some pointers ?

In our minds, we have the idea of "I am the thinker" i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.
When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.
Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.
These examples go to show that objects do not have the meaning given to it by the mind. In fact, some of these are not even objects, except that they have been objectified by the mind.
What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.
What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.
This concept is called papanca, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.
This does not mean that things don't exist, except in my mind. It means that things don't exist as how my mind thinks it does.
From your question, you talked about seeing, let's say, attractive people on a screen. To an ant, it's just lights of different colors. If a mouse sees them - it's just an image of what it may perceive as humans - a threat. But to you, they are attractive people.  So why are they "attractive people"? It's because that's how your mind objectified and classified them relative to yourself. That's how your mind reified them. That's papanca.
Fully enlightened persons like the Buddha and the arahants see things the way they are, without objectifying and classifying them relative to the idea of the self.


Did the Buddha Meditate? This may come off as a very strange question. From small days I have been taught Buddhism, not in the way it should have been, but in a way which took most stories and teachings for granted.  Those who know Buddhism know that Lord Buddha attained enlightenment on a Vesak Poya day (a full moon in May). According to Theravada teachings (and maybe even Mahayana I am not sure) what came next was seven weeks of very "Holy" or special events/activities concerning Lord Buddha. First of which was the "Animisa Locana Pooja" where the Buddha was believed to have shown gratitude to a Bo tree. Later on was a week named "Ruwan Sakmana" where the Buddha meditated while walking. This I found very strange. A Buddha is a person who has found the ultimate liberation from all the sorrows, one whose kindness and compassion has no bounds. Laymen meditate to basically calm themselves and to improve "Maithri"/ kindness. Why does an enlightened being meditate? I doubt a Buddha would just meditate to pass time! My opinion is that a Buddha does not meditate because he does not need to do it anymore. But does a Buddha meditate?

I can't find the reference at the moment but if I recall correctly, the Buddha continued to meditate after enlightenment for two reasons, according to the Theravada tradition: (1) To dwell in a pleasant abiding here and now (jhana) (2) to set an example for his followers


What Gautam Buddha said about "self", in Chapter Three of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra? From this site, I found the following saying of Buddha:

  "You, monks, should not thus cultivate the  notion (samjna) of impermanence, suffering and non-Self, the notion of impurity and so forth, deeming them to be the true meaning [of the Dharma], as those people [searching in a pool for a radiant gem but foolishly grabbing hold of useless pebbles, mistaken for priceless treasure] did, each thinking that bits of brick, stones, grass and gravel were the jewel. You should train yourselves well in efficacious means. In every situation, constantly meditate upon [bhavana] the idea [samjna] of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure ... Those who, desirous of attaining Reality [tattva], meditatatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like that wise person [who obtained the genuine, priceless gem, rather than worthless detritus misperceived as the real thing.]
  - The Buddha, Chapter Three, "Grief",The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

Now, as I know this saying is exactly monistic & found in some hindu philosophies like Advait Vedanta & Kashmiri Shaivism. This practice in Advait Vedanta is called manana; and in KS, Shuddha Bhāvna/Vikalpa under Sāktopāye - Herein you practice not to identify yourself with something (body, mind etc) which you are not.  In other words I think it seems to teach the same as,

  It is not with the body identification that you should sit for meditation. It is the knowledge "I am" that is meditating on itself.

  Nisargadatta Maharaj

My question is why Gautam Buddha talked about "self" (that it is eternal, blissful, etc.)? I may not be getting context, so what's the context and explanation?

The Buddha would have spoken about self as reference point. This is using conventional language and terms to explain something. Without using conventional language as medium you cannot communicate and when using conventional languages you end up using conventional terms. It is very had to have a vocabulary in terms of ultimate realities since  only few have experienced it any terms coined will not have bearing on people who has not experienced it. Since the Dhamma is taught for people who has not experienced the ultimate realities it should be in conventional terms.

Having said that any conception that there is a self or there is not self is an extreme view and also conceptual construction.

  The second mistaken inference is that, given the thoroughness with which the Buddha teaches not-self, one should draw the inference that there is no self. This inference is treated less explicitly in this discourse, although it is touched upon briefly in terms of what the Buddha teaches here and how he teaches.

Alagaddupama Sutta - Translator's Introduction by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Also see: Sutta references which Discuss Self and Not Self under Different Contexts


Best study tools on the net or books I currently don't have a teacher and I'm looking for good study guides for the sutta's. I mean I'm reading them but when it comes to interpretation often I'm at a loss. Is there a source(s) or book(s) that can help with this? I know they're is no substitute for s teacher but until such time I'm working on my on.

Piya Tan at http://dharmafarer.org has translations and commentary of many of the suttas. Using the "sitemap" on the right or bottom of the page, you can find specific suttas (sorted by number), or, his "sutta discovery (SD) series" which is sorted thematically.

Some people disagree with [some of] his commentary (see e.g. this topic).


Does anyone know where it is possible to identify a lama incarnation? Hi I'm just seeking advice if it is possible to identify a Lama incarnation, whom to speak to etc.

In Tibetan Buddhism, the procedure is AFAIK only documented for Tulku (high-ranking Lamas):

When an old tulku dies, a committee of senior lamas convenes to find
the young reincarnation. The group may employ a number of methods in
their search. First, they will probably look for a letter left behind
by the departed tulku indicating where he intends to be born again.
They will ask the close friends of the departed to recall everything
he said during his last days, in case he may have given hints. Often,
an oracle is consulted. Sometimes a prominent lama has a dream that
reveals details of the child's house, parents, or of geographical
features near his home. Sometimes heaven presents a sign, perhaps a
rainbow, leading the search party to the child.

See The Tibetan Tradition of Recognizing Reincarnate Lamas


How do we guarantee the accuracy and validity of Buddhist scriptures? In this site participators draw statements from "Buddhist scriptures" (Suttas), considering them pure and directly from Buddha's words.
Some of these statements [seem] closer to fantasy, supernaturals, assumptions and speculations; and few are false statements (e.g "thoughts are generated in heart" is mentioned in Abhidharma). Also information extracted from Buddhist scriptures are mixed with Hindu concepts as milk and water (most of original Buddhist scriptures were destroyed in Thakshila). In the kalama sutta it mentions that to completely depend on scriptures is useless.
So how it can be verified statements exactly from Buddha himself (not as a label or maintain faith) just to get progress of right learning and confidence? Buddhism has history of 2500 years, and scriptures were produced around 300 years after death of Buddha. So how do we guarantee the accuracy and validity of thousands of Buddhist scriptures?

Here's another example:

Then Ānanda, listen and attend carefully, I will tell.
The Blessed One said: Ānanda, as long as the moon and sun illuminate the directions, till then the thousandfold world systems will prevail, with a thousand, moons, suns, Mahameru mountains, Indian peninsulars, Aparagoyanas, Uttarakurus, Pubhavidehas, fourfold oceans, fourfold rulers, fourfold guardian kings, heavens of the thirty-three, heavens of Titan gods, heavens of happiness, heavens of the gods of creation, heavens of the gods who create others, worlds of Brahma. Ānanda, to this is called the thousandfold Cūlanika world system. Ānanda, as long as the thousandfold Cūlanika world system prevails till then the thousandfold world system, calls this the two thousandfold middle world system. Ānanda, as long as the two thousandfold middle world element prevails till then the thousandfold world system calls this the three thousandfold and the great thousandfold world system. Ānanda, if the Thus Gone One desires, he announces to the three thousandfold and the great thousandfold world system.

These statements in suttas are closer to fantasy and speculations. How do you explain these with modern cosmology?

I think you are forgetting that those world systems, mythology about the creation and evolution of man, gods, Brahma, etc. were all 100% real to the people of the Buddha's time based on what information they had.  If it makes it easier for you, feel free to reimagine them with the scientific terminology of today.  My expectation, however, is that in 2,500 years, all of those cutting edge theories are going to seem at little quaint, dated, and mostly likely wildly, wildly wrong.

What doesn't change, however, are the core principles of liberation.  These are not dependent on any creation story (as the truths of, say, Christianity are) but are instead derived from direct insight into how suffering is caused by craving.  While you are unlikely to meet any Nagas anytime soon, you are guaranteed to find yourself facing down all of the obstacles to liberation mentioned in the suttas.  The means given for overcoming them will also remain valid so long as there are humans able to hear them.


Does Buddhism allow for true randomness? Is the law of dependent origination completely deterministic? If everything is dependent, there should be no true randomness. The current mainstream view of the physicists is that true randomness does exist, that is, it is something inherent to the reality, and not just our uncertainty about the current state of the world. In other words, they believe that there is such thing as a true source of randomness. Is this viewpoint incompatible with the Buddhist doctrine? Or does dependent origination allow for some degree of non-determinism?

Dependent origination is not the same as determinism, and is not incompatible with the hypothesis that some things occur truly randomly.

You may take a look at the question about free will - Buddhism does not say there is no free will. Also the question about dependent origination and right effort may be of use - the following part of the accepted answer shown that it doesn't exclude the possibility of non-determinism:

  When dependent origination is taught in the suttas, often what seems to be stressed are, literally, conditions, not causes as we often understand them (eg. agents that actively produce or directly contribute to a result)


Buddhist philosophy and "events" By "event" I mean something that happens over some interval of time.

