Is mathematics empty? Buddhists say that everything is empty.

Is mathematics empty?

I thought that "empty" meant conceptually constructed. But how can the fact (not the expression) 2 + 3 = 5 not be a fact which is true regardless of how we are counting?

Emptiness in eastern philosophies usually have a more subtle meaning than we use in the west. Check this wikipedia article on Emptiness. And there are many answers regarding emptiness (sunyata) like this one. There is also an article in wikipedia on Śūnyatā.

The most common understanding on emptiness (on Buddhism) is that it is dependently originated. It means that it does not have inherent meaning or value, but it relies on other things. In mathematics the numbers two, three, five and so on just has meaning because of the number one. And also, the number one only has meaning relying on the other numbers.

In a more practical sense, numbers only has meaning because of the objects, like apples, rocks or sheep. Now, emotions, that have no clear bounds, can't be numerically described. You could say that you felt happy twice today, but you can't express its intensity and form numerically. Then math is true not because it has inherent meaning, but because it works for what it is used.

There is another interpretation I read on this QA (and also in some wikipedia article but I couldn't find it):

  [Emptiness is] a flashy way of reminding us that we only define things in relation to what they are not.

In math words, the number one only exist because there is the zero. And there is zero only because of the one. (Although the zero was "created" much after the integer numbers). If we couldn't distinguish between zero and one, no numbers would make sense. There is only happy because there is not-happy. There is only "self" because we define our bounds, we define what is not-me.

Likewise we can only perceive suffering if we know what is not-suffering.

So, when we say that math is empty, we don't mean that it is false or is meaningless. But we mean that is not absolutely true, that it is true in relation to something. Truth is a relation, not an absolute thing.


Is attaining to Jhana possible for me? I searched for the word 'Jhana' on this site and read almost all about 50 odd questions on Jhana. I asked few questions myself.
It seems like one has to put extreme efforts to attain to Jhana.
This is part of one of the answers;

...They sit 12+ hours everyday for many months or years to get this light
which can shine in their mind trough the dark night. It is shining
breathe or meditation's object, not sunlight. Today, many of them have
not been laying on a bed for 20 years...

This isn't practical for lay disciples, or at least for me outside of retreat. At this point Jhana feels like a wishful thinking.
Should one aim for Jhana in sitting?
If not Jhana, then, is there any other state to aim as an intermediary to Nirvana.
I do a daily 90 minute sitting and some chanting. Is it possible for me to attain Jhana?
What is recommended daily duration?

I think you are misunderstanding the nature of jhanas. In your defense, this is a mistake made by almost everyone on a certain stage.
You think jhanas are some concrete states that are specific and can be recognized, that all people must go through same exact experiences on their way to nirvana/enlightenment. That the final Liberation is also something very concrete. Alas, those are all wishful simplifications.
Real-life experiences are a lot more fluid and variegated. That's one, and two, as you get more and more enlightened you realize more and more clearly that labels are mere labels and that in real life everything "it depends".
So, the jhanas are not something mighty specific that can be entered, that's bullshit (pardon my language). Jhanas are approximate phases in your mastery of your emotional intelligence, mastery of mind. You don't sit for 12 hours straight staring at the wall and then boom! you're in jhana, no. Instead, you must learn to analyze and condition the state of your mind.
Specifically, you learn what makes you sad and glad, and how to make yourself joyful and motivated. You discover your inner pre-logical core and learn to reconnect with it. You learn to puncture through noise of thoughts and into the inner clarity. You discover first-hand how your mind's association and interpretation circuitry works. You master the connection between your interpretations and your emotions. You understand the power of context, the power of comparison, the role of reference point in evaluation. You learn to juggle contexts. You can freely enter and exit the contexts of other people.
Mastering all this makes you very even-handed. You are no longer carried away by your emotions. First, you have to apply effort to keep your emotions steady and stable in the moments of frustration or challenge, but with time you get rather steady even without much effort, things don't disturb you as much. You can go through difficult life situations without getting overwhelmed.
Because you are no longer overwhelmed by your emotions and no longer bounded by your mental contexts, you are not obsessed with your problems, you can actually see and hear other people's problems from their sides.
Then eventually you get to the existential questions like the meaning of life, the death, the happiness and suffering, karma - and you begin to see it rather clearly. It gets pretty clear, how things work.
That's what this training is about. You don't have to sit until your ass falls off. The point is not in sitting, it's in what you are sitting about. Mental and emotional untangling. And half of that work (if not more) is done off the cushion.
It is serious, hard, non-trivial, but deeply rewarding, process of discovery and mastery. Not some childish fantasy. But in the end it's much more cool - and real - than any fiction.
So the First Jhana, is when you learn to make yourself joyful at will using auto-suggestions, recollections, deliberate thinking on appropriate topics. That's it. Magic!
The Second Jhana, is when you can do the above then stop and keep joyful and energized, optimistic and confident without the auto-suggestions, for as long as you stay awake that day.
The Third Jhana is almost same as above but more refined, without the show-off marching parade function of joy. You can stay lucid, calm, emotionally sober, peaceful, harmonious - all day long, without auto-suggestions - just by maintaining your inner balance.
And the Fourth Jhana is pure judgement-free awareness. Whatever is going on, externally or internally, you can stay judgement-free, not qualifying any experience as good or bad. Unperturbed, immovable like a mountain. Clear like water. Transparent like space. Everything is just the way it is, and not a tad different.
This is all real - and practically useful - stuff, not sitting and wishing for some fictional inner sun to shine.


