Setting foot in two different boats First some introduction:

I am in my ending teen years and like a normal teen would aspire for success, I aspire for it too. But there is a catch... I don't want to get too lost into material world, such that, at the end of the day I will be lost. In a sense I don't want to waste time.

I have desire to be a little above mediocrity which can take lots of time(and there is no guarantee that I will succeed), so I believe it would be better if I realize the pointlessness of it as(many gurus claim).

Some say to realize pointlessness of money(and any such desires like higher social status) it is important to have them first.

So is it like I have heard that at the end of tough road is a steep fall and for me to realize it I have to work hard and see for myself, is there no better choice?

  Can't I move towards it(worldly successes) and in the meantime practice something so I realize it is not that important?

Right now I don't have courage to live like a monastic and even if I do, I'll be thinking of worldly pursuits most of the time and will have this sense of failure with me, that, I chose this path(spiritual) because I would fail in material path(this idea of choosing spiritual path because of failure in materialistic path is frowned upon where I live).

Note:

I know that I have to try to keep precepts and be moral, I want little bit advanced practice(while I try to build my career)

Thank you!

Open yourself up to the world. Let the possibilities excite and draw you in. The greatest gift you can bring to the world is yourself, enlightened by your own spiritual practice. Whichever path you take, you will end up where you were meant to be. The lessons you need will find you, where ever you are. Allow yourself to look towards what inspires you, not only what is safe and has good financial prospects. Youth has magic to it (even if being young is not an accomplishment), you can breathe in possibility. Don't allow the disappointments of others to guide you to a lesser path with the idea that it is safer. There is nothing safe in unhappiness.

As you walk along your path, keep checking on whether your path has the aspects you need most.

Here is a list that I think is well worded, but you can craft your own. (I welcome edits if someone can make Right Livelihood clearer)

• Is what we are doing causing harm to others or suffering for ourselves?

• Is the way we live and the way we support ourselves causing harm or suffering?

• What are the purposes for which we work?

• What values do we express in our work?

• What consequence does our work have on the quality of our inner life?

• What consequences does it have on the world?

• Is the way we live our life satisfying and meaningful? If it isn’t, what can we change to create greater joy, satisfaction, and meaning?

(I copied it from here: https://www.care2.com/greenliving/how-buddhism-helped-me-find-a-better-career.html )


Are there any vampires? Are there any vampires in any living or dead (hah!) buddhist tradition?

I read that there were kinda vampires in Tibetan Bon?

Not sure why I'm asking, probably spiritual ressentiment :)

Peace...

Strangely there is a site about this. Check out Buddhism for Vampires. Like Orion says in her comments the tantric beings Vetala could be thought of as vampires or zombies. Certainly they seems to do a lot of hanging around in burial grounds and a bit of drinking of blood. If it looks like a vampire, drinks blood like a vampire then perhaps it is a vampire.


Difference between Equanimity which is diversified and Equanimity which is unified In the Potaliya Sutta, Buddha says,

  So too, householder, a noble disciple considers thus: ‘Sensual pleasures have been compared to fruits on a tree by the Blessed One; they provide much suffering and much despair, while the danger in them is great.’ Having seen this thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, he avoids the equanimity that is diversified, based on diversity, and develops the equanimity that is unified, based on unity, where clinging to the material things of the world utterly ceases without remainder.

What is the difference in Equanimity that is diversified and Equanimity which is unified?

The complete sutta can be found here...http://suttacentral.net/en/mn54

The Pali version of this expression identifies equanimity that is diversified as upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā and equanimity which is unified as upekkhā ekattā
ekattasitā.

  Evameva kho, gahapati, ariyasāvako iti paṭisañcikkhati:
  ‘rukkhaphalūpamā kāmā vuttā bhagavatā bahudukkhā bahupāyāsā, ādīnavo
  ettha bhiyyo’ti. Evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya disvā yāyaṃ
  upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā taṃ abhinivajjetvā yāyaṃ upekkhā ekattā
  ekattasitā yattha sabbaso lokāmisūpādānā aparisesā nirujjhanti
  tamevūpekkhaṃ bhāveti
  Potaliyasutta [Pali]

Following excerpt from Excursions Into the Thought-World of the Pali Discourses by Bhikkhu Analayo explains them in detail.

  The unified equanimity of deeper Jhāna experience is considerably more
  refined than worldly types of equanimity that are based on diversity,
  upekkhā nānattā nānattasitā

  Excursions Into the Thought-World of the Pali Discourses
   By Bhikkhu Analayo

So in summary,
equanimity that is diversified = undeveloped mind
equanimity which is unified = a mind at Jhāna level


What is the Buddhist text quoted by the Hindu philosopher Yogaraja? Kashmiri Shaivism is a sect of Hinduism that used to be popular in the Kashmir region of India.  Now this excerpt from the Paramarthasara Vivriti, a work by the 11th century Kashmiri Shaivite philosopher Yogaraja, discusses the delusion that arises from confusing that which is Self from that which is not Self:

  Yogins, not being able to grasp the real Selfs nature as pure consciousness, remain immersed, as it were, in the cave of dreamless sleep, regarding the Selfs nature to be the void. They thereby bind their Self, whose nature is pure consciousness, by a web of insensibility, deluded by the identification of the Self with something dumb. One would think such delusion should be the cause for surprise or distress, which no individual could possibly wish to cause to himself. Citing an example from everyday experience, the author says that just as a spider binds its omnipresent Self in the form of a body with the cobwebs made by itself out of its guts and subsequently perishes therein, so the individual being, regarding his body to be his Self, binds himself by imaginary concepts (vikalpa) in the form of "I" and "mine."  This has been beautifully expressed by the Buddhists thus: "When one looks upon himself as the Self, he regards himself as a unique being due to the distinction between the Self and another being [i.e. the not-self]; this causes bondage and hostility [between the Self and the not-self]. All evils ensue from the assumption of such bondage."

The part in bold caught my attention because I found it interesting that a Hindu philosopher would praise Buddhist thought in this way.  But my question is, what Buddhist text is this quote from?

I don't have Yogaraja's Paramarthasara Vivriti in Sanskrit, so I can't give the exact Sanskrit quote.  By the way, for the Hindus in the audience, I should mention that Yogaraja's work is a commentary on Abhinavagupta's Paramarthasara, which is in turn a reworking of Adisesha's Paramarthasara.

I can find a "reverse" message in Udana 5.1 to "When one looks upon himself as the Self, he regards himself as a unique being due to the distinction between the Self and another being [i.e. the not-self]; this causes bondage and hostility [between the Self and the not-self]. All evils ensue from the assumption of such bondage.":

  When the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One
  and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was
  sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Just now, when I had gone
  with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, 'Mallikā, is
  there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'

  "When this was said, she said to me, 'No, great king. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there
  anyone dearer to you than yourself?'

  "When this was said, I said to her, 'No, Mallikā. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself.'"

  Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
  occasion exclaimed:

  Searching all directions with your awareness, you find no one dearer
  than yourself. In the same way, others are thickly dear to
  themselves. So you shouldn't hurt others if you love yourself.


Is Buddhism life denying or life negative? My question tag is similar to this one but I am asking a different question.
I am reading DN15 the mahanidana sutta where the Buddha says;

Suppose there were totally and utterly no rebirth for anyone anywhere.
That is, there were no rebirth of sentient beings into their various
realms—of gods, fairies, spirits, creatures, humans, quadrupeds,
birds, or reptiles, each into their own realm. When there’s no rebirth
at all, with the cessation of rebirth, would old age and death still
be found?

"No, sir.” “That’s why this is the cause, source, origin, and
condition of old age and death, namely rebirth. ‘Continued existence
is a condition for rebirth’—that’s what I said. And this is a way to
understand how this is so. Suppose there were totally and utterly no
continued existence for anyone anywhere. That is, continued existence
in the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, or the formless
realm. When there’s no continued existence at all, with the cessation
of continued existence, would rebirth still be found?” “No, sir.”

Suppose in a hypothetical scenario in which all sentient beings which the Buddha mentions attain Nirvana and there is no rebirth here on planet Earth, wouldn't life as we know it vanish (Except for the trees)?
If there is no life, there is no Dhamma and no Buddhism. In that case wouldn't lifeforms emerge and evolve all over again on Earth or on some other habitable planet as they came to being in present form and all cycle of samsara and suffering and birth of Buddha all over again leading to absurdity of the whole endevour?
In that case wouldnt Buddhism be an effort to finish the sentient life and act against lifeforce as it is an effort to finish rebirth?

Why your question and all the other similar questions you linked are not getting a direct answer, but a shuffle is because the Buddha did not give an answer for such questions.
You may read many shuffles here, but the truth is questions such as Begining of life, end of life (i.e. beginner and end of Samsara); or hypothetical scenario in which all sentient beings attain Nirvana will receive a cold silence as an answer from the Buddha.


Sinhala translation of commentaries and subcommentaries Is there a way to read Sinhala translation of commentaries and subcommentaries online..?
I found the pali one, but not in Sinhalese.

Hope for a help. Triple Gem Bless you all!!

There are many sites with Sinhala:

Suttacentral - https://suttacentral.net/si/dn1 (A P de Soyza)
Buddha Jayanthi can be found in many sites - http://www.sjp.ac.lk/news/download-theravada-tripitaka/ in PDF, http://www.thripitakaya.org/, http://www.aathaapi.org/Thripitaka.html
Pitaka - http://pitaka.lk/ (A P de Soyza)
Tipitaka - http://www.tipitaka.org/

http://www.aathaapi.org/Thripitaka.html and http://www.tipitaka.org/ Atthakatha in Pali but Singhala fonts. There are for sale translation of some of them at Buddhist Cultural Centre.