Am I right that for Buddhists, intervals don't exist (everything lasts only for an instant): so neither do events?

If so may I ask about the experience of "now" or the present: i.e. the experience of impermanence?

Is the experience of impermanence an event (i.e. with duration) or is it too only an instant?

Buddhist philosophy of anatta challenges the notion of "entities" - objects with identity, independent of the rest of the world and observer.

Instead, here is an alternative: try and see the world as a connected network of causation, with a system of nominal entities overlaid on top. In other words, consider that entity is a construct of the mind. (This simplifies things a bit, as the network of causation is a concept as well, and even the mind itself is dependently co-determined by its objects - for those Madhyamaka nitpickers - but stay with me). What's important is to understand that the real world is not discrete. Discreteness is mind-made.

If we extend this from spatial to temporal relationships, we can see that event is a temporal counterpart of an entity. Indeed, event is something that has a definite identity, beginning, life span, and end. Exactly like an object. In our mind event is separated from its context, from the rest of the stuff going on before, in parallel with, and after.

But in actuality, that's never the case. Objects and events don't exist by themselves. At first approximation we can say they arise from causes and conditions - so when those conditions and causes come together, thereby is an object or event. And when some of those conditions and causes fall apart (the necessary ones) - the object or event is no longer.

If we look more carefully though, we will notice that causes and conditions don't live in isolation either - they are infinitely forking and joining, infinitely interacting. So it is the mind that picks a subset of causes and conditions to focus on and label; the mind assembles an object that would satisfy mind's predispositions. Similarly, the mind assembles an event, assigns it with identity, and cognizes its beginning, span, and ending.

So it's not that events don't exist because everything lasts only an instant. Events don't exist because they are discrete constructs, overlaid on the (analogue?) fabric of reality.

The experience of any (assembled!) entity or event is necessarily subject to beginning and ending, subject to impermanence. Because an assembled object cannot exist once its constituents fall apart. What you call "now" is itself an assembled entity. It depends on a number of conditions coming together in a certain way. When those conditions following their natural courses fall apart, that particular "now" is no longer, and a new "now" is assembled.

Because we ourselves delineate the entities/events, we can choose the level of granularity to apply. We can designate big objects (systems of components) and big events (massive events) - or we can observe at the small scale. (Check out "Hierarchy Theory" by Valerie Ahl for a modern treatment of this thought.) So is with observation of present, it is up to us to decide when the given present has begun and when it has ended. Ground reality is analogue, not discrete. (Technically speaking, both analogue and discrete are two sides of the same coin, two truths are really one and the same truth.) "Now" is not instantaneous nor an interval. It's a nominal designation.

All experienced phenomena are mere products of conceptualization, merely nominal entities without any ultimate existence. Therefore sentient existence necessarily involves suffering that comes from mismatch between the concept and reality.

The mistake we make by default is to assume that experienced reality is made of stable entities. Then we build expectations around this assumption, and then we suffer. So once we know the trick, we can see through it. But because the nature of mind is to fabricate experience, it keeps doing it whether we want it or not. Not just fabricate, but use these fabrications as foundations for its interpretation and decision-making activity. There is simply no other way to operate. So all our experience and behavior is necessarily based on layers upon layers of fabricated quasi-stable virtual structures. Which means suffering will inevitably sneak in here and there. But at least now we can include the above in our working model of reality, and account for the non-substantiality in our interpretation and decision-making activity. So even when we have to walk on illusions, we know what we are doing, and are ready to deal with it once they collapse. It may still be painful when it happens, but we will have expected it, and will minimize the damage as much as we can. This is the extent to which there is an escape from suffering.


What will be a video game version of Buddhist Samsara be like? I am designing an educational computer simulation to explain the Buddhist concept of Samsara. The gameplay will consist of players interacting with the simulated environment and other players. One of the concepts of the game will be if you are doing creative actions with other players or environment then your Karma points will increase and you will get more powers if you do destructive things like shoot someone with a gun, you will be reduced of Karma points. Based on them you will be transferred to different levels.

This is one of my ideas I will be implementing. Can you help me with more ideas related to the Buddhist understanding of what Samsara is? This should be educational about Buddhist Samsara.

Whenever you die, it shows a blind turtle, in a deep slumber, in the depth of the ocean. At the surface of the ocean, a small yoke moves around randomly. You have to wait for days before you can actually control the blind turtle. You have to get the turtle to surface, and to pass its head through the yoke. If you succeed, you get one chance on two to get a good rebirth.

Then, you control your mental consciousness (like the spirit/soul in World of Warcraft) but instead of finding your body back, you have to find parents that are having sex. Of course, you only see the parents of the class you can, according to your karma and the turtle test.

Every time you are reborn, you get another body, your character is of another race, another class, etc. Whatever you were previously familiar with will come a little bit easier to you.

Your body grows and decays and even if you are not killed, you'll die of old age or sickness eventually. Your mind also degenerates with time and you forget your skills and lose your items.


What is Navayana Buddhism? Recently, I found out there is a new branch of Buddhism called the Navayana.  I read the article on Wikipedia but it did not say too much.  What is Navayana Buddhism and what type of practices does it follow like meditations, sutras, or tantras?  How does a Navayana Buddhist relate to Buddhist of different schools?

Navayana is a proposed fourth major branch of Buddhism after Hinayana (sorry not a great term), Mahayana and Vajrayana. I believe it is a term claimed by the Dalit Buddhist movement which I am most familiar with in the context of Dr Ambedkar - in fact I recently have heard the movement is called Ambedkerism.

The Buddhist Centre that I practice with is a Triratna Buddhist Centre. Like Ambedkerism it sees itself as a reforming movement tailored to the concerns of modern society. The definition of the movements aims is very similar to our own (quoting from here)

  [Ambedkerism] espouse an eclectic version of Buddhism, primarily based
  on Theravada, but with additional influences from Mahayana and
  Vajrayana. On many subjects, they give Buddhism a distinctive
  interpretation

Moreover the Indian branches of the Triratna movement see themselves as continuing the work of  Dr Ambedkar. One of the major Triratna charities, the Karuna Trust, was set up to support this work.

The point is this - I practice in a context explicitly linked to Ambedkerism and therefore according to Wikipedia in a Navayana context. However I haven't heard of this term used but I do believe the concept has meaning and merit so I'm basing my answer on that.

The key point to Triratna/Ambedkerism and therefore Navayana is a return to the roots of Buddhism and a distillation of the previous yanas to potentially create a new form of Buddhism. Though radical, I don't think this should come as surprising or shocking because ...

When Buddhism comes into contact with a new culture it changes.

a. Buddhism + Tao = Ch'an.

b. Buddhism + Bon = Tibetan.

c. Buddhist + (Western?) liberal humanism = ????
This is the first time in history when all the scriptures, commentaries etc.. are easily available. The work isn't finished but new stuff is coming into the Western domain all the time. That's new - so is something new going to happen?

I think it's work in progress so what it looks like in the end is still up in the air. There are a lot of people doing new things and revisiting Buddhism generally - some of them hang around on this site. Secular Buddhism, Daniel Ingram's taboo busting, Engaged Buddhism's social activism, Triratna synthesis of Theravada with Mahayana and Vajrayana, the Insight Meditation Society - lots of things are happening.

I don't know if this answers the questions but I feel it's changing, will continue to change and let's see what happens next.


How, if at all, does karma exist in the form and formless realms? How, if at all, does karma exist in the form and formless realms?
Obviously, as humans in the desire realm, we can suffer misfortune, etc., due to our karma. But what about events in these other realms, either when in absorption or reborn there?
Is being reborn there just one constant bliss?

Taking a Theravada view, the immaterial realms - what you call formless - occur when a practitioner dies whilst dwelling in one of the four arupa ayatanas:

The dimension of the perception of space
The dimensions of the perception boundless consciousness
The dimensions of the perception of nothingness
The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception

Because these states still contain figments of conditionality, after death the mind (citta) gravitates to those figments thus perpetuating the continuation of that respective consciousness. As I currently understand, the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception is considered to be at the very prelude to the finality of reality in the grand scheme of dhamma: the figments of consciousness that exist there are too tenuous to cause any major form-based re-becoming disturbances. The task here is traversing the pleasure of being relinquished from those form-based consciousnesses.
I have a long held a contention about the commonly held view in Theravada concerning rupa jhana and arupa ayatanas. The contention concerns the progressive models from jhana to ayatana that are often touted. In my view they are very distinct and either set doesn't necessarily inform the other set.
Back to the question: what we could say is that the practitioner, working in the sensuous domain, having previously developed his mind in accordance with dhamma, and having passed away, now finds himself dwelling in some heightened pleasurable state; one of the four arupa ayatanas. This could be said to have happened because the cause of that final state was due to the practice: due to this karma the practitioner traversed from the form state to the formless.


Did the Buddha teach receivers to be ungrateful? I read the following on the internet:

If you truly understand the practice of generosity, then you'd never
have to look for outright expression of gratitude from the receivers.
The act does and will benefit you in this life and many future lives
to come. It's the donor who should express the gratitude for the
opportunity to build up his great kammic storehouse.

Did the Buddha teach receivers to be ungrateful?