How do I practise Vipassana and Samatha through Anapanasati? After reading the answers to this question I understand that keeping the object of meditation  same, Samatha leads to calm and tranquility of mind and Vipassana leads to insight into nature of reality.

If I focus on the breath or if my object of meditation is bearth while meditation, what is the exact technique for both Samatha and Vipassana.

Sorry, the answers to question does not mention the technique or what exactly to do. Also google search results are showing up magazine articles.

References to suttas appreciated.

Thanks.

If you are focusing on the breath sensation then it is vipassana and if you are focusing on in and out breath as a concept then it is samatha. There are many methods like mahasi, sunlun, goenka so I suggest you try it. I don't think you can reach jhana if you are just focusing on the in and out breath because it's not easy to stop thoughts from arising. That's why samatha and vipassana should be developed together. You should be aware of what you are doing all the time. Always be aware of sensation of touch.


What is the deep sound that buddhist monk make during meditation called I have often noticed buddhist monk make deep sound, something that feels might be coming from the naval or sometimes the throat. I want to know more details about the sound. What is the origin and if there is a specific name to it. Is it same as the "om" of Hinduism?

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_chant

  Tibetan monks are noted for their skill at throat-singing, a specialized form of chanting in which, by amplifying the voice's upper partials, the chanter can produce multiple distinct pitches simultaneously. Japanese esoteric practitioners also practice a form of chanting called shomyo.

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone_singing#Tibet

  Tibetan Buddhist chanting is a subgenre of throat singing, mainly practiced by monks of Tibet, including Qinghai (Khokhonor) province in the Tibetan plateau area, Tibetan monks of Nepal, Bhutan, India, and various locations in the Himalayan region. Most often the chants hold to the lower pitches possible in throat singing. Various ceremonies and prayers call for throat singing in Tibetan Buddhism, often with more than one monk chanting at a time. There are different Tibetan throat singing styles, such as Gyuke (Tibetan: རྒྱུད་སྐད་, Wylie: rgyud skad) – this style uses the lowest pitch of voice; Dzoke (Tibetan: མཛོ་སྐད་, Wylie: mdzo skad), and Gyer (Tibetan: གྱེར་, Wylie: gyer).


Can bhavanga-consciousness be compared to the non-dual mind-state rigpa? While reading Pa Auk Sayadaw I came across the following:

  The bhavanga-consciousness is bright and luminous, and looks like a mirror in the heart: that is the mind-door.

This seems to have qualities similar to:

  In Dzogchen the fundamental, inherent nature of everything is called the "Ground Luminosity" or the "Mother Luminosity."

Are these two qualities of mind related?

Generally speaking it is difficult to compare assertions made about the mind from different cultures many centuries apart.

For example the Theravādins invented the bhavaṇgacitta for a specific purpose. There is a fundamental problem in Buddhist philosophy. Pratītyasamutpāda tells us that conditions must be present for effects to manifest (imassmim sati idam hoti) and that when the condition ceases the effect also ceases (imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati). However the idea of karma requires that effects (vipāka) manifest long after the condition (kamma) has ceased. The two do not work together. I call this the problem of Action at a Temporal Distance.