Why mara wants to distract These davas are always against Buddha, his Dhamma and those who are practicing.
Since they also exist in planes of existence, why do they bother others trying to liberate themselves? They themselves might become a monk in next life.

  These devas enjoy sense pleasures created by others for them. Mara,
  the personification of delusion and desire, lives here.

I think your question itself has an answer.

  These devas enjoy sense pleasures created by others for them

The closer a being gets to Nibbana, the less sense pleasure he/she will create for Mara. That's probably why he doesn't like beings attaining Nibbana. But he seems to encourage beings to do general good deeds and aspire for heavenly existences.

The Paranimmita Wasawarti realm where the Mara is at has a lifespan of 9216000000 human years. So his next life is not going to come for a long time. But when it does, it'll most probably be one of the hells. Not human realm where one can be a monk. He'll probably be around to trouble Buddha Maitreya as well.


Significance of the word "wealth" in Jaravagga The Story of the Son of Mahadhana

  Neither living the chaste life
  nor gaining wealth in their youth,
  they waste away like old herons
  in a dried-up lake
  depleted of fish.

  Neither living the chaste life
  nor gaining wealth in their youth,
  they lie around,
  misfired from the bow,
  sighing over old times.

I imagined "gaining wealth in their youth" would mean spiritual wealth, after all a lot of materially rich old people I know do sigh at old age, because material pleasures are often best enjoyed in youth.

Yet, the back story seems to indicate the Buddha did mean material wealth, which is odd. Granted,  being rich and old is better than poor and old, still, old age to the unwise is great suffering.

Of course, Buddhism doesn't ab initio criticize wealth, or beauty. They are said to accrue as a result of good deeds, and are desirable as long as they don't interfere in bettering one's virtues and mind.

Still, it's not a perfectly flawless argument to equate pious virtue and shrewdness in wealth. Billionaires could even make a case of being equal to Arhats, more or less, as I currently understand this verse.
This is made all the more odd on account of the Buddha's own rejection of wealth and kingdom.

Can someone shed more light? Are there two sets of guidelines that the Buddha advocated? One for those enmeshed in Samsara, and another for those gone forth?

  The Story of the Son of Mahadhana

  While residing at the Migadaya wood, the Buddha uttered Verses (155) and (156) of this book, with reference to the son of Mahadhana, a rich man from Baranasi.

  The son of Mahadhana did not study while he was young; when he came of age he married the daughter of a rich man, who, like him, also had no education. When the parents on both sides died, they inherited eighty crores from each side and so were very rich. But both of them were ignorant and knew only how to spend money and not how to keep it or to make it grow. They just ate and drank and had a good time, squandering their money. When they had spent all, they sold their fields and gardens and finally their house. Thus, they became very poor and helpless; and because they did not know how to earn a living they had to go begging. One day, the Buddha saw the rich man's son leaning against a wall of the monastery, taking the leftovers given him by the samaneras; seeing him, the Buddha smiled.

  The Venerable Ananda asked the Buddha why he smiled, and the Buddha replied, "Ananda, look at this son of a very rich man; he had lived a useless life, an aimless life of pleasure. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the first stage of his life he would have been a top-ranking rich man; or if he had become a bhikkhu, he could have been an arahat, and his wife could have been an anagami. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the second stage of his life he would have been a second rank rich man, or if he had become a bhikkhu he could have been an anagami, and his wife could have been a sakadagami. If he had learnt to look after his riches in the third stage of his life he would have been a third rank rich man, or if he had become a bhikkhu he could have been a sakadagami, and his wife could have been a sotapanna. However, because he had done nothing in all the three stages of his life he had lost all his worldly riches, he had also lost all opportunities of attaining any of the Maggas and Phalas."

I'd like to contrast this with another verse from the Dhammapada which is an emphatic put down of worldly gains.

  Dhammapada Verse 178
  Anathapindikaputtakala Vatthu

  Pathabya ekarajjena
  saggassa gamanena va
  sabbalokadhipacce na
  sotapattiphalam varam.

  Verse 178: Far better than sovereignty over the earth, or far better than going to the abodes of the devas, or far better than ruling supreme over the entire universe, is (the attainment of) Sotapatti Fruition.

The PTS dictionary says,

  Dhana (nt.) [Ved. dhana; usually taken to dhā (see dadhāti) as "stake, prize at game, booty," cp. pradhāna & Gr. qe/ma; but more likely in orig. meaning "grain, possession of corn, crops etc.," cp. Lith. dūna bread, Sk. dhānā pl. grains & dhañña=dhana -- like, i. e. corn, grain] wealth, usually wealth of money, riches, treasures. 1. Lit. D i.73 (sa˚); M ii.180.; A iii.222; iv.4 sq.; Nd2 135 (+yasa, issariya etc.) Th 2, 464 (+issariya); J i.225 (paṭhavigataŋ karoti: hide in the ground), 262, 289; ii.112; iv.2; Sn 60, 185, 302; Pv ii.610; DhA i.238. Often in combn aḍḍha mahaddhana mahābhoga to indicate immense wealth (see aḍḍha) PvA 3, 214 etc. (see also below ˚dhañña). -- 2. fig. Used in the expression sattavidha -- ariya -- dhana "the 7 fold noble treasure" of the good qualities or virtues, viz. saddhā, cāga etc. (see enumd under cāga) D iii.163, 164, 251; VvA 113; ThA 240.

In summary it means something like "treasure": whether that's money or good qualities or virtues.

Some comments:

It can't mean (wouldn't make sense meaning) literally only 'money' because it says, " If he had learnt to look after his riches in the first stage of his life...,  if he had become a bhikkhu, he could have been an arahat" because though bhikkhus "accumulate virtue" they don't "look after money".
An origin story of the Buddha was that someone (I have forgotten who) prophesied that he would become a world-ruler or a spiritual emancipator (and his father wanted the former which is why he tried to keep him isolated in his palace, unaware of the wide world and of its spiritual needs).
According to what I've read e.g. (The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity) Buddha doesn't condemn riches for the layperson. Although they're not ultimately or permanently satisfying (which is a reason why he suggests 'renunciation' instead, for monks), but riches are useful and there's some advice in the canon about how a lay person should fulfill their role within society.


Can one take rebirth as an insect? I have always wondered if insects belongs to the animal realm in Buddhism, and I have yet to read stories about rebirth as an insect, such as a butterfly, a mosquito, or a praying mantis.

According to Buddhism, rebirth can take one of four types:

Opapatika - spontaneous rebirth
Samsedaja - born or arisen from moisture
Andhaja - born in an egg, oviparous
Jalabuja born from a womb, viviparous

Most insects belong to the andhaja group, I think. But yes, as others have mentioned, insects are considered a potential realm of rebirth.

Examples from the texts:

Queen Upari (Ubbari)

  Persons favored by fortune enjoying privileges of wealth, family, education, rank, physical beauty etc., are prone to exhibit haughtiness in their dealings with others. Shrouded in their own vanity and self-esteem, they become neglectful in their performance of meritorious deeds. Humility plays no part in their make-up. The Blessed One had taught in the Cūḷakammavibhaṅga sutta that such vain-glorious, haughty persons are liable to land up in lowly inferior re-births. On the other hand, unpretentious persons who show humility and pay reverential respects to those deserving of homage will be reborn in noble families.

  Queen Upari of our story was extremely beautiful and being the chief queen of the ruling monarch was of very high status in life. She had her head turned by these pre-eminent qualities and looked down with contempt on those she should have shown her respects. For such unwholesome attitudes and actions, it may be presumed she was reborn a lowly female cowdung-beetle. On hearing this account of rebirth of his beloved queen as a female beetle, King Assaka promptly rejected it, saying "I don't believe it."

  The hermit replied, "I can show you the female beetle and make her talk too." The king said, "All right. Please do and make her talk too." The hermit using his supernatural powers of abhiññā made a vow for both the male and female beetles to make their appearance before the king.

  When the male and female beetles emerged from the heap of cowdung into the presence of the king, the hermit said, "Oh King, the female beetle which is following from behind was your chief queen Upari devi. Having abandoned you, she is now trailing the male cowdung-beetle wherever it goes. Oh King, have a good look at the female beetle who was lately your chief queen Upari."

  The king refused to believe the hermit. "I can't believe that such an intelligent being as my queen Upari was reborn as this female beetle", said the king.

  True, for those who do not quite believe in the laws of kamma and its resultant effect, who do not understand the principles of conditionality or causal relationship, as explained in Paṭiccasa-muppāda, it would be difficult to accept that a being of the human world should have gone down so low as to become a mere beetle. Even in these days of sāsanā when Buddha's teachings are widely prevalent, there are some people holding the view that "when man dies, he cannot descend into an existence inferior to that of a human being". So it is not surprising that during the dark ages when Buddha's dispensations were yet unheard of, such stories of incarnation were received with scepticism.

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

Ven. Tissa

  Tissa.-An Elder of Sāvatthi. He once received a length of coarse cloth as a gift and handed it to his sister to be made into a robe. She had the cloth pounded and spun into fine yarn and made of it a soft robe-cloth. At first Tissa would not accept it but was prevailed upon to do so and had it made into a soft robe by skilled robe-makers. He died on the night it was finished and, as a result of his fancy for it, was reborn as a louse in the robe. After his death, the monks wished to divide the robe but the louse started shouting. The Buddha, hearing this by his power of divine audience, asked the monks to lay the robe aside for seven days. At the end of that period, the louse was reborn in the Tusita world. DhA.iii.341ff.

  http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/t/tissa.htm


To debate or not to debate? and When to debate? and How to debate? When we have several people with different understanding of Buddhism, how should we decide who is right? Debate is very tempting in Buddhism, but on the other hand, we must respect other people's views and not create conflicts in the Sangha, so what should we do?