The Buddha taught people (especially monks) to be "worthy of offerings" -- that's in the Saṅghānussati for example, which also says that such a recipient is "worthy of respectful salutations" and  "a field of merit".
Apparently that (being "worthy of offerings") does not imply fawning on laypeople in gratitude.
On the subject of fawns though, AN 2.31-32 does talk about gratitude and especially in relation to parents:

Now what is the level of a person of no integrity? A person of no integrity is ungrateful & unthankful. This ingratitude, this lack of thankfulness, is advocated by rude people. It is entirely on the level of people of no integrity. A person of integrity is grateful & thankful. This gratitude, this thankfulness, is advocated by civil people. It is entirely on the level of people of integrity."
"I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. [etc.]


What is the significance of Commentaries (Atthakatha) to the Suttas? In some traditions commentaries are inherent in the daily sermons and books written by monks. But I've noticed that most of the commentaries are not available digitally in English compared to the Suttas and most people don't use commentaries as reference.

Are they not so important or what is the view on commentaries?

In Theravada Buddhism, much of the commentarial literature is merely providing definitions and etymologies of words, so it only makes sense in the original pali. Besides this, it is so voluminous that any attempt at translating it would be a daunting task.

That being said, some of the more accessible and interesting commentaries have indeed been translated into English:

The Dhammapada commentaries (stories only, not verse explanations)
The Jataka commentaries (and the introduction)
The Commentary to Satipatthana Sutta
The Commentary to Sammaditthi Sutta
The Patisambhidamagga and Visuddhimagga
The Therigatha Commentary

I'm sure there are others, but this is a sample.

As to their significance, in Theravada Buddhism, they are what defines the orthodoxy; any interpretation of the canonical texts that deviates significantly from the commentaries is considered to be outside of the fold of Theravada Buddhism. In a word, they are the agreed upon correct interpretation or explanation of the texts.

And they have some funny stories.


From a Buddhist point of view, what are the benefits of supernormal powers? I've heard that intensive meditation of certain kinds can lead to the development of supernormal powers such as penetration into others minds (reading minds) and hearing sounds from far away (Divine ear). From a Buddhist point of view, what is the benefit to being able to discern the thoughts and far away voices of others given that most people are not yet enlightened and their thoughts and words are likely colored with the defilement of desire, aversion, and delusion? It would seem possible that such an ability might lead to suffering for the one discerning the unguarded (and unenlightened) thoughts and words of others. Edit As an example, if one reflects on thoughts that have arisen in one's own mind, there are likely thoughts that you wouldn't share with anyone because they are base, mean, hurtful. Why would an advanced meditator want to subject themselves to being able to receive such thoughts?

Is there a traditional Buddhist view on how such abilities are advantageous or even wholesome?

Just from inferring from the texts, you can see how the Buddhas ability to read people's minds allowed him to teach them exactly what they needed to hear. So such an ability would allow someone greater ability to teach people. I also seem to remember in the dhammapada, accounts of the Buddha using his omniscience, seeing understanding arising in monks minds, to telepathically communicate with the monks who were practicing far away in a forest to give them assurance on their path. So as far as I can tell, these powers are to be used to help others on their paths.


Devotion in Buddhism What is the purpose or significance of devotion in Buddhism? Are there differences in acts of devotion in Mahayana and Theravada tradition?

In Theravada, there is faith and preferably verified confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. One who has faith is called a faith follower. There is faith, but there is no (Hindu style of) devotion in Theravada. There is however, reverence in Theravada Buddhism for example, through the act of prostration, as pointed out by ChrisW in the comments.

In Mahayana, some schools like Pure Land Buddhism, have devotion to Avalokiteshvara or Amitabha Buddha, with mantras to chant. There is a belief that one can be reborn in the Pure Land, the realm where the Amitabha Buddha resides, in order to continue the journey towards Buddhahood, with the guidance of Amitabha Buddha.

The Hindu style of devotion (bhakti) involve chanting the deity's names, remembering the deity's forms and glories, as well as having a close personal relationship with the deity. There are similar types of devotions in the Abrahamic religions. This is not found in Theravada Buddhism which does not have a Supreme God. Also in Theravada, the Buddha is no longer reborn after Nirvana. I am not sure if the Mahayana devotion in certains schools like Pure Land Buddhism is the same as the Hindu style of devotion.


Is Buddhist lifestyle harmless to living beings? Is the Buddhist lifestyle harmless to living beings? Lot's of creatures are being killed in various human activities (walking, farming, building, etc.) Did Buddhists found a way to live while not harming other living beings? If yes, how?

p.s. For more info, read the same question on this SE.

Buddhism focuses on our intentions, and therefore intentional killing is adviced against.

Obviously, the consequences of our actions may sometimes lead to harm despite our good intentions. In buddhism we are - arguably - primarily accountable for the latter, our intentions, even though consequences also matter.

Also, see this answer written not long ago:

Selling an animal to butcher will break first precept?


Ancient texts on Meditation Techniques? I have read a decent amount on modern meditative practices, but I am curious to read the way in which ancient monks described their techniques.

This is not suggesting that modern meditative practices differ from their originators, as I wouldn't know if they do.

I am simply curious about the ancient texts as one would be to read an ancient cookbook.

Please see the English translation of the Anapanasati Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 118 or MN 118) on the Buddhist mindfulness of breathing technique. The transliterated Pali version can be found here.

Please see the English translation of the Satipatthana Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 10 or MN 10) on the four foundations of mindfulness technique. The transliterated Pali version can be found here.

These two texts come from the Sutta Pitaka, the volume of the Pali Canon that contains the Buddha's discourses (suttas). According to tradition, these discourses were delivered by the Buddha, during the Buddha's lifetime (c. 563/480 – c. 483/400 BCE).

These texts, translated to English by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, are originally in the Pali language, which is a partially Sanskritized variant of Prakrit. The Buddha spoke either Magadhi Prakrit or another dialect of Prakrit. Prakrit is closely related to Sanskrit.

If you want to read a modern guide and explanation on the techniques mentioned in MN 118 and MN 10, please see Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's book "How to Meditate". If you're actually interested to learn Buddhist meditation, this is a great place to start.

Another newer text that you may read is the Visuddhimagga or Path of Purification, a text written in the 5th century CE in Sri Lanka by the monk Buddhaghosa. You can find a PDF version here.


Pagoda's symbolism of yogi's progress to Nirvana This page shows each feature of a pagoda symbolizing the steps to Nirvana.

In Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta,  S. N. Goenka mentions a similar symbolism on how the pagoda relates to the Maha Satipatthana Sutta:

  In every chapter the repetition of certain words indicates the importance of this sampajañña. Ātāpī sampajāno satimā applies to the observation of kāya, vedanā, citta and dhammā: sampajañña has to be present. Similarly samudaya-, vaya-, and samudaya-vaya-dhammānupassī, which apply everywhere in the Sutta, have to be with sampajañña and sensations. For example, in Myanmar there are many pagodas on plateaus, with four staircases, one each from the east, west, north and south. Similarly you might start with kāya, vedanā, citta, or dhammā, but as you enter the gallery they all intermingle in vedanā, and reaching the shrine room it is the same nibbāna. Whichever staircase you start climbing, you come to vedanā and sampajañña: and if you are with sampajañña you are progressing step by step towards the final goal.

Are there any other forms of symbolism regarding pagodas and the Maha Sattipattana Sutta and other suttas covering Samatha meditation subjects?

There are so many stupas (pagodas as you call them which are chinese versions of stupas) which architectural meanings are never recorded, they are symbols for the viewer to interpret, especially the modern ones.

Symbolism from Wikipedia

"The shape of the stupa represents the Buddha, crowned and sitting in meditation posture on a lion throne. His crown is the top of the spire; his head is the square at the spire's base; his body is the vase shape; his legs are the four steps of the lower terrace; and the base is his throne."[7]

Five purified elements

Although not described in any Tibetan text on stupa symbolism, the stupa may represent the five purified elements:[8]

The square base represents earth
The hemispherical dome/vase represents water
The conical spire represents fire
The upper lotus parasol and the crescent moon represents air
The sun and the dissolving point represents the element of space


Is it recommended in Buddhism to know people from other nations and learn their languages In Islamic quran, we Muslims are asked to know people from other nations and following other religions, we are recommended to learn their languages. Allah said: "O Mankind, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes that you may know one another." Is there any recommendations in the Buddhism that tells the same? especially for languages learning?

...
You should not cling to a regional language; you should not reject common usage.
This is a summary of the analysis of non-conflict.

Arana Vibhanga Sutta
A lot more discussions in Language and Discourse by Piya Tan


Is the goal of mindfulness to develop ultimate dissociation? I came across this interpretation of Buddha's teaching that suggests that the Buddha ultimately sought a dissociative state, rather than one of freedom.

the buddhistic mindfulness meditation does not ... (a) stress genuine freedom, peace and happiness ... and (b) does not eliminate the genetically-encoded instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire (the root cause of human bondage, malice and sorrow) ... and (c) does promise a mythical ‘freedom’ in an imaginary life-after-death (‘Parinirvana’) ... and (d) is not a new, non-spiritual method ... and (e) does not produce an actual freedom from the instinctual animal passions, here and now, on earth, in this lifetime ... and (f) does not offer a step by step, down-to-earth, practical progression to becoming actually free of the human condition of malice and sorrow ... to be both happy and harmless.
More to your point, however, Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s mindfulness meditation is primarily about detachment/ dissociation from life – all existence is Dukkha due to Anicca (impermanence) and Dukkha comes from Tanha (craving) for Samsara (phenomenal existence) – and any meditation technique which stresses involvement with such is anything but what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan taught.