In order to get around this early Buddhists invented several different new ideas. The Theravādins opted for the the idea that each dhamma is very short-lived and acts as the condition for a similar dhamma to arise immediately afterwards. This creates an unbroken chain of short-lived mental events that accounts for karmic effects long after the action that set them in motion.

But it has a number of downstream problems.

One is that we go to sleep everyday and consciousness stops in deep sleep. The bhavaṅgacitta is like a neutral gear for the mind, it keeps ticking over while the mind is inactive when we are asleep or at other times such as deep meditation when sense experience stops, or even when we stare vacantly at the view and there are no thoughts in our minds.

Another problem the bhavaṅgacitta solves is that a wholesome mental event (kusala citta) cannot give rise to an unwholesome mental event (akusala citta). And because our minds alternate between kusala and akusala cittas there needs to be some way to get from one to the other. So the Theravādins say that when this happens a moment of bhavaṅgacitta has to be interposed.

The fact is that while this was satisfactory to medieval Buddhists the scheme doesn't really work, even on it's own terms. See The Logic of Karma.

I'm much less familiar with the Dzogchen idea of "Ground Luminosity", but it looks to be influenced by another solution to the problem of Action at a Temporal Distance, the Yogācāra. In this view a metaphor from early Buddhism was taken up by Vasubandhu and reified by his followers. They liken an action to a seed and invoke the analogy of how the seed is planted in the ground and watered and eventually grows into a tree. Early Buddhists often used analogies from nature to try to explain their theories. The metaphor is that kamma is a seed. And of course the analogy requires a metaphorical "ground" for the seed to be planted in. And so the ālayavijñāna was invented as the metaphorical ground for the metaphorical seed to complete the analogy. Unfortunately Buddhists often lose sight of metaphors and reify them. The metaphor of ālayavijñāna as ground for karma seeds, became a real thing - an aspect of our minds that underlies all consciousness. Never mind that this becomes more or less identical to Brahmanical ideas of ātman/brahman and is thus eternalist. Not only does the underlying basis of consciousness become a real thing, but some meditative experiences are interpreted as contact with this luminous substrate - just as Brahmins had earlier mistaken such experiences for direct contact with Brahman centuries earlier.

So no, the two ideas can't really be compared. Although at root they seem to stem from the problem of Action at a Temporal Distance and they both amount to reified metaphors. They may even amount to two different traditions interpreting similar meditative experiences according to their ideologies. But the interpretations themselves are not the same.


Are the Pali-words Patinissagga and Vossagga synonyms? Are both Pali-words synonyms or is there a slight difference between 'patinissagga' and 'vossagga'?

While not always, paṭinissagga is often used for more lofty situations, such as connected to Nibbana (in SN 56.11; AN 3.32 & MN 118).
Vossagga appears always used in less lofty situations and appears more 'personal'.

vo
enclitic from tumha
to you; of you; by you

Each use of each word in the suttas should be examined; as for the etymology of each word. A post on the topic is here.

MN 118 contains both words. 'Vossagga' is found describing the maturation of the qualities each factor of enlightenment relies upon. Therefore, 'vossagga' appears used with path factors Anapanasati relies on.
'Paṭinissagga' is used to describe the end of the path of Anapanasati. Therefore, 'paṭinissagga' appears more lofty than 'vossagga'.
Start with 'vossagga' and end with 'paṭinissagga'.

It’s when a mendicant develops the awakening factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles, energy, rapture, tranquility, immersion, and equanimity, which rely on seclusion, fading awa, and cessation that ripen as letting go.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu satisambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti vivekanissitaṃ virāganissitaṃ nirodhanissitaṃ vossaggapariṇāmiṃ. Dhammavicayasambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … pe … vīriyasambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … pītisambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … passaddhisambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … samādhisambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti … upekkhāsambojjhaṅgaṃ bhāveti vivekanissitaṃ virāganissitaṃ nirodhanissitaṃ vossaggapariṇāmiṃ.
They practice breathing in observing impermanence. They practice breathing out observing impermanence.
‘Aniccānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘aniccānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;
They practice breathing in observing fading away. They practice breathing out observing fading away.
‘virāgānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘virāgānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;
They practice breathing in observing cessation. They practice breathing out observing cessation.
‘nirodhānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘nirodhānupassī  passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;
They practice breathing in observing letting go. They practice breathing out observing letting go.
‘paṭinissaggānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘paṭinissaggānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati.
MN 118

In conclusion, 'vossagga' may possibly mean when the 'self' or 'will' lets go by employing mindfulness to bring to mind right view. Where as 'paṭinissaggā' may possibly mean when the mind itself lets go due to direct seeing or vipassana.