Sometimes Buddhists cannot agree with each other, especially if these Buddhists come from different schools or traditions. An idea that is considered correct in one linage may be considered wrong in another.

Did the Buddha teach how to handle these situations? How were these disagreements handled in the past?

(See also: famous debates in canonical Buddhist texts)

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS by @Yeshe Tenley:

Under what conditions is it proper? Under what conditions is it improper? Is it a bad thing? Can it be a good thing? What is the proper motivation to do so? What are improper motivations? What is skillful? What is unskillful?

Assuming it is desirable to show respect while debating, how should this respect be manifested? What are examples of disrespectful debate and how can the line be drawn? What's the difference between debate and proselytizing?

... and references to dharma teachings, historical events, or opinions/literature of noted teachers also welcome and encouraged!

from Kathāvatthu Sutta:

  Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t wander from one thing to another, doesn’t pull the discussion off the topic, doesn’t show anger or aversion or sulk, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.

  Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down (the questioner), crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t put down (the questioner), doesn’t crush him, doesn’t ridicule him, doesn’t grasp at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.

  ...

  For that’s the purpose of discussion, that’s the purpose of counsel, that’s the purpose of drawing near, that’s the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind through lack of clinging/sustenance.

  Those who discuss
  when angered, dogmatic, arrogant,
  following what’s not the noble ones’ way,
  seeking to expose each other’s faults,
  delight in each other’s
          misspoken word,
  slip, stumble, defeat.
  Noble ones
  don’t speak in that way.

  If wise people, knowing the right time,
  want to speak,
  then, words connected with justice,
  following the ways of the noble ones:
  That’s what the enlightened ones speak,
  without anger or arrogance,
  with a mind not boiling over,
  without vehemence, without spite.
  Without envy
  they speak from right knowledge.
  They would delight in what’s well-said
  and not disparage what’s not.
  They don’t study to find fault,
  don’t grasp at little mistakes.
  don’t put down, don’t crush,
  don’t speak random words.

From AN 5.165:

  All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of five motivations.
  Which five?

  One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question with this thought,1 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well & good. If not, then I will answer correctly

Sn 4.8 Pasura Sutta:

  "Only here is there purity"
    — that's what they say —
  "No other doctrines are pure"
    — so they say.
  Insisting that what they depend on is good,
  they are deeply entrenched in their personal truths.

  Seeking controversy, they plunge into an assembly,
  regarding one another as fools.
  Relying on others' authority,
  they speak in debate.
  Desiring praise, they claim to be skilled.

  Engaged in disputes in the midst of the assembly,
    — anxious, desiring praise —
  the one defeated is
    chagrined.
  Shaken with criticism, he seeks for an opening.

  He whose doctrine is [judged as] demolished,
    defeated, by those judging the issue:
  He laments, he grieves — the inferior exponent.
    "He beat me," he mourns.

  These disputes have arisen among contemplatives.
    In them are         elation,
                dejection.
  Seeing this, one should abstain from disputes,
    for they have no other goal
    than the gaining of praise.

  He who is praised there
    for expounding his doctrine
    in the midst of the assembly,
  laughs on that account & grows haughty,
    attaining his heart's desire.

  That haughtiness will be his grounds for vexation,
    for he'll speak in pride & conceit.
  Seeing this, one should abstain from debates.
  No purity is attained by them, say the skilled.

  Like a strong man nourished on royal food,
  you go about, roaring, searching out an opponent.
  Wherever the battle is,
    go there, strong man.
  As before, there's none here.

  Those who dispute, taking hold of a view,
  saying, "This, and this only, is true,"
    those you can talk to.
  Here there is nothing —
    no confrontation
    at the birth of disputes.

  Among those who live above confrontation
    not pitting view against view,
    whom would you gain as opponent, Pasura,
  among those here
  who are grasping no more?

  So here you come,
    conjecturing,
  your mind conjuring
    viewpoints.
  You're paired off with a pure one
    and so cannot proceed.

Most people approach debate as if it was a sword fight. They debate to win, as if losing meant death. They do not make any effort to understand the other person's perspective!

They keep on fighting until they see an opening in the opponent's defense. As soon as they see a little inaccuracy or a logical error, they happily grasp on that -- even if it does not change the main idea the other person is trying to convey.

When the other person gets confused for a moment and says something obviously wrong, they happily make fun of him and keep pushing until the opponent is completely lost.

This kind of people firmly hold their ground, their confidence coming from their limited perspective and narrow view. Having won another debate with aggression and cunning, they are proud of themselves.

But if they see they cannot win, they get very envious of the winner, they get nervous, start changing topics, lie, resort to personal attacks, get angry, and finally go down to rudeness and yelling.

Instead, the noble students do not debate, they have conversations. They discuss things. When they thus sincerely talk they try to see each other's perspective. They understand that each (truthful) perspective is valid from its own side. So they try to see the value of the other perspective, and appreciate the factors and conclusions of the other side. Then, by combining the two perspectives, they come out with a more complete, more thorough understanding of the original problem. Each side lets go of its attachments and delusions as it accepts the other side's point of view, and integrates them together.

Also, see MN18 for an in-depth analysis of the psychology of reification underlying debates and arguments.


Determination and Impermanence How can we have determination with this impermanent world, if determination is one of the paramitas?

"I will do that thing (A) whatever happens" is determination. But something else (B) can happen on the way that makes (A) a useless thing.

So, how can I have determination in the right way?

The mind & all mental things are impermanent. When the body ends its life, the mind also is impermanent.

But during life, for a Fully Enlightened One, the virtues of the mind are permanent.

The Buddha said of himself:

  I am now old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, and come to
  the last stage: my years have turned eighty... Sariputta, even if you
  have to carry me about on a bed, still there will be no change in
  the lucidity of the Tathagata's wisdom.

  MN 12


The Complex Abhidhamma I have been having trouble analyzing the Abhidhamma.

  Can someone explain all or the main points of the Abhidhamma, but
  simply, just so I can understand it better as I continue my studies?

Thanks!

Abhidhamma deals with ultimate realities (Citta, Cetasika, Rupa & Nibbana). There are 121/89 Citta, 52 Cetesika, 28 Rupa. Each Citta contain a combination of Cetesika. Since these lists are long drilling down into the specifics are pretty long, but you can locate more detail resources here: http://www.abhidhamma.com/


Is surrounding yourself with good people a form of aversion? I am unsure the definition of 'good' in Buddhism. My assumptions are of 'good' are;

Caused no bodily harm intentionally
Caused no mental harm intentionally
No expectations when help is offered
Willingness to help and support to those who need it
Willingness to provide guidance to those who need it

If there is a different definition of 'good', it would be appreciated if it can shared.

Now assuming, you are surrounded by 'good' people, is that not a form of aversion?

For example, if i am constantly hounded by a person's presence and this person has caused mental harm e.g. suffering and i opt to keep my distance and not participate in any activity or relationship with the person but to surround myself with 'good' people, is that not a form of aversion?

What if the person has caused bodily harm?

What if the person has not provided you with help when you have needed it?

In Buddhism, if i choose to avoid such people, is that aversion?

An analogy, in martial arts, when one needs to train and toughen up their knuckles, he wouldn't just start out punching bricks right away. He has to start with punching paper stacks, then move on to punching beans, then to sands, etc. Only after a period when his knuckles become strong enough then he'd practice on bricks. Similarly, your mind isn't conditioned to handle bad evil people with peace and equanimity. So first you have to start with good people to build up the needed strength. This doesn't mean you should completely avoid bad people. Try your best to treat them kindly and compassionately until the day your mind is strong enough to handle any kind of person or any kind of situation with peace and equanimity.


Emptiness in Theravada and Mahayana What is the difference between the concept of emptiness (Śūnyatā in Sanskrit, or suññatā in Pali) in the Theravada tradition and the concept of emptiness in the Mahayana tradition?

From my basic understanding, Theravada emptiness is only regarding the self, while Mahayana emptiness is regarding all things. Is this true?

Or does Theravada also teach the emptiness of all things (e.g. in the sutta about foam and bubbles)?

Are these (Theravada emptiness and Mahayana emptiness) really completely different, or at some level, do they allude to the same thing?

For Theravada, could it be, that the emptiness of self is important for the path to ending suffering, but the emptiness of all things is not important for the path to ending suffering (as per the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow and the Parable of the Leaves in the Forest)?

I found the following quote from this answer interesting:

  It is said that beginner practitioners ("hinayana") only understand
  corelessness of beings (anatta), but still assume various stuff to be
  objectively/ontologically existing. This results in them erroneously
  reifying such concepts as the five skandhas, 12 nidanas, 4 noble
  truths, nirvana, and enlightenment. Advanced practitioners
  ("mahayana") clearly understand that all knowable phenomena without
  exception are contextually defined composites.

The following answer is informed by Insight into Emptiness by Khensur Jampa Tegchok who was a former abbot of Sera Je Monastery.

Presentation of Tenets

According to what is currently taught in contemporary Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, the view of selflessness differs between proponents of the Fundamental Vehicle school (which includes Theravada) and the Universal Vehicle school (or Mahayana). The common delineation is given as four different (ancient) tenet systems regarding selflessness:

Vaibhashika
Sautrantika
Chittamatra
Madhyamaka

The first two tenet systems belong to members of the Fundamental Vehicle school while the latter two are ascribed to the Universal Vehicle.