So my question is: is anyone that practices mindfulness, as advised by Buddhist teachers, heading towards developing a sort of dissociation from their feelings?
If not, how can anyone explain the fact of enlightened Buddhists still getting angry without referencing psychological dissociation?
Clarification 1
Some people expressed confusion over that question at the end. My clarification follows.
We can agree that Buddhist enlightenment does not guarantee extirpation of emotions (like anger). Thus, feeling angry (for example) does not invalidate someone's enlightenment. Enlightened beings can feel angry. Now, Richard says -- and this has been confirmed by the actually free people -- "I" am "my" feelings, and "my" feelings are "me" (i.e., emotions and self are the same thing). So if enlightened Buddhists claim to be free from illusion of self, and if emotions still remain and occur, how can that be explained as anything but dissociation (i.e., dissociation of a covert part of self from the overt rest of the self)? Hope that is clear enough.

In Iti 109 (quoted below), the Buddha indeed taught man to swim against his nature to become free from suffering. Renunciation (nekkhamma - subject to the middle way) is against the flow i.e. it's not natural to man. Craving is natural to man.

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "Suppose a man was being carried along by the flow of a river,
lovely & alluring. And then another man with good eyesight, standing
on the bank, on seeing him would say: 'My good man, even though you
are being carried along by the flow of a river, lovely & alluring,
further down from here is a pool with waves & whirlpools, with
monsters & demons. On reaching that pool you will suffer death or
death-like pain.' Then the first man, on hearing the words of the
second man, would make an effort with his hands & feet to go against
the flow.
"I have given you this simile to illustrate a meaning. The meaning is
this: the flow of the river stands for craving. Lovely & alluring
stands for the six internal sense-media. The pool further down stands
for the five lower fetters. The waves stand for anger & distress. The
whirlpools stand for the five strings of sensuality. The monsters &
demons stand for the opposite sex. Against the flow stands for
renunciation. Making an effort with hands & feet stands for the
arousing of persistence. The man with good eyesight standing on the
bank stands for the Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened."

The author (Richard) quoted by the OP portrays Buddhism in a negative way, probably in an attempt to peddle his own teachings (called "actual freedom"?) - at least I guess, from some contents on the website.
From this page (quoted below), we can see Richard's teachings, from which I gather that "actual freedom" is the freedom to enjoy life fully (i.e. indulge in sensual pleasures without limitation):

Taken to its extreme, as Hindu and Buddhist philosophy does, one
denies that this planet earth and the space that it hangs in – and the
universe itself – are actual. To them it is all an illusion, a dream.
For them, the ‘Dreamer’ – their god – is who ‘I’ really am and all
their effort is predicated upon realising that this is who one really
is. Westerners have foolishly allowed themselves to be taken in by the
apparent wisdom coming from the eastern mystical states of being
because of the paucity of experiential wisdom in their own culture. It
all started growing exponentially after the sixties generation trekked
to the Himalayas, and to other exotic places, to find the permanent
drug experience ...
One arrives in the actual by becoming involved, totally involved in
being here ... not by practicing detachment. Being here is to put your
money where your mouth is, as it were. All other actions are methods,
devices, techniques ... in other words: delaying tactics. In being
here one is completely immersed. Being here is total inclusion. One
demonstrates one’s appreciation of life by partaking fully in
existence ... by letting this moment live one. One dedicates oneself
to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself.
...
Meanwhile people thoughtlessly pursue the elusive chimera of Eastern
Enlightenment.

The Buddha realized that modern day hedonists like Richard, who delight in attachment, is excited by attachment and enjoys attachment, would not be able to understand the Dhamma (teachings of the Buddha) as we can see from SN 6.1 (quoted below):

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

The Buddha felt it was too troublesome to teach the Dhamma to people like Richard, but he was persuaded otherwise. And we are fortunate and blessed because of that.
If people like Richard feel that practitioners of Buddhism are gloomy, "anti-life" (quoted verbatim) and do not have "genuine freedom, peace and happiness", the answer to this comes from Dhammapada 197 - 200 (quoted below):

Happy indeed we live, friendly amidst the hostile. Amidst hostile men we dwell free from hatred.

Happy indeed we live, friendly amidst the afflicted (by craving). Amidst afflicted men we dwell free from affliction.

Happy indeed we live, free from avarice amidst the avaricious. Amidst the avaricious men we dwell free from avarice.

Happy indeed we live, we who possess nothing. Feeders on joy we shall be, like the Radiant Gods.


How can we stop overthinking? Many people suffer because of an endless mind-thoughts. What is the simplest way to stop overthinking and make the mind still?

As a person with obsessive thought disorder I might shed some light on this issue.

The very fact that you are overthinking is that you are clinging to resolving an issue you believe is of highest importance at the moment, as Andrei Volkov already wrote.

What you might do is to be mindful of obsessiveness as it comes. Label it "Obsessiveness." and continue with your mindful gate keeping. Don't let scattered thoughts (vicàra) roam freely unnoticed. Try to let only wholesome and directed thoughts (vitakka) free. It is the case of a habit.

It is mostly the issue that such thoughts of overthinking take on subjects that aren't important or even difficult to solve with calm and clear mind, so along with mindfulness of thoughts please add concentrating on breathing. Do not try to tackle such thoughts in the state of confusion, as you will be like a man standing on the deck of the ship in the middle of the sea storm - you don't want to be out in such conditions, it is far better to keep yourself safe inside the ship and wait for better conditions.

No matter how tempting it is to continue inner chatter or how critical it might seem - let go of the need. As what they say: Don't try to talk with the madman - it is not going to work.

Bonus: Ajahn Sumedho - Let Go, Let Go, Let Go


Is it conventional to use third-person speech when conversing with a monk? In this comment, Samana Johann wrote,

worthy to raise a question on it and it's perfect training to use only 3-person and no calling of names, adressing just proper positions

The topic is, using "3rd person" modes of speech -- instead of personal pronouns like "I" and "you" and "we".
I think that means, in English, that instead of saying for example:

Would you like a glass of water?

... or more politely ...

May I fetch you a glass of water?

... you might ask instead ...

Would the Venerable accept a glass of water?

Similarly perhaps the venerable might refer to himself in the third person -- so perhaps, for example, "This person will...", instead of, "I will...".
And perhaps you're expected to refer to yourself by your own "title" too ...

Would the venerable allow "this person" (instead of "allow me") to fetch a glass of water?

... or instead of "this person", perhaps "this novice" or "this householder" or whatever your "proper position" is, instead of "I"?

What can you tell me about this topic? What are the social conventions -- how does that vary, from person to person, from one society to another, from one context to another (e.g. online or in person), from one language to another (e.g. English or otherwise)?
The little I've gathered online is that it's polite -- and proper, i.e. good training -- to use a phrase like "Bhante" instead of a person's name, when addressing them directly (i.e. in the second person) ...

Would you like a glass of water, Bhante?
Bhante, would you like a glass of water?
Would Bhante like a glass of water?

The last (the third) of these sounds very (excessively) formal to my ear -- and archaic, it disappeared from the English language when "people" stopped having personal servants, who might have said, "Would Sir like a cup of tea?" -- or addressing your parents by their title, "Would Mother like a cup of tea?"
Because it's so old-fashioned (I never hear it) it sounds unnatural to me -- formal but an "affectation" -- and therefore, to be avoided! Unless it is conventional, still?
I guess I most specifically want to know how to address people (Venerables) online, especially on this site, and in English -- though understanding how to talk in person could be useful too -- and especially about when using English (or other European languages, or North American).
I don't think I've seen a site online, where people avoid the 2nd person altogether.
Is it something which varies from one monk to another? If there are three options ...

Informal -- "Would you like...?"
Deferential -- "Bhante, would you accept...?"
Ultra-formal -- "Would Bhante accept...?

... will some monks prefer one and some another? Should I vary what I say (or how I say it) depending on the feedback I get from the specific person? Is there any safe default, which can always be considered not-impolite?

What does good householders, considering his own good prepared samples, think: Which way requires the most sacrifices, mindfulness, patient, skill in many regards and earn the highest merits of them? This will then easy answer good householders question fast and doing well and is only convention for insider, a matter of Sila, and for outsiders place for merits in the sphere of Dana.
And in regard of meritorious deeds it's actually, different when after trade, not importand of what another might prefer.
Of course, a wise monk would fast think "a learned with pleasing behaviour" if good householder speaks in best manners, but whether on likes to use possibilities for merits or for gains, that wouldn't touch a wise monk much aside of possible not seeing ways given to teach.
As for usual monks good householder usually would/could meet, they are not used to representing a field of merits, are merely ashamed and might be high confused if speaking in skilled and venerating manner, as most are actually former followers of marxism, where such seech is regarded as unproductive and time and effort feeding, strong objected toward gains in the world.
"'Please', may my person ask good householder, whether good householder would be able to consider further and deeper on this matter of topic by him, if my person would give further into it in possible more supportive enviroment for such?"

Abhivadanasilissa
niccam vuddhapacayino
cattaro dhamma vaddhanti
ayu vanno sukham balam.