How does one effectively understand & navigate through the suicide cases found in the canon? There's a question regarding the Dhamma that I really wish to rectify and clear up with you and that's regarding the suicide cases of Channa, Vakkali and Godhika - When I first came across these cases, I was really disappointed and discouraged to practice the Dhamma because I saw Dhamma as the way to prevent people from committing such acts in the first place, but if by practicing the path of Dhamma and reaching Arahant stage and this is a possible blameless result, I became very disillusioned and anxious over the path, moreover hearing the cases of Bhikkhu Samahita and Bikkhu Nanavira also fuelled this, creating a fear that this may be a possible outcome of developing the path.
My mental clarity and wellbeing plummeted since hearing these cases, since it raised a lot of doubts and confusions, esp because Dhamma used to be something that gave me hope and is foundational to me, but now there's a lingering sense of hopelessness if this is a possible result of the practice. When I ignore this topic I feel good again, but when it resurfaces again to my mind I feel quite hopeless and anxious again, I know there's so many people who have heard of these cases and who most certainly haven't responded to these cases adversely and in a negative way, so my question is, in light of such cases what is the best way that one should view/understand such cases so that one's own practice and wellbeing isn't affected and that one can continue to practice the path with security, hope, joy, contentment and composure, and walk the path correctly without falling into wrong-views?
The ways I have tried to understand and view such cases is that they were cases of euthanasia and since they are highly debated as to whether those 3 monks were arahants before or after they committed suicide, I have realised it is better to instead focus on the 10 Great Disciples of the Buddha who embodied the Dhamma to a greater extent such as Arahant's Mahakassapa, Sariputta, Moggalana, Subhuti, Rahula etc, and hence are the best role-models for one walking the path, Sariputta in fact says
"The Teacher has been served by me; the Awakened One’s bidding, done; 70 the heavy load, laid down; the guide to becoming, uprooted. And the goal for which I went forth from home life into homelessness I’ve reached: the end of all fetters. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time as a worker his wage. I don’t delight in death, don’t delight in living. I await my time, mindful, alert." This quote is what has personally given me hope that those cases of Suicide are from non-Arahant monks - and thus I have learned to place my faith again by discarding these controversies, and listening to the Dhamma of every monk who have talked on this manner, who have all labelled it is as an akusal (unskilful deed) that must be removed from the mind.
I feel like I've answered my own question in many respects, but I still would love to hear another Dhamma practitioner's perspective on this, so that I can reach a more holistic and objective understanding on how to move forward and best navigate myself through these knots & controversies in the Dhamma and not fall into wrong-views.
Thank-you so much for taking the time to read this post, I really sincerely appreciate it.

First of all you are equating the breakup of an Arahant's body to the breaking up of the body of a non-Arahant, the two are not the same.
Death is spoken of a as a requisite for birth. There is no birth for an Arahant, this is a difference. An Arahant doesn't die, with the breakup of the body they become completely released from all modes of being.
You are also slipping by the fact that Arahants are more or less the same in mind, different only in body.
It's not like one Arahant is depressed and kills himself whereas another is more psychologically resilient.
As i see it, Ven. Channa used the the knife because he considered that his being there wasn't needed as he was gravely ill. He had done his work here and had every right to end it as he sees fit.
In some circumstances Arahants do choose to go early but that is as far as it goes.
As for Ven. Nanavira and Ven. Samahita, i have little to no interest in reading works of disciples and will probably never know what Nanavira wrote in his notes. I just think reading the words of the teacher is superior that's all.
I was sympathetic to Ven. Samahita due to him always taking the time to pay homeage but he also said some strange things like 'consciousness being like radiation', went on that anti-muslim rant earlier due to a medicine and later killed himself.
Whether he was this or that doesn't matter to me as even if he was an Arahant it is of no help to me now.
As to controversies, imo the Sutta are explicit enough for anyone to make up their own mind and even writing commentary.


Looking for mentions of karma related to actions taken while dreaming I am looking for early mentions of the accumulation of karma while dreaming.