Here is a brief breakdown of the view of selflessness as it differs among these tenet systems:

Selflessness of persons (from course to subtle)

Emptiness of a permanent, unitary, and independent person
Emptiness of a self-sufficient, substantially existent person
Emptiness of an inherently existent person

Selflessness of phenomena

Emptiness of existing by its own characteristics as the basis or
referent of its name
Emptiness of the form and so forth and a valid cognizer of it being
different substances (different substantial entities)
Emptiness of true existence (existing without being posited by the
force of appearing to a nondefective consciousness)
Emptiness of inherent existence (existing from its own side,
existing by its own characteristics, and so on)

Definitions:

Permanent means something that does not change from one moment to the next
Impermanent means that something changes under the influences of causes and conditions
Unitary is something that is one seamless whole that has no parts
Independent has different definitions given different contexts:

Independent is something not being affected by or not relying upon causes and conditions
In the context of a person it means being independent of the aggregates as well
In Prasangika it means existing without depending on being merely imputed by name and concept

Self-sufficient means being able to exist independently in a
self-supporting manner, without depending on anything else, such as
the aggregates
Substantially existent person means being able to know such a person
exists without the appearance of the aggregates

In general, it is said that the Fundamental Vehicle systems do not subscribe to the selflessness of phenomena. Furthermore, the Vaibhashikas only subscribe to the lack of a permanent, unitary and independent person. That is they do believe that a self-sufficient, substantially existent person exists. The Sautrantikas on the other hand do not believe in a self-sufficient, substantially existent person nor do any of the other tenet systems.

All of that is to say, it is my understanding that the modern day Theravada is most closely aligned with the Sautrantika tenet system.


Why sukha (third Jhana) is more refine than pīti (second Jhana)? Why is sukha (third Jhana) higher than pīti (second Jhana)? In other words, why does sukha not come before pīti?

This question is based on the following suttas in the Moggallāna Saṃyutta.

Lesser khandha = Stable mind state = Better happiness.

Vitakka, vicāra, pīti, and sukkha are acceleration of consciousness to access jhāna. the practitioner need them to develop jhāna-consciousness, until he turn to be professor in each jhāna. After that they become an obstruction of jhāna's stability.

Too many cooks spoil the broth.


What is called an intentional thought? I'm a 16 old student and I'm getting weird and intrusive thoughts which are unwanted and unintentional. I got those thoughts about buddha which can be greater insult for Him. But none of them are intended or wanted. Do this collect bad kamma? I've begun to fear those thoughts as I'm someone who fear sinning more than anyone. Please help me, what should I do?

There's no sin in Buddhism. Buddha will not be offended if you're thinking some silly thoughts. Don't hurt yourself with this fear. No need to perpetuate those silly thoughts either, it won't do you any good. Focus on what's beneficial. Such as study of Dharma.
Karma is not watching you, it does not revenge or punish. Karma is the future you build with your choices, day after day after day.


Need help understanding this I am reading up on the jhana and theres this paragraphs. There talking about the 3 ways Beginning, Middle & End and the 10 characteristic of jhana. I'm not sure what im suppose to do or what this is suppose to mean. The book is the path to purification.

  “‘Of the first jhána intensification of equanimity is the middle’: how many
  characteristics has the middle? The middle has three characteristics. He [now]
  looks on with equanimity at the mind that is purified; he looks on with equanimity
  at it as having made way for serenity; he looks on with equanimity at the
  appearance of unity.32 And in that he [now] looks on with equanimity at the
  mind that is purified and looks on with equanimity at it as having made way for
  serenity and looks on with equanimity at the appearance of unity, that
  intensification of equanimity is the middle of the first jhána. These are the three
  characteristics of the middle. Hence it is said: ‘The first jhána is good in the
  middle which possesses three characteristics.’

Heres the full page. The parts specifically im asking about is on line 112

That is an effect of dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ, that appear before your quote.

My link is just a head. There is more information in that book after the head.

For a guideline:

Beginning = complete and perfect practicing of all dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ (achieved jhāna).

Middle = an effect of the 7th of dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ.

End = an effect of the 6th of dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ.

You must memorize dasavidhaappanākosallaṃ head, and meditate it to get a deep understanding.

Note: I never read throughout the english translation version (my english is terrible), that make me not sure about the translation's quality. So you can ask more, if you see something that is unclear.


Buddhism and addiction treatment I have a lot of experience with addiction, both personal and professionally.

In my job, I am in contact with many drug and alcohol addiction treatment workers. And I've been thinking about recommending integrating buddhist ideas and, perhaps more importantly, buddhist practice in drug and alcohol treatment programs. I think that introducing buddhism, both on a philosophical level and as practice could be a great  help for a lot of addicts. This has to be done properly, with competent teachers and it has to be voluntary.

Compare buddhism to AA/NA ideology (just a few examples):

AA/NA etc: externalized power...
Buddhism: internalized power

AA/NA etc: dogmatic...
Buddhism: non dogmatic

AA/NA etc: "you can get sober, but you won't get rid of the disease"...
Buddhism: "you can be free/get rid of the disease of suffering"

Does anybody heard of addiction treatment facilities trying to incorporate buddhism in their treatment?

Yes, there are addiction treatment facilities incorporating mindfulness meditation into thereapy. Judson Brewer at Mass General in Boston incorporated various aspects of Buddhism into his research on addiction thereapy. The main idea involves self-regulation of attention. He uses the acronym RAIN to describe the process:

Recognize
Accept/Allow
Investigate
Note

NIH has one of his presentations about RAIN and smoking cessation available on their website. It is a little technical.

Also, UC Berkeley's Greater Good Institute has a detailed page about mindfulness and addictions which is more consumer oriented.

Mindfulness is becoming more mainstream in many countries. Psychology Today's therapist search page can help one find a local psychologists who is trained in the art of mindfulness.

Insurance companies also provide a list of their providers who specialize in particular fields. They may list health care professionals who specialize in Mindfulness/Addictions.


Is every Dhamma cause of suffering? I have now spent quite sometime understanding what Lord Buddha said. Some of the fundamental things are still not clear to me.

For example Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Meaning all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself. But why all Dhammas are not me , mine or myself?Because all Dhammas are impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering.
Therefore can I conclude that all Dhammas are ultimately cause of suffering?

If that is true then why should I adopt the three jewels : Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha?

Is every Dhamma cause of suffering?

No: as mentioned in this answer, nibanna is classified as a dhamma (and as anatta) but not a cause of suffering.

The same source says,

  sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"

It's sankharas that are classified as unsatisfactory (and impermanent).

But the term dhamma is broad and can be used (in different contexts) to mean a lot of different things -- for example, Jayarava's essay on The Simile of the Raft identifies some of the different possible meanings of dhamma.


The monk who ignored his visiting wife and infant son The following story comes in Udana 1.8.

It is about a monk by the name of Sanghamaji, who, when seated under a tree, was visited by his former wife, carrying their infant son. She tried several times to get his attention, and having failed, left the son at his feet and went a short distance away, to observe his reaction. The monk neither reacted, nor said anything to the woman or her child. She then took back the child and left the scene, while lamenting about her former husband's lack of feelings for them, saying "the monk doesn't even care about his son."

The Buddha, who witnessed this supernaturally, praised the monk, saying (I paraphrase here) that he showed equanimity and is free from attachment, and is therefore a brahman.

We can say that the monk displayed equanimity (upekkha), but then seemed to lack compassion (karuna).

In the essay entitled "Toward a Threshold of Understanding", Bhikkhu Bodhi discusses this:

  The Pali word that the Pope interprets as "indifference" is presumably
  upekkha. The real meaning of this word is equanimity, not indifference
  in the sense of unconcern for others. As a spiritual virtue, upekkha
  means equanimity in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune.
  It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner
  equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor,
  praise and blame, pleasure and pain. Upekkha is freedom from all
  points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of
  the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the
  well-being of one's fellow human beings. True equanimity is the
  pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the
  "divine abodes": boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic
  joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the
  preceding three, but perfects and consummates them.

How do we interpret the actions (or non-actions) of Sanghamaji?

Did he lack compassion? Should he not have addressed his former wife compassionately, and given her an explanation of the Dhamma, and the path to the end of suffering?

The sutta does not say if he ensured that the welfare of his wife and son is taken care of, before leaving the lay life of a householder.

Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for
  pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human
  beings. True equanimity is the pinnacle of the four social attitudes
  that the Buddhist texts call the "divine abodes": boundless
  loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. The last
  does not override and negate the preceding three, but perfects and
  consummates them.

BB's explanation here sounds exaggerated & too lofty. Metta is arguably the pinnacle of the social attitudes and equanimity governs the other social attitudes. A lingusistic root of 'upekha' is 'to look'. It means 'to observe others, looking to help others, but always knowing others are the heirs to their actions'. That is, equanimity understands you can only help others when they are willing to help themselves.

  Did he lack compassion?

He did not lack compassion. Compassion is non-cruelty & wishing to help others overcome suffering. The ex-wife was not seeking to end suffering but craving to get her former husband back. If the wife walked away from the child & never returned to the child, the monk abandoning the child would have been cruelty. But this did not occur. The monk obviously had compassion but governed his compassion with equanimity, testing the kamma or motivation of his former wife. The former wife returned to look after her child, therefore the wife followed her personal path, which was motherhood.

  Should he not have addressed his former wife compassionately, and
  given her an explanation of the Dhamma, and the path to the end of
  suffering?