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange or what ever else world-binding trade but for escape from this wheel]


Why does the mind always want to 'do something' and how to cultivate 'non-doing'? There is a Zen saying, 'Sitting quietly, doing nothing, Spring comes, and the grass grows, by itself' by Basho.

But I have observed the nature of my mind that it always wants to 'do something', it finds respite only when I apply it to solve problems. Why does doing nothing just sitting makes me feel like I am wasting my time? OR am I taking the teaching of Basho in the wrong way?

How can I train my mind to just be?

Edit: I am asking about all the time when I am not meditating.

Why does doing nothing just sitting makes me feel like I am wasting my time?

There may be several reasons for this, and i can't say what is relevant in your particular case. However, generally speaking, the feelings you are describing is the consequence of one or several conditioned causes listed below:

the assumption that it is wrong to spend time reflecting on your inner workings
the assumption that self worth is only built on being productive
the fact that you are facing real problems that require real solutions
something else, yet to be discovered

  OR am I taking the teaching of Basho in the wrong way?

It seems that you have caught on to something in Bashos quote. Have you asked yourself why that interests you?

  How can I train my mind to just be?

It seems to me that your training already has begun, because you are reflecting on these tendencies and asking the right questions (from a buddhist understanding) as far as i can tell.

Roughly speaking, training to "just be" from a buddhist framework builds on:

meditation and investigating these thoughts, emotions and tendencies (samadhi),
studying what is truly helpful according to buddhism (panna), and also
making the habitual adjustment for improved wellbeing for yourself and others (sila)

A good continuation would be a meditation called anapanasati (perhaps you're already familiar with it). More information about how and why it is recommended can be found here:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyadhamma/bl115.html


How many countries did Lord Buddha travel? While reading about Lord Buddha I found that he traveled to some other countries. But I couldn't find exactly how many countries. Does anyone know the answer for this?

Solosmasthana are 16 sacred places in Sri Lanka, that Gautama Buddha is said to have visited. Buddha is said to have visited the country three times and on one occasion, the  footprint of the Buddha was placed symbolizing the Buddha's presence. The sacred left footprint is said to be imprinted by Buddha on his third visit to Sri Lanka at the apex of the Sri Pada Mountain. There are two other places that the Buddha is said to have visited and placed the sacred footprint. One is in Thailand, and the other is at Sunaparanta – the present day Saudi Arabia, & at the Kaabah.


How to cure pain(Heartache, Sorrow)? We've cling to nothing, no attachments and no bond to not to being suffered. But as a layman it's going through all and face sorrow and like mind is lost. It's same I loose my mind. I don't feel nothing for what things hurt me, feel barren. Don't feels normal. How can I become normal again and feel happy?

In a comment you wrote, "I wander to find one in my nearest city but I return back with nothing. It's little bit hard."

I'm thinking that you still have Dhamma when you don't have Sangha.

I think you don't "cure" pain, but Dhamma might teach you to recognize it when it arises: e.g. something triggers a feeling of sorrow, and you can note, "this is sorrow".

Eventually (if the experience is repeated) you learn to recognize what triggers sorrow, and perhaps you choose to not grasp (not hold to, attach to) the situation and/or sequence of thoughts which lead to sorrow.

In addition there are things you can do as a lay-person which may lead to non-sorrow. For example the practice of ethics (sila), behaving ethically, should result in a "lack of remorse". Or "identity view" results in sorrow, for which a converse might be anatta, sunyata, dana, and so on. And it's important to have or find good friends (who, you might find if you choose to join good communal activities).

Also there are things you might do to look after yourself medically, which might help your mood. For example I read an article recently where someone was describing how their doctor treated them for clinical depression: their treatment required therapy and eventually drugs, but the first thing the doctor told her was that, even if she took sick leave from her job, she should keep up her physical exercise -- in her case, running up-hill in the morning. Being depressed she didn't feel like exercising as she used to, but she found someone else to do it with, which (scheduling an appointed time to do it with someone else) helped to motivate her to do it regularly. What I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure that medical doctors recommend physical exercise as a treatment for heartache.

Also you mention "normal" twice. I suppose you're thinking of some time in the past as "normal" but I'm not sure there's such a thing. Things are impermanent, people die for example, you can't afford to think of the past as normal and the present as abnormal.

Changing your expectations might help too: if you expect to be happy and normal, and you're not, then you're surprised and unhappy. If you expect that desires and attachments cause sorrow then you're not so surprised and, having recognized "this is sorrow" and "this is the cause of sorrow" you may be better able to condition cessation of that sorrow.


Dejection and Sensuality I am looking for a very specific sutta in the Pali Canon wherein it is explained how the uninstructed worldling, upon feeling dejected, will turn to sensual pleasures to assuage his craving for satisfaction, which is contrary to the way of the wise.

Thank you for your kind attention, and your very much appreciated help.

Being contacted by painful feeling, he seeks delight in sensual
  pleasure. For what reason? Because the uninstructed worldling does not
  know of any escape from painful feeling other than sensual pleasure.

  SN 36.6


Are there any stories dealing with stalkers or people who violate boundaries in seeking to grow close in the texts? Have you come accross anything that deals with stalking behavior in the texts?
Looking for something where one is stalked by another but anything close to the theme is good enough.

Subha is a nun who has gone forth to the holy life. She seems to make it quite obvious that she has completely cut-off all fetters. As she wonders the mango grove, a rogue taunts her with various seductions expressed through a ridiculous procession of flowery, poetic language and overly exuberant and flamboyant promises; forthright and persistent in his endeavours, he is like a duckling following its mother. I think this might define stalking.
NOTE: I recommend reading this from the link because what I pasted here does not follow the right formatting rules. In short, it reads better from the link.

Khuddaka Nikāya - Thig 14
As Subhā the nun was going through Jīvaka’s delightful mango grove, a
libertine (a goldsmith’s son) blocked her path, so she said to him:
‘What wrong have I done you
that you stand in my way?
It’s not proper, my friend,
that a man should touch
a woman gone forth.
I respect the Master’s message,
the training pointed out by the One Well-Gone.
I am pure, without blemish:
Why do you stand in my way?
You—your mind agitated, impassioned;
I—unagitated, unimpassioned,
with a mind entirely freed:
Why do you stand in my way?’
‘You are young & not bad-looking,
what need do you have for going forth?
Throw off your ochre robe—
Come, let’s delight in the flowering grove.
A sweetness they exude everywhere,
the trees risen-up with their pollen.
The beginning of spring is a pleasant season—
Come, let’s delight in the flowering grove.
The trees with their blossoming tips
moan, as it were, in the breeze:
What delight will you have
if you plunge into the grove alone?
Frequented by herds of wild beasts,
disturbed by elephants rutting & aroused:
You want to go
unaccompanied
into the great, lonely, frightening grove?
Like a doll made of gold, you will go about,
like a goddess in the gardens of heaven.
With delicate, smooth Kāsī fabrics,
you will shine, O beauty without compare.
I would gladly do your every bidding
if we were to dwell in the glade.
For there is no creature dearer to me
than you, O nymph with the languid regard.
If you do as I ask, happy, come live in my house.
Dwelling in the calm of a palace,
have women wait on you,
wear delicate Kāsī fabrics,
adorn yourself with garlands & creams.
I will make you many & varied ornaments
of gold, jewels, & pearls.
Climb onto a costly bed,
scented with sandalwood carvings,
with a well-washed coverlet, beautiful,
spread with a woolen quilt, brand new.
Like a blue lotus rising from the water
where no human beings dwell,
you will go to old age with your limbs unseen,
if you stay as you are in the holy life.’
‘What do you assume of any essence,
here in this cemetery grower, filled with corpses,
this body destined to break up?
What do you see when you look at me,
you who are out of your mind?’
‘Your eyes are like those of a fawn,
like those of a sprite in the mountains.
Seeing your eyes, my sensual delight
grows all the more.
Like tips they are, of blue lotuses,
in your golden face
—spotless:
Seeing your eyes, my sensual delight
grows all the more.
Even if you should go far away,
I will think only of your pure,
long-lashed gaze,
for there is nothing dearer to me
than your eyes, O nymph with the languid regard.’
‘You want to stray from the road,
you want the moon as a plaything,
you want to jump over Mount Sineru,
you who have designs on one born of the Buddha.
For there is nothing anywhere at all
in the cosmos with its devas,
that would be an object of passion for me.
I don’t even know what that passion would be,
for it’s been killed, root & all, by the path.
Like embers from a pit—scattered,
like a bowl of poison—evaporated,
I don’t even see what that passion would be,
for it’s been killed, root & all, by the path.
Try to seduce one who hasn’t reflected on this,
or who has not followed the Master’s teaching.
But try it with this one who knows
and you suffer.
For in the midst of praise & blame,
pleasure & pain,
my mindfulness stands firm.
Knowing the unattractiveness
of things compounded,
my mind cleaves to nothing at all.
I am a follower of the One Well-Gone,
riding the vehicle of the eightfold way:
My arrow removed, effluent-free,
I delight, having gone to an empty dwelling.
For I have seen well-painted puppets,
hitched up with sticks & strings,
made to dance in various ways.
When the sticks & strings are removed,
thrown away, scattered, shredded,
smashed into pieces, not to be found,
in what will the mind there make its home?
This body of mine, which is just like that,
when devoid of dhammas doesn’t function.
When, devoid of dhammas, it doesn’t function,
in what will the mind there make its home?
Like a mural you’ve seen, painted on a wall,
smeared with yellow orpiment,
there your vision has been distorted,
your perception1 of a human being—pointless.
Like an evaporated mirage,
like a tree of gold in a dream,
like a magic show in the midst of a crowd—
you run blind after what is unreal.
Resembling a ball of sealing wax,
set in a hollow,
with a bubble in the middle
and bathed with tears,
eye secretions are born there too:
The parts of the eye
are rolled all together
in various ways.’
Plucking out her lovely eye,
with mind unattached
she felt no regret.
‘Here, take this eye. It’s yours.’
Straightaway she gave it to him.
Straightaway his passion faded right there,
and he begged her forgiveness:
‘Be well, follower of the holy life.
This sort of thing
won’t happen again.
Harming a person like you
is like embracing a blazing fire.
It’s as if I have seized a poisonous snake.
So may you be well. Forgive me.’
And released from there, the nun
went to the excellent Buddha’s presence.
When she saw the mark of his excellent merit,
her eye became
as it was before.