Here is what I've been able to find so far:

In The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom a discussion of accumulating karma in dreams:

  Sāriputra: Ven. Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great being, who in
  his dreams enters into the three concentrations—emptiness, the
  signless, the wishless—does he, then, grow in perfect wisdom?

  Subhuti: If, Ven. Śāriputra, he grows through the development by
  day, then he also grows in a dream. And why? Because dream and waking
  are indiscriminate. If the Bodhisattva who courses by day in the
  perfection of wisdom has a development of the perfection of wisdom,
  then also the Bodhisattva, the great being, who dreams will have a
  development of the perfection of wisdom.

  Śāriputra: If again, Ven. Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great
  being, does a deed in his dream, will there by of that deed a heaping
  up or accumulation? If all dharmas are said to be like a dream, there
  will be no heaping up or accumulation of it. And why? Because in a
  dream no heaping up or accumulation of a dharma can be apprehended.
  But when one wakes up and thinks it over, then there is a heaping up
  or accumu- lation of it.

  Subhuti: One who had committed a murder in his dream, and, on
  waking, would think it over like this, 'he has been well killed by me,
  (A: it is right that he was killed, it is just that he was killed, it
  was I who killed him!' Such thoughts are equivalent to the conscious
  notion that he wants to kill someone).

  Śāriputra: Not without an objective support does a deed arise or an
  act of will.

  Subhuti: So it is, Śāriputra, not without an objective support does
  a deed arise or an act of will. Only with an objective support is a
  deed produced, or an act of will, and not without. In seen, heard, and
  known dharmas does intelligence proceed, and not in unseen, unheard,
  unknown dharmas. Therein some intellectual acts take hold of
  defilement, and some of purification. Therefore, then, Śāriputra, it
  is with an objective support that a deed or act of will arises and not
  without objective support.

In Tsongkhapa's Praise for Dependent Relativity it is mentioned that the karma of killing in a dream was a question answered by the Buddha, but no sources are provided.
Shantideva addressed this (or a closely related) question in Chapter 9 of his Guide to the Bodhisattvas Way of Life verse 11 and on:

  If consciousness does not exist, there is no sin in killing an
  illusory person. On the contrary, when one is endowed with the
  illusion of consciousness, vice and merit do arise.

In the Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 lines:

  Sariputra: If someone in his dreams does a deed, wholesome or
  unwholesome, will that be added on to the heap or collection of his
  karma?

  Subhuti: In so far as the Lord has taught that ultimately all dharmas
  are like a dream, in so far that deed will not be added to his head or
  collection of karma. But on the other hand [from the standpoint of
  empirical reality], that deed will be added to the heap and collection
  of his karma if, after the man has woken up, he thinks the dream over,
  and consciously forms the notion that he wants to kill someone. How
  does he do that? During his dream he may have taken life, and after he
  has woken up, he thinks it over like this: “it is good that he was
  killed! It is right that he was killed! It was just that he was
  killed! It was I who killed him.” Such thoughts are equivalent to the
  conscious notion that he wants to kill someone.

Does anyone know of sutras or other ancient sources where the Buddha or Nagarjuna, Shantideva, Chandrakirti, Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Tsongkhapa or others might have addressed the question of whether karma can be accumulated in dreams and if so, how?

I'm especially interested to know if this question was ever answered or addressed by the Buddha in the pali canon

I think it's listed as a point of controversy in the Abhidhamma -- Kv 22.6:

Controverted Point: That all dream-consciousness is ethically neutral.
22.6.1 Theravādin: You admit, do you not, that a dreamer may (in dreams) commit murder, theft, etc.? How then can you call such consciousness ethically neutral?
22.6.2 Uttarapāthakas: If I am wrong, was it not said by the Exalted One that dream-consciousness was negligible? If so, my proposition holds good.