Absolutely not because the Dhamma says Dhamma is only taught to those who ask for it (AN 9.5).

This story is an excellent example of the practice of equanimity, namely, observantly looking on to help another person according to the kamma or personal disposition of the other person. The wife demonstrated motherhood was her want & destiny. If (hypothetically) the wife completely abandoned the child & there was no one else to look after the child, the monk would have looked after the child himself, similar to how Rahula was ordained as a novice at 7 years of age.


Is there a scientific book summarizing the orthodox buddhism, the most ancient form of it? I found many personal book about Buddhism; witnessing; life story; spiritual encounter, experiences, meditation. I never found however a book that explain and summarize the classical Buddhism : a consensus clear that none Buddhist can read to understand that philosophy better.

Science is really the Scientific Method.

The Scientific Method is:

Observations

Hypotheses

Predictions

Experiments

Analysis

As a Zen Buddhist, specifically Vietnamese Engaged Buddhism here is what I see.

Most all of the studies (book, dharma talks, dharma sharing, sutra) have the elements listed above. A typical dharma talk (whether oral or written into a book) discusses observations. These observations lead to "insight" or a hypothesis/predictions about the true nature of reality/the mind/etc. Every dharma talk I have ever heard in zen has always asked us to take these insights and test them. Apply them in your life and see the outcome for yourself. I am not just told theories but asked to practice them. This is the Experiments phase. Then I am always asked to examine the practice to see the fruits of my effort. This is Analysis.

So basically I find that Zen Buddhism follows the scientific method quite perfectly. Thus I would say any Zen text could be considered a scientific text by the standards of the scientific method.

Now of course you are asking for a single book that "none Buddhist can read to understand that philosophy better". As a Zen Buddhist, this is pretty all-encompassing of Zen Buddhism: The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh. I read this book with non-buddhist weekly, as well as read this book with monastics. The approach in this book follows the methods I described above and is written in a way that is very approachable regardless of your skill level in the practice.

Here is the Table of Contents of the Book so you can see what is all covered.

Part One The Four Noble Truths

Chapter One Entering the Heart of the Buddha

Chapter Two The First Dharma Talk

Chapter Three The Four Noble Truths

Chapter Four Understanding the Buddha's Teachings

Chapter FiveIs Everything Suffering?

Chapter Six Stopping, Calming, Resting, Healing

Chapter Seven Touching Our Suffering

Chapter Eight Realizing Well-Being

Part Two The Noble Eightfold Path

Chapter Nine Right View

Chapter Ten Right Thinking

Chapter Eleven Right Mindfulness

Chapter Twelve Right Speech

Chapter Thirteen Right Action

Chapter Fourteen Right Diligence

Chapter Fifteen Right Concentration

Chapter Sixteen Right Livelihood

Part Three Other Basic Buddhist Teachings

Chapter Seventeen The Two Truths

Chapter Eighteen The Three Dharma Seals

Chapter Nineteen The Three Doors of Liberation

Chapter Twenty The Three Bodies of Buddha

Chapter Twenty-One The Three Jewels

Chapter Twenty-Two The Four Immeasurable Minds

Chapter Twenty-Three The Five Aggregates

Chapter Twenty-Four The Five Powers

Chapter Twenty-Five The Six Paramitas

Chapter Twenty-Six The Seven Factors ofAwakening

Chapter Twenty-Seven The Twelve Links of Interdependent Co-Arising

Chapter Twenty-Eight Touching the Buddha Within


What is correct punishment for children? If you see advising doesn't work with a child, are there acceptable punishments mentioned in Buddhism?

I know that Buddhism does not accept physical punishment, so I am asking about any other form of punishment.

I like Milton Erickson's practice of physically restricting the movement of his son when he engages in the prohibited behaviour until the child undergoes a change of heart. He describes this somewhere.


Difference between sati and sampajanna What is the difference between sati (mindfulness) and sampajañña (awareness, clear comprehension)?

Please provide examples.

Sati means to 'remember' (SN 48.10) or 'bring to & keep in mind' (MN 117).

Sampajana is situational wisdom; the right or thorough understanding of or for a situation.

Sampajana is from the words saṃ & pajāna (cp. pajānāti). It appears suttas such as MN 118, AN 3.121 & SN 12.28 indicate mere pajānāti might be a level of knowing or recognition that is not as complete as sampajana.

For example, in MN 118, pajānāti is only used with the most basic practise, namely, knowing long & short breathing. In AN 3.121, pajānāti is used for the recognition of the arising of defilements (which means the mind does not have thorough understanding; if defilements are arising). In SN 12.28, pajānāti of Dependent Origination is called 'one endowed with a trainee’s knowledge’; ‘one who has entered the stream of the teaching’. Thus, mere pajānāti appears different to saṃ + pajāna, namely, "thorough" or "complete" understanding.

While the suttas do not explain much about sampajana, when SN 47.35 briefly defines 'sampajana', it uses the word "vidita" (pp. of vindati), which means "to understand" or "understood", as Bhikkhu Bodhi appeared to properly translate as "understood" (and Sujato & Thanissaro improperly translated as "known").

  And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here, bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu feelings are understood as they arise,
  understood as they remain present, understood as they pass away.
  Thoughts are understood as they arise, understood as they remain
  present, understood as they pass away. Perceptions are understood as
  they arise, understood as they remain present, understood as they pass
  away. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu exercises clear
  comprehension.

  Bhikkhu Bodhi

Thus, it appears obvious "sampajjana" means to thoroughly or completely understand something or a situation with right understanding rather than to have mere "bare awareness". "Bare awareness" without understanding (similar to a small child ignorantly looking non-judgmentally at the ocean, not understanding its danger) is not "sampajana".

For example, in MN 66 and SN 12.17, the word "vidita" means "to understand" rather than merely "experience with bare awareness", as follows:

  Because I understand the diversity of faculties as it applies to this person.

  Indriyavemattatā hi me, udāyi, imasmiṃ puggale viditā.

  MN 66

  However, I have recognized individual differences.

  Api ca mayā puggalavemattatā viditā”ti.

  SN 12.17

MN 66 & SN 12.17 seem to show Bhikkhu Sujato and particularly Bhikkhus Thanissaro (with his "bare awareness") provide inaccurate translations & explanations of SN 47.35.

In summary, sati delivers & maintains sampajjana. They work together.

Please refer to Ajahn Jayasaro You Tube or Ajahn Buddhadasa Part II. The Use of Dhamma.


Reference to Questions of King Milinda in Progress of Insight, Chapter 12 In Mahasi Sayadaws "Progress of Insight", Chapter 12. Insight Leading to emergence (vutthanagamini-vipassana-ñana), a reference is made to Milindapañha.

  Also in the Questions of King Milinda it is said: "His consciousness, while carrying on the practice of bringing to mind (i.e., noticing), passes beyond the continuous occurrence of phenomena and alights upon non-occurrence. One who, having practiced in the correct manner, has alighted upon non-occurrence, O king, is said to have realized Nibbana."

Where is this paragraph or its correspondent, in the Milindapañha english  translation of Bhikku Pesala?

http://www.aimwell.org/milinda.html

Venerable Pesala's translation is greatly abridged. We read it recently in our study group and while it's quite good, he leaves out a lot of interesting passages. I recommend if you have time to read the full translation by Rhys-Davids. It is very old, but well done I think. We eventually switched to the Rhys-Davids version to read all the similes at the end.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/milinda.htm

The passage you are looking for is here, I think:

https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe36/sbe3606.htm

  and still to that does he direct his mind again and again, until gone far beyond the transitory, he gains the Real, the highest fruit (of Arahatship). And when he has gained that, O king, the man who has ordered his life aright has realised, (seen face to face,) Nirvâna!'

The entire paragraph:

  And in the mind of him who thus perceives the insecurity of transitory life, (of starting afresh ha innumerable births) the thought arises: "All on fire is this endless becoming, burning, and blazing! Full of pain is it, of despair! If only one could reach a state in which there were no becoming, there would there be calm, that would be sweet-the cessation of all these conditions, the getting rid of all these defects (of lusts, of evil, and of Karma), the end of cravings, the absence of passion, peace, Nirvâna!" And therewith does his mind leap forward into that state in which there is no becoming, and then has he found peace, then does he exult and rejoice at the thought: "A refuge have I gained at last!" Just, O king, as a man who, venturing into a strange land, has lost his way, on becoming aware of a path, free from jungle, that will lead him home, bounds forward along it, contented in mind, exulting and rejoicing at the thought: "I have found the way at last!"--just so in him who thus perceives the insecurity of transitory births there arises the thought: "All on fire is this endless becoming, burning, and blazing! Full of pain is it, and despair! If only one could reach a state in which there were no becoming, there would there be calm, that would be sweet-the cessation of all these conditions, the getting rid of all these defects, the end of cravings, the absence of passion, peace, Nirvâna!" And therewith does his mind leap forward into that state in which there is no becoming, and then has he found peace, then does he exult and rejoice at the thought: "A refuge have I found at last!" And he strives with might and main along that path, searches it out, accustoms himself thoroughly to it, to that end does he make firm his self-possession, to that end does he hold fast in effort, to that end does he remain stedfast in love (toward all beings in all the worlds), and still to that does he direct his mind again and again, until gone far beyond the transitory, he gains the Real, the highest fruit (of Arahatship). And when he has gained that, O king, the man who has ordered his life aright has realised, (seen face to face,) Nirvâna!'


Is the determining thought moment (vottopana) based entirely off of past karma? Is the way I choose to react to a situation based entirely off of past karma or is there something else that determines how I react to an external object?