Does feeding animals with dead chicks and live worms break precepts? As part of a volunteering job where endangered animals are taken care of they have to feed them with dead chicks recuperated from the agro industry, which is blameless and doesn't break precepts, though they also feed them worms that are alive.
Is it breaking the first precept since they don't kill them ?

though they also feed them worms that are alive. Is it breaking the first precept since they don't kill them ?

Sure. While you do not actively terminate life by your own hand, handing it over to others to take care of the bussiness requires the volition to end life. And since volition is kamma, you'd incur the appropriate kammic consequences. You wouldn't send over some live worms to that endangered animal to keep company or with the hope that they'd become best buddies, right?


Did Buddha had issues in meditation? Well, I Keep hearing this dialogue by a few Buddhist meditation teachers, "It's very common for everyone to get distracted by thoughts when you start the meditation practise initially".

I am curious to know whether Buddha, himself, faced any issues while meditating, initially, (lack of concentration, etc)?

You can read this sutta about how the Buddha-To-Be overcome obstacles: https://suttacentral.net/mn19/en/bodhi


Inauthentic Compassion and Friendship When I meditate on compassion, afterwards there is a post-meditative effect of making me kinder, but usually in a way that doesn't benefit me. It makes me want to rekindle friendships that were not desirable in fear that the others would suffer, or give others time and attention in ways that somewhat disadvantage me.

How can this be dealt with?

Is compassion even linked with being friends, or is it distinct; i.e. how can one be compassionate yet retain distance with others?

One should associate with true friends and disassociate with false friends.

One should associate with those are:

  (1) He is pleasant [loving]. piyo ca hoti

  (2) He is agreeable. manāpo ca

  (3) He is respectful. garu ca

  (4) He is worthy of respect. bhāvanīyo ca

  (5) He admonishes, patient when admonished. vattā ca vacana-k,khamo ca

  (6) He is profound in conversation. gambhīrañ ca kathaṁ kattā hoti,

  (7) He does not engage us in the impossible. no ca aṭṭhāne niyojeti.

(Piya) Mitta Sutta 2

  (1) He gives what is difficult to give. duddadaṁ dadāti

  (2) He does what is difficult to do. dukkaraṁ karoti

  (3) He tolerates what is difficult to tolerate. dukkhamaṁ khamati

  (4) His secrets he reveals. guyham assa āvi karoti

  (5) Your secrets he keeps. guyham assa pariguhati

  (6) In misfortune he forsakes you not. āpadāsu na jahati

  (7) He does not look down (on you) when you
  have failed [are destitute]. khīṇena nâtimaññati

(Piya) Mitta Sutta 1

  “Young houselord, there are these 4 who should be known as true-hearted friends:

  (1) The helper (upakara)

  should be known as a true-hearted friend.

  (2) The one constant in joy and in sorrow (samana,sukha,dukkha)

  should be known as a
  true-hearted friend.

  (3) The good counsellor (atth’akkhayi)

  should be known as a true-hearted friend.

  (4) The caring (anukampaka)

  should be known as a true-hearted friend.

  (1) The helper, young houselord, should be known as a true-hearted friend for these four reasons:

  (a) He guards you when you are heedless.
  pamattaṁ rakkhati

  (b) He guards your property when you are heedless. pamattassa sāpateyyaṁ rakkhati

  (c) He is a refuge to you when you are in fear [in danger]. bhītassa saraṇaṁ hoti

  (d) When you are faced with tasks, he provides you with double the supplies you need. uppannesu kicca,karaṇīyesu tad
  di,guṇaṁ bhogaṁ anuppadeti

  The helper, young houselord, should be known as a true-hearted friend for these four reasons.

  (2) The one constant in joy and in sorrow [a friend through thick and thin] should be known as
  a true-hearted friend for these 4 reasons:

  (a) He tells you his secrets. guyham assa ācikkhati

  (b) He keeps your secrets. guyham assa parigūhati

  (c) He does not abandon you in your troubles. āpadāsu na vijahati

  (d) He would even give up his life for you. jīvitaṁ pi’ssa atthāya pariccattaṁ hoti

  The one who is constant in joy and sorrow, young houselord, should be known as a true-hearted
  friend for these four reasons.

  (3) The good counsellor [the one who shows benefits or the goal] should be known as a truehearted friend for these four reasons:92

  (a) He restrains you from bad. pāpā nivāreti

  (b) He exhorts you to do good. kalyāṇe niveseti

  (c) He lets you hear what you have not heard before. assutaṁ sāveti

  (d) He shows you the way to heaven. saggassa maggaṁ ācikkhati

  The good counsellor, young houselord, should be known as a true-hearted friend for these four
  reasons.

  (4) The caring should be known as a true-hearted friend for these four reasons:

  (a) He does not delight in your misfortunes. abhaven’assa na nandati

  (b) He delights in your good fortunes. bhavena’ssa nandati

  (c) He prevents others from speaking ill of you. avaṇṇaṁ bhaṇamānaṁ nivāreti

  (d) He commends others who speak well of you. vaṇṇaṁ bhaṇamānaṁ pasaṁsati

  The one who is caring, young houselord, should be known as a true-hearted friend for these 4
  reasons.”

  The Blessed One said this.

  Having said that, the Sugata [the well-farer], the Teacher, further said this:

  The friend who is a helper, and the friend in weal and woe,

  and the friend who gives good counsel, and the caring friend—

  these four are (true) friends, thus the wise should know

  and devotes himself with respect as a child would his parents

Sigal’ovada Sutta

At a spiritual level they should have these qualities:

  (1) The accomplishment of faith (saddhā,sampadā),

  (2) The accomplishment of moral virtue (sīla,sampadā),

  (3) The accomplishment of charity (cāga,sampadā),

  (4) The accomplishment of wisdom (paññā,sampadā)

Dīgha,janu Sutta

One should disassociate or distance oneself from those with the following qualities:

  “Young householder, there are these four who should be known as enemies in the guise of
  friends:

  (1) The downright taker,

  young householder, should be known as an enemy in the guise of
  a friend.

  (2) The mere talker,

  young householder, should be known as an enemy in the guise of a
  friend.

  (3) The sweet-talker,
  young householder, should be known as enemy in the guise of a
  friend.

  (4) The destructive companion,

  young householder, should be known as an enemy in the
  guise of a friend.

  Young householder, these are the four who should be known as enemies in the guise of
  friends.

  (1) The downright taker, young houselord, should be known as an enemy in the guise of
  a friend for these four reasons:

  (a) He only takes (without ever giving). añña-d-atthu,haro hoti

  (b) With little, he desires much. appena bahum icchati

  (c) He does what needs doing only out of fear. bhayassa kiccaṁ karoti

  (d) He serves with an ulterior motive. sevati attha,kāraṇā

  The downright taker, young houselord, should be known as an enemy in the guise of a friend for these
  four reasons.

  (2) The mere talker, young houselord, should be known as an enemy in the guise of a friend for
  these four reasons:

  (a) He claims to having been hospitable in the past. atītena paṭisantharati

  (b) He promises hospitality in the future. anāgatena paṭisantharati

  (c) He worms his way with empty favours. niratthakena saṅgaṇhāti

  (d) In present tasks, he feigns misfortune. paccuppannesu kiccesu vyasanaṁ dasseti

  For these four reasons, young houselord, the mere talker should be known as an enemy in the guise of
  a friend.

  (3) The sweet talker, young houselord, should be known as an enemy in the guise of a friend for
  these four reasons:

  (a) He approves of your doing wrong. pāpakaṁ pi’ssa anujānāti

  (b) He approves of your doing right [or disapproves of it,
  depending on what profits him]. kalyāṇaṁ pi’ssa anujānāti

  (c) He sings your praises to your face. sammukhāssa vaṇṇaṁ bhāsati

  (d) He runs you down behind your back. param,mukhāssa avaṇṇaṁ bhāsati

  For these four reasons, young houselord, the sweet talker should be known as an enemy in the guise
  of a friend.

  (4) The destructive companion, young houselord, should be known as an enemy in the guise of
  a friend for these four reasons:

  (a) He is your companion in taking strong drinks, distilled drinks, fermented drinks that which causes
  heedlessness.

  (b) He is your companion in roaming (and loitering in) the streets at unseemly hours.

  (c) He is your companion in frequenting fairs [shows].