I think the (Theravādin) argument is that intention (e.g. intention to murder) may be present, therefore it's not ethically neutral.
I think the counter-argument is that there's no material result, so if it's not neutral it's negligible.
See also the Vinaya -- that defines offences (e.g. killing) in some detail or legalistically (i.e. in more detail than the suttas do) -- and there, there are various (several) conditions which must be met for the offence of e.g. "killing" to have occurred, one of which is that somebody has to die -- and in a dream, nobody is really killed, so that wouldn't be counted (and punished) as the offence of killing.
The Abhidhamma is considered part of the Pali canon, even if it isn't all quotes from the Buddha.
In Tsongkhapa's Praise for Dependent Relativity it is mentioned that the karma of killing in a dream was a question answered by the Buddha, but no sources are provided.
So far as I known, the commentary to the Vinaya pronounces the non-punishment of sexual actions performed while dreaming (while also saying it's better not to).
It's not exacty right to equate the working of kamma with the rules of the Vinaya, however that may be the best we have -- because the Vinaya is defined in detail whereas the suttas don't describe kamma in every detail -- even say that the precise workings of kamma is known to the Buddha but is unconjecturable -- and, the Vinaya was defined by the Buddha.


"Lower rebirth" -- Are animals really "lower" than us? I love most aspects of Buddhism but I can't agree that animals have a "lower" rebirth than us. Dogs for example sometimes have enormous love and compassion for their owners, even if they are being terribly mistreated. I am a vegan because I love animals; animals do not harm us, yet humans routinely kill animals for their own sensual pleasure. The dairy and egg industries are also very cruel -- all those male chickens being killed! And how female dairy cows are always kept pregnant or lactating through artificially insemination. It's human cruelty that keeps them in their difficult position. Saying "It's just their bad karma" is in my opinion a way of weakening your own karma.

Many animals are somewhat psychic -- they sense things that humans can't. Personally I would rather come back as an animal than a human. They seem more peaceful, humans are constantly thinking and doing and stressing about things. So can I still be a Buddhist, with these beliefs?

Lower is not meant as a moral judgement nor a pejorative in this case. It is meant simply as a statement of the more dire predicament most animals are in compared to most humans. There certainly exist individual dogs, cats, horses, pigs, donkeys, monkeys, deer, sheep, cows, chickens, fish, birds, reptiles that are more compassionate and exhibit virtues superior to individual humans in this very life. However, generally speaking humans have a greater capacity for understanding dharma and opportunity to practice. Most animals are subject to base instinct and spend the vast majority of their time just trying to survive. In this sense it is called the lower or less fortunate realms.


What is a "thought?" (Particularly in reference to thoughts that arise during meditation) I've been reading/studying E F Shumacher's A Guide for the Perplexed, a philosophical book about the nature of knowledge and our capacity for understanding the world, especially in relation to "higher" and "lower" processes of humanity, (IE, prayer or meditation vs hunger or fear) and I'm hoping a Buddhist perspective can help me to understand one aspect of it better. In it, he refers to self-awareness as the level of human existence that is activated or discovered by mindfulness-meditation, by dismissing the thoughts that come from the level of consciousness. He says that self-awareness produces insights rather than thoughts. Shumacher was a Catholic at the time of writing this, but I understand that he studied and was influenced heavily by Buddhism, and I believe that is where his ideas about thought come from. I am not a Buddhist, though I have tried meditation. An idea that I have struggled with in all of this is the definition of thought. I have always considered the processes by which one would analyze or dismiss a thought to also be thinking. I would consider an insight to be a type of thought, not something higher than a thought. I am now struggling to understand whether I simply have too broad of a definition for thought, or am simply so philosophically-challenged that I have never experienced this process-above-thought discussed by Shumacher and Buddhism. Can you help me understand what the Buddhist definition of a "thought" is? Do you have a different word for the process by which one would dismiss a thought or analyze a thought while meditating? Everything beyond this point is my own speculation on the subject, for clarity or analysis. If you already understand my problem or misunderstanding, feel free to skip it.

I have wondered if Freud's ego and super-ego may shed light on this. I would say that "thought" is the word used to describe the processes of both the ego and super-ego, but I wonder if Shumacher and Buddhism would consider "thought" to be what the ego does, and perhaps have a different word for the processes of the super-ego.

I have also imagined, as Shumacher does in his book, the human being as a programmer and computer. (The programmer being the self and the computer being the human brain) The human computer carries out all the day-to-day activities we do without higher thought, while the human programmer directs the computer and programs it so that it behaves as desired. In this analogy, I would consider all communication between the "computer" and "programmer" to be thought, but I wonder if Shumacher and Buddhism considers thought to be information passed from the computer to the programmer, while directions passed from the programmer to the computer is something else.

I have included the translation tag, as I suspect my answer may largely pivot on the translation of the word "thought" from Buddhist texts into English, and whether there is a more thorough translation of it that could explain this.