I am confused between my understanding that ultimately there is no control and yet I can control my reactions to situations. Is there only a sense of control as long as an individual is not fully enlightened?

Vottapana is a Citta(thought moment) that has the function of determining or decision making. It is not a result of past Kamma. But it is not a self either. There's no 'I' in it. Why? Because it is also born of causes and impermanent like any other Citta.

  there is no
  control and yet I can control my reactions to situations. Is there
  only a sense of control as long as an individual is not fully
  enlightened?

Whether one is enlightened or not, there's no sense of control if by 'control' you mean there's a 'self' or 'I' who does the decision making. But there's a sense of control in the sense of a citta performing the function of decision making.


The Justice Thought & System & its Morals? Namo Buddhaya!

Here are my questions regarding justice systems & their morals:

  Would it be skillful & moral to report someone to a principle, a police
  officer, or any sort of authority when someone is being hurtful to
  others (such as killing, bullying, etc.), knowing that reporting them will most likely cause them suffering
  e.g. expulsion from school, jail time, etc?

  And also is justice skillful, moral and is incarceration moral,
  skillful in terms of the Dhamma?

Metta!

Justice system is driven by unskillful intentions, but a necessity to maintain society. Essentially any action rooted in hatred, greed or ignorance is not skilful. For many justice is a form of retribution for some action done by another which is based on hatred which and unskillful root.

If you are judge you are expected to judge justly.

Reporting crime one needs to weigh the karmic consequences one may willing to bear and impact or betterment it brings.

If you are a witness brought forward by subpoena then you have to tell the truth. In many cases of coming forward to report a crime may not be skilful if it is motivated by hatred, greed or ignorance. Generally when coming forward one has sympathy towards the victim and hatred towards the perpetrator.


Vipassana on arupa worlds S. N. Goenka in Why Vedana and What is Vedana? says:

  It is clear that vedana as a part of the nama that is firmly rooted in kaya is what the Buddha wanted us to focus on when he talked about meditation to eradicate suffering. This is also the reason why brahmas from arupabrahmaloka cannot practise Vipassana and why the Buddha could not give Dhamma to his past teachers of arupa jhanas (seventh and eighth jhanas/dhyanas). In the fifth to eighth jhanas, jhanas the mind is set free from the body and thus there is no experience of vedana. Therefore, these brahmas lack rupa and cannot experience body-sensations. Hence, the practice of the awareness of vedana is not possible for them and they cannot walk on the path of liberation.

Likewise another paper (The Importance of Kaya-samphassaja-vedana in Vipassana Meditation) states:

  For a person like the Buddha, access to these [arupa] worlds was not impossible, nor was it impossible to communicate the teaching mentally to beings of these planes of existence. However, the fact that these beings in the arupabrahma-loka do not experience bodily sensation prevented the Buddha from teaching the Dhamma to them.

(Both papers are collected in the book: The Importance of Vedana and Sampajanna published by the Vipassana Research Institute)

So, the Buddha didn't teach Vipassana to arupa worlds's inhabitants because they cannot feel sensations: is this claim generally accepted in the Buddhist world, at least among the Theravada?

By the way, living in an arupa world would imply in my understanding that it is possible the arising of a mind consciousness (manovinnana) without a physical sense base (such as our heart base or hadaya-vatthu): is this assumption correct?

In the arupa worlds you cannot hear the Dhamma as you do not have this faculty, also the mental process is too subtle making it not possible to meditate on it. But if you have experiences even the 1st state of sainthood you can progress from here to the final goal.

  By the way, living in an arupa world would imply in my understanding that it is possible the arising of a mind consciousness (manovinnana) without a physical sense base (such as our heart base or hadaya-vatthu): is this assumption correct?

My thinking is also that the heart base does not have a physical associated location in the arupa realm as there is nothing physical or corporeal here.

In addition, in the brahma world as you quoted you to not have physical sensation relating to the elements but sensations are present in the arupa cittas. See 121 cittas in Abhidhamma.


Is there a time difference between death and re-birth? What is the Theravada position to following question?
Is there a time difference between death and re-birth?

Some further reading:
Are my future parents already here?
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21961&hilit

In abhidhamma, when death consciousness vanished, then rebirth consciousness arise, immediately.


Is nirvana a conceptual construction? Is nirvana a conceptual construction - empty in that way? For any / only some Buddhists.
I'm just trying to figure out how extinction can avoid the extremes of eternalism and annihilation. If it is a conceptual construction in the sense of having no reality outside what it is in conventional designation (blissful etc.), that might be an answer. If some rock has no qualities that we cannot define, then maybe there is nothing to add to its existence, nothing to puzzle over and ask why or how.

"I'm just trying to figure out how extinction can avoid the extremes of eternalism and annihilation."
And therein lies your problem.  If you are trying to figure it out, you are dealing in concepts, not nirvana.  Every word you speak answers itself.  It is a closed loop.  A closed system.  Step outside.  How would you define a word without using language?  See the following:

Case 5 of the Mumonkan Kyogen's "Man Up a Tree"
The Case:
Kyõgen Oshõ said, "It is like a man up in a tree hanging from a branch
with his mouth; his hands grasp no bough, his feet rest on no limb.
Someone appears under the tree and asks him, 'What is the meaning of
Bodhidharma's coming from the West?' If he does not answer, he fails
to respond to the question. If he does answer, he will lose his life.
What would you do in such a situation?"
Mumon's Comment:
Even if your eloquence flows like a river, it is of no avail. Though
you can expound the whole of Buddhist literature, it is of no use. If
you solve this problem, you will give life to the way that has been
dead until this moment and destroy the way that has been alive up to
now. Otherwise you must wait for Maitreya Buddha and ask him.
Mumon's Verse:
Kyõgen is truly thoughtless; His vice and poison are endless. He stops
up the mouths of the monks,  And devil's eyes sprout from their
bodies.

Instead of worrying about concepts, search for the word that has neither sound nor meaning.


Offering water to a buddha statue? Does offering water to a Buddha statue increase merits? Can I get more merits from offering food or drinks to a buddha statue than from giving money to beggars?

It's important to notice the purpose of practicing Dana, or the virtue of charity. It is to let go of stinginess, of clinging, and of attachment. So while it's true that there're wholesome resultant merits, as long as one keeps in mind the true purpose of the practice, one won't fall into that common mistake of treating Dana as a transaction which leads to differentiating/calculating who/where/when to donate to maximize the "returns". With the right intent, whether offering water to Buddha statue or donating to the poor or helping the sick, or whatever, every single act adds up and help one to be able to let go (as opposed to pick up more) all clinging and attachments.


Is the path considered or viewed as being selfish? As i learn more about the path and as a result about myself, i cannot wonder if it selfish or self-preserving.

I have a greater appreciation that all is connected and inter-related however it remains to be my relationship. This isn't from the perspective of you and i (duality), but from an understanding of me with the rest of the universe. Perhaps i am overlooking something that is key to further understanding and would appreciate what this may be.

For example, is the realization and actualization intended for myself
only?
If i help others and practice compassion, is it not intended to
support my karmic cycle?

In turn, are these not selfish?

Chavalata Sutta: The Firebrand, see also AN 5.20; AN 4.96; AN 4.99 and most efficient of what Ms. Frying Pan had to say about this issues: The Bamboo Acrobat


The method in the Noble Eightfold Path in right speech for persuasion and influence What does the Noble Eightfold Path say about right speech when it comes to persuasion and influence?

While persuading and influencing are not part of the standard definition of Right Speech, it certainly is considered inappropriate for monks and not part of Right Speech for monks, in the context of monetary gain or politics or other worldly endeavours not suited to the holy life, as seen below.
From DN 2:

"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
faith, are addicted to running messages and errands for people such as
these — kings, ministers of state, noble warriors, brahmans,
householders, or youths [who say], 'Go here, go there, take this
there, fetch that here' — he abstains from running messages and
errands for people such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.

"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
faith, engage in scheming, persuading, hinting, belittling, and
pursuing gain with gain, he abstains from forms of scheming and
persuading [improper ways of trying to gain material support from
donors] such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.


Some daily-life examples to help explain what 'mindfulness' and 'mindless activity' are? In Buddhism there is a concept of mindful activity. But what actually is mindfulness? How does it differ from mindless activity?

Please help me to understand that: I've googled it a lot, but failed to gain insight into it.

I hope that some concrete examples from daily life might be the best way to explain it.

I am really bad at understanding theory, so if you can please give examples is daily life: for example, is watching a movie categorized as mindless or mindful? How to make it a mindful activity?

EDIT:
After receiving various kind help, I gain more insight into mindfulness. There are 4 types of mindfulness of phenomenon of the living:

the awareness of existence of the phenomenon of body
the awareness of existence of the phenomenon of feeling. such as pleasant, unpleasant, neutral feeling that arise
the awareness of existence of phenomenon of mind
the awareness of existence of phenomenon of mental quality according to buddha teaching. (i have not fully grasp of the last part)

Do not think that one of those four as the ultimate awareness. All of those awareness make whole awareness.

mindlessness is like being a robot that fully functional. mindfulness is like being a fully functional robot that gain awareness of itself. please excuse me with the example

reference: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html

When your Buddhism teacher tells you: "don't get irritated in daily life, don't get frustrated, be the master of your mind"

-- and then you come back next day and say, "I really wanted to be a master of my mind... but then I got carried away and yelled at my wife"

and teacher says: "but this was supposed to be your main practice, to not get irritated, didn't I give you instructions?"

and you say: "somehow, in real life, when we started arguing with my wife, it looked so real and so important, and your instructions seemed so far away and so naive and irrelevant"

and the teacher says: "this means you lack mindfulness. You must hold your practice assignment in front of you at all times, it must be the main thing on your mind - whatever else you do in daily life. Develop mindfulness. Do not get carried away."