  (d) He is your companion in indulging in gambling, a basis for heedlessness.

  For these four reasons, young houselord, the destructive companion should be known as an enemy in
  the guise of a friend.”

  The Blessed One said this.

  Having said that, the Sugata [the well-farer], the Teacher, further said this:

  The friend who merely takes, and the friend who only talks,

  and the one who sweet-talks, and the companion who brings destruction—

  these four are not friends. Thus the wise should know:

  they should be avoided from afar like a dangerous path.

Sigal’ovada Sutta

Associating with false friends will influence you to be more unskillful than what you are in a spiritual sense and fail in a worldly sense. Sometimes true friends may seem like a pain when they watch out for you but they are the ones who make you a better person by helping you prosper in a world sence and be more skilful in a spiritual sense.

Also, see:

Spiritual friendship by Piya Tan
Spiritual Friendship: Stories of Kindness by Piya Tan
Bad friendship by Piya Tan


Sitting Meditation: not able to notice rise and fall of abdomen During sitting meditation, Most of the times, I am not able to notice rise and fall of abdomen

This problem is not getting better, even after doing sitting meditation for some time

Want to get advice on anything I can explore to solve this

Metta

You can put your hand on your abdomen at first. After awhile you could probably spot the sensation without the hand.

You could lay down on your back and put your hand on your stomach for a stronger view of the rise and fall.

You could make your anchor focus on the sensation of your bottom and legs making contact with the floor or cushion instead of the abdomen.

Hope this helps :) Metta


Are there any living enlightened people? Is there any person who is widely believed to be enlightened by Buddhists, and who confirms that himself/herself?

As Andrei says in the comments talking about achievements are taboo so it's difficult to know. However Daniel Ingram (Theravada practitioner) is a taboo buster about this and openly claims in his book Mastering the Core teachings that he is an ahrat. So basically that he is enlightened.

That might seem like massive hubris and just in bad taste but if you listen to any talks by him he is massively engaging on the subject and convincing. I recommend listening to an interview with him on the Buddhist Geeks podcast (numbers 6, 9 and 11). In that talk he claims that there are a significant number of people either enlightened or well on the way. He names some American monasteries and particularly the Insight Mediation Centre as a place that you might bump into these people. He claims that although no-one is going to admit it publicly, if you a a serious practitioner and physically go there with particular issues or experiences of your own then those people will be more forthcoming on their own experiences. This accords with my own limited experience. In a well established relationship with a teacher or more experience practitioner then people will be a lot more forthcoming.

As a further interesting point, Daniel Ingram does say that our models of enlightenment are a mess (he's a provocative kind of person). So when we are casting around and trying to spot who is further down that path then we might just be looking for the wrong kind of things. He particularly says that being enlightened and being a very saintly kind of person wouldn't necessarily be the same thing.

As a note - I don't think Daniel Ingram still claims he is an arhat (not sure). He has a new edition of his book coming out so it will be interesting to see where he is at. Also I'm not necessarily saying Daniel Ingram is right, but just that he has some very interesting views in this area and I frankly like writing about them.


Ābhassara Brahma World for anyone? According to Buddhism someone who reach a higher level of Meditation (Samadhi) would be born in the Brahma realm.

These beings are not sexually attracted to female gender (They don't have a female gender), They are with or without a Physical appearance.

But when Buddhism describe the destruction of a universe it says that beings from almost all the realms are born in this "Ābhassara World" which is a Brahma world.

But how does such a birth happen to any creature when they haven't reached a higher state of mind?

When other lower realms collapse the inhabitants are push to the existing realms of which Ābhassara World is one last standing, hence nearly every one in a collapsing universe ends up in this plane in the universe with an exception of a few who might be thrown into parallel universes 10,000 world system away.

But also if you cling on to false view then there is a high chance you might be born in another parallel universe, 10,000 world systems away (I would presume a cluster of world system collapse together), which is sustaining life other planes including (other planes exist only in 1 of the 4 phases in cycles of the universe.) but not conducive for a Buddha to appear. This might be either Abhi Dhamma or in later canonical works as I cannot find in any of the translations I have checked which are mostly suttas. Apannaka Sutta does mention wrong views lead to hell though.

Aggañña Sutta and Kosala Sutta 1 deals with this subject matter. Also see: Gods and the Universe in Buddhist Perspective: Essays on Buddhist Cosmology and related subjects by Francis Story, The Buddhist Concept of World Bhikkhu T. Seelananda, Parallel universes by Piya Tan


What is before spring? Genjokoan says

Birth is an expression complete this moment. Death is an expression
complete this moment. They are like winter and spring. You do not call
winter the beginning of spring, nor summer the end of spring.

Dogen says here that spring is not after winter, but there is still "before" and "after", which is included in spring, and spring is independent of them. etc.

If not the beginning of spring, what is before spring? Not winter.

And if - likewise - the end of life is discontinuous with the present, does that mean life does not end when I only exist in the present?

This idea is elaborated in Dogen's work called "Uji" (The Time-Being).
Here I will paste some bits and pieces:

Time itself is being, and all being is time.
Each moment is all being, is the entire world. Reflect now whether any being or any world is left out of the present moment.
In essence, all things in the entire world are linked with one another as moments. Because all moments are the time-being, they are your time-being.
Time is not separate from you, and as you are present, time does not go away.
Do not think that time merely flies away. Do not see flying away as the only function of time. If time merely flies away, you would be separated from time.
The time-being has the quality of flowing. So-called today flows into tomorrow.
You may suppose that time is only passing away, and not understand that time never arrives.
People only see time's coming and going, and do not thoroughly
understand that the time-being abides in each moment.
Do not think flowing is like wind and rain moving from east to west. The entire world is not unchangeable, is not immovable. It flows. Flowing is like spring. Spring with all its numerous aspects is called flowing. When spring flows there is nothing outside of spring. Study this in detail. Spring invariably flows through spring. Although flowing itself is not spring, flowing occurs throughout spring. Thus, flowing is completed at just this moment of spring. Examine this thoroughly, coming and going. In your study of flowing, if you imagine the objective to be outside yourself and that you flow and move through hundreds and thousands of worlds, for hundreds, thousands, and myriads of eons, you have not devotedly studied the buddha way.

What does this all mean? It means there is no hidden essence or identity that  would pass from the past into the future. When milk goes sour and "turns into" yogurt, or firewood burns out and "turns into" ash, or spring ends and summer starts, or "a person dies" - we habitually assume that something, some entity, stays itself throughout all phases and gets transferred from point A to point B to point C. However in reality there is no such thing. Identity is our imputation.
The young person, the old person, and the corpse are not the same entity - they are like the dominos falling in succession, like a moving wave. Similarly, the spring and summer are not the same entity, they are phases of flowing like the dominos in a chain.
Entire world is flowing like that, and most importantly the illusion that "I am staying the same as the time flows" or "I am moving through time while staying myself" - is the illusion of self. Our mind and our experience is part of the flow.
This is why, in Genjokoan:

It is a custom in Buddhism not to say that life turns into death. This is why we call it “unborn”. And it is an established Buddhist teaching since Gautama Buddha that death does not turn into life. This is why we call it “undying”. Life is an instantaneous situation, and death is also an instantaneous situation.


Ānāpānasati (mindfulness of breathing) -- concentrate on nose, or on whole body? I am meditating for the last three months, about 30 mins a day (or a little longer than that). I followed Ajahn Brahm's "Basic Method of Meditation" to bring the mind to be in the present relatively steadily (still it wanders, but not like when I started the practice). I started with trying to quiet the mind (too much internal thought etc.) by keeping my attention sometimes on the breath, sometimes on a sound without strictly sticking to a single meditation object. My understanding of Ajahn Brahm's description of the first stage was to bring the mind to the present and then make it quiet.

Now I am kind of there, I am trying to figure out how to proceed. Meditation books recommend keeping your attention at the tip of the nose, but my mind is naturally drawn towards knowing the breathing as a whole (through most parts of the body, chest area, belly and sometimes the face also). I tried to go back to paying attention to the nose, but it made the meditation really hard. When I came back to the whole body experience, it was easier. Just wondering whether I am doing this wrong. If so, how should I proceed?

I am particularly interested in knowing whether this way of meditation is what Buddha mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta when he says:

"'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe in,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe out,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe in,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe out,' thinking thus, he trains himself.

The way I understand the object of Anapanasati is the breath.
So, Keep your attention on the breath whichever form is presented.


Timing of meditation I meditate once a day in early morning, only. I have found that this time is very helpful in practicing meditation. I want to meditate at least twice a day. I want to know if time plays a role in practicing meditation ? If yes, then how? At what time does meditation practice become the most intense ?

My morning meditation is my clearest meditation.

I also take quiet breaks a couple times a day. Sometimes I even fall asleep for 10-20 minutes. It renews me.

The evening meditation is important to me to clear away the unresolved issues in the day and prepares me for the rest that is so important for a stable mind in these uncertain and stressful times.
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/231282-zen-mind-beginner-s-mind

  “So we should be concentrated with our full mind and body on what we
  do; and we should be faithful, subjectively and objectively, to
  ourselves, and especially to our feelings. Even when you do not feel
  so well, it is better to express how you feel without any particular
  attachment or intention. So you may say, “Oh, I am sorry, I do not
  feel well.”  ― Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal
  Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/62707.Shunryu_Suzuki

  “When you accept everything, everything is beyond dimensions. The
  earth is not great nor a grain of sand small. In the realm of Great
  Activity picking up a grain of sand is the same as taking up the whole
  universe. To save one sentient being is to save all sentient beings.
  Your efforts of this moment to save one person is the same as the
  eternal merit of Buddha.”  ― Shunryu Suzuki

Some suggest that as long as we are aware we meditate. We do dishes aware, we walk aware, we shower aware. Certainly we have meditation practice but to expand that beyond a ritual and a routine is the opening to an extraordinary life.