According to Buddhism thought to arise from the consciousness. Which are called Vitakka and Vicara. There are many types of wholesome and unwholesome thoughts. A person should have a good grasp of Abhidhamma to understand the differences completely.

Abhidhamma in practice:
http://103.242.110.22/theravadins/English-articles/abhidhamma-in-practice.pdf


Exact meaning of satisampajanna What is the exact meaning (definition) of satisampajanna? How can we develop and penetrate it in our practice?

The VRI definition (Source: The Importance of Vedana and Sampajanna)

  The Buddha, out of his personal experience, found that suffering arises because of the mental habit of craving (tanhatanha). This in itself was not a new discovery, but what was unique to his teaching was that he found a practical way out of suffering. By exploring the depths of his mind, he realized that between external objects and the mental reflex of craving, is a missing link-vedana-the feeling of body sensations.

  Whenever we encounter an object through the five physical senses or the mind, a sensation arises, and based on the sensation, craving arises. If the sensation is pleasant we crave to prolong it; if it is unpleasant we crave to get rid of it. Therefore, the immediate cause for the arising of craving and of suffering is not something outside, but rather the sensations that occur within us. To free ourselves, we must deal with this inner reality.

  Vedana is the meeting ground, the crossroads where mind and body interact, and where our true nature is revealed in a vivid, tangible way. This is wisdom; the thorough understanding that all sensations, all that one calls 'I', all that one is attached to, are arising to pass away. By objectively observing this process, we develop equanimity towards change. We no longer crave for pleasant sensations nor have aversion to unpleasant ones.

  The Buddha called this wisdom sampajanna-the constant thorough understanding of impermanence. By Vipassana one learns to develop the continuity of this understanding. The practice results in a calm, balanced mind in the midst of all the ups and downs of life, and leads to liberation from attachment, craving and suffering. This path is a true art of living that enables one to live a wholesome, creative life. And due to its non-sectarian nature, people from all communities, religions, castes and countries are able to derive great benefit from its application.


What is the Buddhist term for each moment being subtlety unique? Read it a long time back, I remember it had something to do with someone meditating in a field of grass, and watching the wind go through the individual blades of grass and how they swayed.

It was a specific term and dealt with emptiness and the uniqueness of each passing moment.

Maybe the term is "Tathata" that means "suchness" or "thusness". It is a Mahayana term. It means "Things as they are" or "reality". It's ultimate reality as opposed to conceptual reality.

It comes from the word the Buddha used to describe himself," Tathagata" that means "one thus gone".

  In Chan stories, tathātā is often best revealed in the seemingly mundane or meaningless, such as noticing the way the wind blows through a field of grass, or watching someone's face light up as they smile.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81t%C4%81


How can watching be non-doing? In  Vipassana meditation ,it is emphasized that one should not force the mind to concentrate on certain object or force anything to happen in particular.Its kind of letting things unfold and just watching them as they unfold .But for an untrained mind isn't watching by itself a kind of doing and if it shouldn't be a doing and is the natural state of restful alertness ,how can it be initiated without the mind feeling forced to do it.If one is driven by conditioning in a non doing state.

Ardency as I understand is an important aspect of the practice ,but doing it on the razor's edge of not falling into forcing the mind,is tricky.What is the best way to initiate it so it becomes right mindfulness?.

MN1 The Root of All Things addresses watching for the untrained ordinary person as:

  They perceive the seen as the seen. But then they identify with the seen … Why is that? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

In contrast, for the trained mind SN35.96 we have:

  ...in the seen will be merely the seen;...

The simplicity of "merely the seen" is itself non-doing. Ordinarily we identify with thoughts, latch onto them with greed, aversion or delusion. That latching onto thoughts is the doing to be relinquished. Yet we perceive the latching onto thoughts as "not-doing", hence the seeming paradox.

As we practice, we start noticing the doing, the grasping. And with a measure of watchful restraint we counteract the tendency towards "doing". From AN3.60:

  When there is sense restraint, one who has sense restraint has fulfilled a vital condition for ethical conduct.
  When there is ethical conduct, one who has fulfilled ethical conduct has fulfilled a vital condition for right immersion.

Find the razor's edge between doing and not-doing. Explore that.