So that moment when "it looked so real and so important, and your instructions seemed so far away and so naive and irrelevant" - is when your perspective (and with it, your perception of reality and hence your judgement) has shifted by the external circumstances. If you had mindfulness, you would be able to hold your perspective the way your teacher has set it up, regardless of external pressure. So mindfulness is really a basic form of jhana, being able to control your perspective, instead of you being a slave of perspective. Mindfulness is predecessor to meditation.


Buddha's omniscience Is a Buddha omniscient? If so, is there some agreement on what omniscience more specifically means?

(All traditions are of interest. But particularly Mahayana)

In MN 71, the Buddha clarifies the meaning of his omniscience to the wandering ascetic Vacchagotta:

Vaccha: ‘Venerable sir, I have heard this said: The recluse Gotama is all knowing and all seeing and acknowledges remainderless knowledge and vision in this manner, ‘while walking, standing, lying or awake, constantly and continually knowledge and vision is established, to me’.Venerable sir, those who say, these words, ‘The recluse Gotama is all knowing and all seeing and acknowledges remainderless knowledge and vision:while walking, standing, lying or awake, constantly and continually.’ Are they saying the words of good Gotama and are they not blaming the Blessed One falsely?
The Buddha: Vaccha, those who say, the recluse Gotama is all knowing and all seeing and acknowledges remainderless knowledge and vision, while walking, standing, lying or awake, constantly and continually. They, do not say my words, they blame me falsely.
Vaccha: Venerable sir, saying how would it be said, correctly not blaming the Blessed One falsely?
The Buddha: ‘The recluse Gotama knows the three knowledges. Saying it thus they would be saying the right thing, and not blaming me falsely. Vaccha, whenever I desire, I recollect the manifold previous births, such as one birth, two births, with all modes and all details, thus I recall the manifold previous births. Vaccha, when I desire, with the purified heavenly eye beyond human, see beings disappearing and appearing, in unexalted and exalted states, beautiful and ugly, in good and bad states,-- I see beings, according their actions. Vaccha, destroying desires, my mind released and released through wisdom, here and now by myself realising I abide. Vaccha, if it is said, the recluse Gotama knows the three knowledges, saying it thus, you would be saying the right thing and not blaming me falsely’.

Ven. Bodhi further elaborates by citing the Commentary in his note in "The Middle Length Discourses":

MA explains that even though part of the statement is valid, the Buddha rejects the entire statement because of the portion that is invalid. The part of the statement that is valid is the assertion that the Buddha is omniscient and all-seeing; the part that is excessive is the assertion that knowledge and vision are continuously present to him. According to the Theravāda exegetical tradition the Buddha is omniscient in the sense that all knowable things are potentially accessible to him. He cannot, however, know everything simultaneously and must advert to whatever he wishes to know. At MN 90.8 the Buddha says that it is possible to know and see all, though not simultaneously, and at AN 4:24/ii.24 he claims to know all that can be seen, heard, sensed, and cognized. This is understood by the Theravāda commentators as an assertion of omniscience in the qualified sense. See too in this connection Miln 102–7.


What are the Major Meditation Traditions / Masters in Laos / Cambodia / Vietnam? What are the Major Meditation Traditions / Masters in Laos / Cambodia /  Vietnam? Does Cambodia prominent meditation lineages which originated in Laos / Cambodia /  Vietnam? What are the lineages originating elsewhere coming to Laos / Cambodia /  Vietnam? Do they have variation from practiced elsewhere?

Valued Upasaka Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Atma can only tell you about Cambodia. Meditation is a very death matter. There are 3 main streams, currently:

One and most popular and growing: Goenka. A second center is currently in building in Central Cambodia.
The secound most dominate lineage is that of But Sovung, originated from Acharn Sujin, a Thai Upasika (also teacher of Upasika Nina Van Gorkum), which avoids in somehow everything that could cause Jhana and is merely a dry Adhidhamma tradition (Dhamma in Cambodia), but most successful in manners of gaining.
The "formal" branch of "Vipassana Dhura Buddhist Meditation Center" with the most public and governmental support, focusing more on Jhana.

Under 1.000 monks, you would find 10 who have learned meditation a little and 1 who regular practice it. The same with laypeople. Such as daily practice is merely unknown and people are much to busy so that they would scarify time. So if, there are mainly such as retreats or courses here and there, events. In every region one finds on this or that hill such as a meditation guru, mostly focusing on samadhi. The forest Tradition is extincted. Atma came across some disciples of older lineages, but those Monks (mostly 50+) mostly have stopped to teach or are busy to build Meditation Building first.

There is one monastery in Siam Reap, which is sad to focus on meditation. Atma had met some monks from there but did not personally came there till today.

All in all it holds true, if there is no Sila, there is no foundation for samadhi. Maybe Atma is able to share more contacts and hints.


When did the Buddha get surrounded by lots of animals? I remember an image of the Buddha being surrounded by animals. I think the story is that they all flocked around after his enlightenment though I could be wrong. Does anyone know what the story is that goes with this picture and where if anywhere it is in the Buddhist texts. Also if someone can point me to a particularly good picture I would be grateful.

My motivation for asking this is I'm due to run a family afternoon in my local centre and my idea is to get the children making clay animals (with googly eyes) that we can then arrange arround a Buddha to recreate this scene. Then we will all eat some cake!

Many Thanks

An image (a painting) of the Buddha with many animals is the subject of the children's story, The Cat Who Went to Heaven.

Some of the animal vignettes in this are each taken from a traditional story (e.g. Buddha and swan, and e.g. Buddha and Banyan deer).

The painting is of the following scene:

  When he was eighty, he knew he was near
  death, and he saw the skies open and all the Hindu gods of the heavens, and
  of the trees, and the mountains, with his disciples, and the animals of the
  earth came to bid him farewell.

I don't know whether that scene is from any traditional story (I don't think it's a Pali sutta).


Did the Buddha speak Pali? Are the suttas his word verbatim? Was Pali the language spoken during the time of the Buddha, and would he have spoken this language?
Are the suttas contained in the Pali Canon verbatim what the Buddha said, or would things have been changed due to centuries of oral transmission?

The Buddha likely spoke in several dialects that were quite similar to Pali. He was immensely well traveled for his time, so in his travels he likely adopted the native dialect to be better understood by the locals. His words were only a small part of his teaching - his enlightened presence and conduct were likely better vessels of his teaching.

The Pali canon is a consolidation of his talks, created only after his death. The content is very likely the same, but the rendition is only as Ananda and other disciples remembered him. The standardized repetitive form was created as an aid to rote memorization and oral rendition. There was certainly doubt in their minds as they set down the teachings that they'd not be able to replicate the vastness of the Buddha's being in mere words, but all the same they resolved to make a sincere effort, and the Canon that emerged was a result of seven months of deliberation.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Buddhist_council

Pali (Pāli) is a Prakrit native to the Indian subcontinent. It is widely studied because it is the language of many of the earliest extant literature of Buddhism as collected in the Pāli Canon or Tipiṭaka and is the sacred language of Theravada Buddhism.
Many Theravada sources refer to the Pāli language as "Magadhan" or the "language of Magadha". This identification first appears in the commentaries, and may have been an attempt by Buddhists to associate themselves more closely with the Maurya Empire. The Buddha taught in Magadha, but the four most important places in his life are all outside of it. It is likely that he taught in several closely related dialects of Middle Indo-Aryan, which had a high degree of mutual intelligibility. There is no attested dialect of Middle Indo-Aryan with all the features of Pāli. Pāli has some commonalities with both the western Ashokan Edicts at Girnar in Saurashtra, and the Central-Western Prakrit found in the eastern Hathigumpha inscription.
Whatever the relationship of the Buddha's speech to Pāli, the Canon was eventually transcribed and preserved entirely in it, while the commentarial tradition that accompanied it (according to the information provided byBuddhaghosa) was translated into Sinhaleseand preserved in local languages for several generations. In Sri Lanka, Pāli is thought to have entered into a period of decline ending around the 4th or 5th century (as Sanskrit rose in prominence, and simultaneously, as Buddhism's adherents became a smaller portion of the subcontinent), but ultimately survived. The work of Buddhaghosa was largely responsible for its reemergence as an important scholarly language in Buddhist thought. The Visuddhimagga, and the other commentaries that Buddhaghosa compiled, codified and condensed the Sinhalesecommentarial tradition that had been preserved and expanded in Sri Lanka since the 3rd century BCE.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali
See also,  http://www.vridhamma.org/Pali-Overview-94-Seminar


Statues I can't find anything about I picked up these two statues today. I have been searching for an hour or two, to identify them or learn anything at all I can about them.  I've searched through thousands of images, been comparing Buddhas from different countries, etc.

I found this website and saw the statue tag and now feel relieved.  Please someone tell me anything you can about these.

I hope I'm not posting this in the wrong place.  Thanks so much

This is a great source for identifying Buddhist statues by what they are holding.

The Buddha on the right is a representation of the historical Buddha (Shakyamuni). You can tell by the head-pattern, which represent 108 snails that crawled on the Buddha's head. In Japanese Buddhism, a red lotus held in the left hand is called Benikairen (紅開蓮) and symbolizes compassion.