Taking care of our sexual energy In the Five Mindfulness Trainings as presented in the tradition of Thich Nhat Hanh, the third one - called "True Love" - says:

  I am committed to learning appropriate ways to take care of my sexual
  energy.

What do you think appropriate ways means here?

The "five mindfulness trainings" obviously correspond to the traditional "five precepts".

So you can find more (by other authors) on that subject by searching for "third precept", for example Buddhism and Sex.

A lot of what what "appropriate ways" means is explained fairly clearly in the paragraph you referenced, i.e.

  True Love
  Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I am committed to cultivating responsibility and learning ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. Knowing that sexual desire is not love, and that sexual activity motivated by craving always harms myself as well as others, I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without true love and a deep, long-term commitment made known to my family and friends. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct. Seeing that body and mind are one, I am committed to learning appropriate ways to take care of my sexual energy and cultivating loving kindness, compassion, joy and inclusiveness – which are the four basic elements of true love – for my greater happiness and the greater happiness of others. Practicing true love, we know that we will continue beautifully into the future.

The simplest definition of "appropriate ways" is "not inappropriate".

Examples of "inappropriate" are described in AN 10.176:

  He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man.

In other words, don't break existing families. Like, first of all, do no harm.

Some people interpret this as meaning that, according to the letter of the law, casual sexual relations with otherwise-unattached (i.e. unmarried, independent) partners (or prostitutes) is OK: not wise, necessarily; and ultimately dissatisfactory; but at least not immoral, not breaking the third precept.

But Thich Nhat Hanh goes further than that, when he says, "true love and a deep, long-term commitment made known to my family and friends", which sounds to me like marriage (or celibacy).

He also says that "sexual desire is not love, and that sexual activity motivated by craving always harms": so "appropriate ways" means consequent to a loving relationship, in which in which sexual desire is not mistaken for love.

FYI this answer summarized some guidelines for choosing a marriage partner.

To summarize the paragraph:

Beware that "sexual misconduct" causes suffering
Protect other people, by not engaging in sexual misconduct
"Manage" your sexual energy accordingly

The French translation uses the verb gérer, which means "manage" (it's the word used for what a professional manager does, at work)
I'm not sure what he means by "take care of" in English.
It could perhaps mean "beware of".
Another Buddhist parable (that I read a while ago, I'm not sure where) is that you should "take care of" your body in the same way that you would "take care of a wound": i.e. don't love it, but bandage it and protect it from further harm (though perhaps that isn't what Thich Nhat Hanh was saying).

Develop "true love" (the four elements of love which he lists are more-or-less equivalent to the brahmavihāras)

Buddhist notions of virtue (sila), for each of the five precepts, equate virtue with protecting or freeing everyone from harm; and freeing everyone includes or results in a share of that freedom yourself:

  Furthermore, abandoning illicit sex, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from illicit sex. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the third gift...

One of the famous summaries of Buddhism is from the Dhammapada:

  Verse 183: Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, to purify one's mind - this is the Teaching of the Buddhas.

"Not doing evil" ranks highly, is important.

"Abstaining from (harmful or evil) sexual misconduct" is part of the five precepts, which is part of the first training.

It's not only a negative (absence of harm), it's also a way towards a positive.


Is the Buddha capable of making mistakes? There is a sutta where the Buddha teaches some disciples about loathsomeness of the body. He then goes on a retreat into the forest. On his return, he finds the disciples have committed suicide as they have grasped the teachings incorrectly. The Buddha than proceeded to teach Anapana Sati as it is much safer. Does this prove that even the Buddha was capable of making mistakes? In hindsight, should he have used the ability of omniscience to anticipate the result of his instructions. Or, was this event unavoidable fruition of the disciples' past Kamma.

You have misunderstood the sutta SN 54.9.

The Buddha taught the technique of loathsomeness of the body, which is to be used to remove feelings of sexual lust and attachment to the physical form. This technique is useful to be practised by a monk or practitioner who is overwhelmed by sexual lust. However, too much of this practice, especially when it is unnecessary, may lead to depression and suicidal tendencies.

To counteract depression and suicidal tendencies, the Buddha prescribed mindfulness of breathing, which can generate rapture and joy.

So, as you can see, every technique has a different purpose. Any one single technique does not fit everyone at all times. Sometimes, you have to change your technique depending on the circumstances.

For example, a person who is momentarily overcome by one of the five hindrances would have to try some technique to overcome that particular hindrance.

Hence, the Buddha did not make a mistake in this case. He merely prescribed different techniques for different conditions. Please also see this answer.

The Buddha will not make mistakes when it comes to the teachings and practice of Buddhism.

Although the Buddha was known to have some psychic powers, he was not completely omniscient (i.e. knowing all things in the past, present and future), in the way people consider a Supreme God to be. Buddhist enlightenment is about freedom from suffering. It's not about becoming God-like.


Eclecticism in the Dhamma (as per AN 3.72; AN 3.65; MN 20) “Those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught”.
(Ājīvaka Sutta; AN 3:72)

Does this verse imply that the Theravadin tradition is sticking too much on traditional teaching, and are unwilling to accept other approaches as well? Rarely do I see monks for example, who acknowledge other approaches who aim at the removal of grees, hatred and delusion.
Of course the essence of Dhamma needs to be maintained & practised, but if we take for example M20, as follows:

He should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful.
If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts
If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside.

With that said, it seems that there must not necessarily be a one-way approach, but rather, if 'x' fails do 'y' or 'z'. Am I misinterpreting something?
Regards

The Pali suttas say there is only one path to Nibbana.

  273. Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things
  passionlessness is the best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the
  best.

  274. This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of insight.

  Dhammapada


Yama depiction on various Tankas I saw many images of the circle of existence represented with Yama, the lord of death, with a tiger skin and a third eye. Why is he represented in this way?

I believe that it is a depiction of Mahakala, rather than Yama.
In the Chinese Buddhist Encyclopedia page Mahakala is a Protector of all Tibetan Buddhism, we find this info:

The Form varies according to the different teaching lineages. For
example, there is the two-armed, big-mouthed Mahakala Bernakchen of
the Karma Kagyu, the four-armed Mahakala who is protector of the
Drikung Kagyu, and six-armed Mahakala of the Gelugpas described below.
They are not all wrathful forms of Chenresi [Skt.: Avalokiteshvara)
although:

"There is an emanation of Avalokiteshvara which arose in the Form
of Mahakala and this is the Shangpa Kagyu Mahakala with one face and
six arms, in a standing posture. This Form was later adopted by
Tsongkhapa and followers as the main protector of the Gelugpa School.
Mahakalas can arise from various sources namely Vajradhara and
the Anuttarayoga Tantras but are not generically Avalokiteshvara."
~ Jeff Watt, Himalayan Art

There is a white one associated with prosperity, and also a eunuch and
some feminine forms, but it is incorrectly held that there are 75
variants.

Regarding the symbolism around Mahakala:

Symbolism of Mahakala in the 6-armed Manifestation:
The Protector's Body is midnight blue, symbolic of the changeless
Dharmakaya.
His three eyes symbolize his Knowledge of the past, present and
future, and also the manifestation of the three bodies of Buddha.
The crown adorned with five skulls symbolizes the transformation of
the five poisons of Anger, desire, Ignorance, jealousy and pride into
The Five Wisdoms.
His six arms symbolize the attainment of the six Perfections:
Generosity, Patience, Morality, Diligence, Meditation and Wisdom. The
kartika or triku [or trigu, pron. tigu] the Ritual curved knife, cuts
Attachment to ego.
The kapila or skull bowl filled with blood symbolizes the subjugation
of the maras or Evil ones. (An alternate interpretation can be found
in other contexts.)
The rosary symbolizes his continuous activity for the benefit of
beings.
The Damaru or hand-drum symbolizes his Power over the Dakinis. (Also,
different interpretations in other contexts.)
His trident symbolizes his Power over The Three Kayas -- the spheres
of desire, Form and formlessness. (An alternate interpretation can
also be found.)
The lasso binds those who break their vows.
His two feet are the means and the Wisdom to accomplish his task. That
his left leg is straight and his right leg bent symbolize his
accomplishment of the benefit to oneself and to others. He tramples on
a vinayaka, to symbolize his destruction and dispersal of great
obstacles.
The sun on which he stands symbolizes his illumination of the darkness
of Ignorance.
His Lotus seat symbolizes purity undefiled by Samsara.
The surrounding blazing Fire symbolizes his activity that consumes
neurotic states.
The tiger skin stands for Purification of desire; the elephant skin
for Purification of pride, and the snake, for the Purification of
Anger.
His other ornaments together symbolize that he has all the qualities
of a Buddha.
The material about the symbolism of 6-armed Mahakala derives from a
Gelugpa sadhana (Ritual) of Tara that includes an Offering to
Mahakala.