The statue on the left is more difficult to identify. It is crowned and the historical Buddha was generally not depicted with any jewelry (being worldly attachment), which leads me to believe this is a depiction of a Bodhisattva. He is holding a five-storied pagoda (Jap. gojū-no-tō 五重塔) which is identified with the "Medicine Buddha" (who is actually a Bodhisattva):

  In Chinese depictions, he is sometimes holding a pagoda, symbolising the ten thousand Buddhas of the three periods of time.


Neighbour from "hell" Imagine you live in an urban area, have a job, you have to sleep well so that your mind is well rested.

Your neighbour doesnt work, he gets government money help. The problem is that when night arrives, he drugs himself, listen music in the most higher bass and volume at 4 in the morning. You call him attention, he continues to do the same.

If you call the police, probably it will develop a further problem with that neighbour and end up in a violent answer from him.

According to Buddhism, how can one deal with such a situation in a skillful manner?

Show your kindness (compassion), with Buddhist wisdom ;)

... for ur particular case, buy ur neigbhour a set of headphone in supreme quality, with a note inserted e.g.: my favourite brand, cool stuff. Enjoy music any time, day & night, dusk till dawn!

You may knock on the door to hand it to him, or send by mail. Remember, wrap it in nice gift paper, sign your name, with smile. Consider, the cost to move or cost of time to deal with engaging police/third party, this gift is tiny.

And surely you will then hv a neighbour who will let u stayed in raining day when u forgot ur key waiting for the locksmith... 囧


Foundations of Mindfulness • Stages of Awakening Are there hints, in the Theravada traditions, at  parallels to be possibly drawn between the progression through the four stages of awakening (stream winner, once returner, non returner, arahant ) and the penetration of the four foundations of Mindfulness ?
Thank you dearest friends for your insights and comments. May you be well and safe.

My answer to this question is "no".
The Anapanasati Sutta is about the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. It says:

Mindfulness with breathing, developed and cultivated, fulfils the four
foundations of mindfulness.

In the Anapanasati Sutta, each of the last 14 of 16 stages is preceded by the phrase: "a bhikkhu trains thus" or "he trains himself" (in Pali: "sikkhati").
In other words, while the Anapanasati Sutta using four tetrads describes fulfillment of the four foundations of mindfulness, the fact the Anapanasati Sutta uses the term "he trains himself" shows it is not the practise of Arahants because Arahants are no longer engaged in "training" ("sikkha").
This fact is shown in the suttas where the Buddha's own practise of Anapanasati is described, such as in SN 54.11, where the phase: "he trains himself" is not found.
In addition, each stage of Anapanasati is experienced with knowing of breathing. However, knowing of breathing is never mentioned in both the suttas and commentaries by highly esteemed monks as an experience in jhana. In jhana, there is no knowing of breathing, which shows, per Commentary teachings of three types of samadhi, there are different degrees of experiencing rapture.
Thus, while this distinction is not mentioned in respect to the Buddha's meditation in SN 54.11, in SN 54.11 the term anāpānassatisamādhiṃ (concentration due to mindfulness with breathing) is found. In other words, a Buddha or Arahant may start their meditation with Anapanasati but the concentration developed from it will quickly proceed to jhana.
In summary, what distinguishes stream winner, once returner, non returner & arahant appears to be the attainment and use of jhana. The suttas, such as Iti 96 & MN 14, say: (i) a non-returner never returns to sensuality; and (ii) a practitioner that has perfected jhana is no longer tempted by sensuality. Therefore, it appears what results in non-returning is the perfection of jhana.
Bhikkhu Bodhi has made a clear case (i completely agree with) that a stream-enterer has not yet reached jhana. Refer to: The Jhānas and the Lay Disciple According to the Pāli Suttas.
In conclusion, it appears the progression through the four stages of awakening (stream winner, once returner, non returner, arahant ) is related to whether jhana or not is leading the insight (vipassana) of the four foundations of mindfulness.


Enlightenment vs nibbana/nirvana What is the difference between enlightenment/awakening and nibbana/nirvana? And how do these terms relate to parinibbana/parinirvana?

Enlightenment, or Bodhi, refers to coming to a direct realization of the truth. Nibbana is the timeless state of perfect peace and happiness which occurs as a result of attaining Enlightenment, and it will occur immediately after attaining any of the four stages of enlightenment, and can be re-cultivated as well.

Parinibbana in common usage today refers to when a fully enlightened Arahat (one who has overcome all attachment and will not be reborn) undergoes bodily death. Instead of being reborn, they enter into Nibbana again, only this time they stay that way.


Is it a lie to not report income in taxes? Facing a situation where if I report cash income, a lot of people would get in trouble. Would it be a lie to report income as zero when filing taxes?

Is abstaining from declaring income on paper a lie?

Thank you

As a lay practitioner you should make the fivefold offering (pañca,balī) out of which offering to the king [the government] (rāja,balī) which is akin to tax filing in the modern day. [Adiya Sutta, Patta Kamma Sutta]

Since taxes are legally owned by the government and not paying them would be misappropriating something belonging to the government which is similar to stealing. If you add false information in your tax return to get away with taxes then it is both lying and stealing. Also withholding information with the intent to mislead is also like lying.

Having said this by all means use tax planning / tax avoidance (legal) but not tax evasion (illegal). If what you are doing is illegal and there are sums owed to the tax authorities then it is stealing as iterated above.


How can you use Q&A to gain good Karma and also aid to realize liberation How can you use Q&A to:

effectively and efficiently create good Karma, and
also use it as an aid to reach the final Buddhist goal

Also what Suttas and literature, cover these topics?

How can you use Q&A to gain good Karma and also aid to realize liberation?

By reflecting on a few principles when asking & answering:

Asking & Answering

Notice in what category does the question lie in:

  "There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There
  are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly
  yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with
  an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms].
  There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question.
  There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways
  of answering questions."
  -AN 4.42, Questions

And if the answers given are appropriate to that kind of question:

  "Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a
  person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a
  person, when asked a question, doesn't give a categorical answer to a
  question deserving a categorical answer, doesn't give an analytical
  (qualified) answer to a question deserving an analytical answer,
  doesn't give a counter-question to a question deserving a
  counter-question, doesn't put aside a question deserving to be put
  aside, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with.
  But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to
  a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer
  to a question deserving an analytical answer, gives a counter-question
  to a question deserving a counter-question, and puts aside a question
  deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person
  fit to talk with.
  -AN 3.67, Topics for Discussion (I recommend reading the entire discourse since it has additional valuable advice. You might also want to read Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation)

Notice that not all questions deserve an answer since they are off-topic or have implicit assumptions which makes them so. Here's an article regarding this kind of questions which I think is worth reading.

Asking

When asking, be aware of the motive behind your question:

  Ven. Sariputta said: "All those who ask questions of another do so
  from any one of five motivations. Which five?

  "One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One
  asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with
  greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a
  question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question
  with this thought, 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
  good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'

  "All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of these
  five motivations. And as for me, when I ask a question of another,
  it's with this thought: 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well &
  good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'
  -AN 5.165, On Asking Questions

For a broader and more in-depth understanding of this topic, I recommend reading the related discourses which are mentioned at the end of the discourses linked above and a brilliant book written by Thanissaro Bhikkhu named Skill in Questions: How the Buddha Taught. It has many examples of Q&A's that fit the above categories.


Buddhism - Is it a religion? I disagreed from the very beginning, after understanding some Buddhist philosophy, that it is not a religion.

In my opinion, it is not a religion but a lifestyle or administration under which Buddhist teaching is practised.

Please clarify why it is classified as a religion.

PS: I have met many people specially from Nepal, who claim as a Buddhist monk but yet they don't seem to practice any Buddhist norms. And they even call me 'nastik' (one who don't believe in religion)

It depend on what you mean by the word religion.

  the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

If you take above definition, Buddhism is not a religion.


How should Buddhists handle prayer requests? Fairly regularly people ask me to pray for them or their family members. In my understanding, Buddhist don't generally pray for things to be different than what they are. But it never seems appropriate to mention this to a person who might be upset so I just say "of course" and leave it at that.

But the truth is, outside of metta for everyone, I don't pray for such things as my neighbor's uncle's knee replacement operation or for my co-worker's daughter to advance in the state championship for soccer. So I'm lying to someone and that's uncomfortable and not a good mind state to be in.

First, is my understanding that Buddhist don't generally pray for things to be other than what they are wrong view? And if not, what might be a better way to handle prayer requests?

This is a great question, certainly understandable. I don't think it's right to say that prayer as an activity goes against the Buddha's teaching; certainly prayer that stems from desire is unwholesome, but prayer that stems from kindness and purity of mind, in the sense of being an expression of one's attitude towards all beings, as:

Sukhino vā khemino hontu sabbe sattā bhavantu sukhitattā "May all beings be happy and secure, with a heart full of happiness!"
(Karaniya Metta Sutta)

is proper, since it leads to tranquility of mind and an outlook based on purity of intention. The problem is only when prayer is based on a sense of need for things to be other than what they are, rather than an outlook that informs one's life (i.e. acting, speaking and thinking for benefit rather than harm)
Another "wrong" regarding prayer, according to Buddhism, would be the localization of the prayer as depending on an external entity (i.e. God). Obviously if by prayer one means the beseeching of an external entity to intervene, that is likely based on both desire and wrong view.
So, in brief, when someone asks you to pray for them or someone else, by all means, say you will if you want; just be clear that to a Buddhist, prayer is simply an expression of "May so and so be happy and well." That's all anyone wants, is for people to be thinking kindly of them, and it is certainly a means of cultivating harmony and peace, both internally and externally. Just don't succumb to desire for change or expectation of outside intervention.