What are the advantages/disadvantages of meditating with eyes closed? I'm not normally distracted by noise, touch, smell or taste when I meditate. But I do keep looking and looking and looking. Sometimes I'll fixate on a crack between the spars of wood on the floor, sometimes something of more soteriological value like a statuette.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of meditating with ones eyes open or ones eyes shut?

Meditating with the eyes open allows more connection to the sensory experience, while meditating with the eyes closed provides more insulation from distraction. There are advantages and disadvantages either way. With less distraction, it's easier to stabilize the mind; this might be very helpful for some people.  On the other hand, with less sensory input, it's easier to get lost in your own little world, lost in wandering thoughts, lost in experiences of bliss that might arise from strong states of concentration. In addition with long-term practice it's somewhat easier to develop a sense of separation from the world, which is different from "non attachment" and can lead to people acting like they're better than everyone else, etc.

On the other hand, with eyes open and more sensory input, it may be overwhelming and difficult to stabilize the mind at all. Only a few people are probably capable of doing any kind of meditation while, say, staring at a busy street scene in Manhattan (but some are!) But on the other hand, the meditation practice that does develop will be more ensured to maintain a connection with the senses and the outside world. It is more likely to develop an equanimity and mental stability that is tolerant of the vicissitudes of the outside world, rather than an equanimity that compels one to "run away" to the forest, the mountains, the monasteries.

There is somewhat of a tendency that traditions emphasizing individual liberation from suffering teach meditation with the eyes closed; while traditions emphasizing first the development of compassion for others teach meditation with the eyes open. (Because of the differences mentioned above.) Nevertheless, in either case, there is some wiggle room for whatever works best for the individual at her/his current stage of development.

If you practice with a qualified teacher, someone who is good at deeply perceiving you rather than merely spouting lists of instructions, then they will be able to give you good advice. Otherwise, feel free to experiment, keeping the opposing considerations in mind, and find a good balance for yourself.


What can I do to help avoid laxity while meditating lying down? My upper back muscles are not strong enough yet to support seated meditation, so I use supine/savanana posture sometimes. My mind falls into short dream states, like hypnagogia, very easily in this posture, however.

Any tips for overcoming this laxity while doing supine meditation? I am only doing samatha meditation these days.

The Meditation on Falling to Sleep:

We can be on mindful guard for the arising of the moment we  start to fall asleep. This mindfulness should stop the falling asleep and can give an  initial boost in the meditation faculties like effort and concentration so we  won't fall asleep as much and we can then better practice whatever we want with those improved faculties and wakefulness.

We can know when we are starting to fall asleep by finding and tuning into were  the bodily or mental experiences are that we know always happen right before we start to fall asleep. We then  can easily catch when we will  start to fall asleep.


Mild and severe forms of the three poisons The three poisons are greed or sensual attachment (lobha or raga), aversion or ill-will (dosa or dvesha) and delusion or confusion (moha). These are said to the unwholesome roots, or the roots to all other unwholesome mental states.

I'm trying to analyze the mild, severe and opposite examples of the three poisons, in order to get a deeper understanding what the three poisons are.

Greed (lobha)

The opposite of greed (lobha or raga) is apparently generosity (dana). Is this right?

The severe examples of greed include the desire to take what does not belong to you (to steal), covet another's spouse.

Can I say that the mild version of greed include the desire to buy certain types of clothes and dress better to make a good impression on others? How about the enjoyment of nice pleasant weather or tasty food, and the desire that it should continue further? What about looking at a good-looking person and desiring to go and talk to them? What about feeling happy when being praised by others?

Aversion (dosa or dvesha)

The opposite of aversion (dosa or dvesha) is apparently loving-kindness (metta or maitri). Is this right?

The severe example of aversion include anger that results in the act of killing or injuring others.

Can I say that the mild version of aversion include the dislike of unpleasant weather (too hot and humid, or too cold), or the dislike of minor physical pain (like a mosquito bite) and wishing that it goes away? What about judging others in your mind for their perceived flaws? What about being impatient because your friend is late to meet you for dinner? What about feeling displeased because you were criticized by others?

Delusion (moha)

The opposite of delusion (moha) is apparently wisdom (panna or prajna). Is this right?

What are severe forms of delusion? Could depression, anxiety, rage, terror, remorse be considered severe forms of delusion?

What would be mild forms of delusion? What if I fear catching a disease from mosquito bites? What if I feel unhappy due to others' criticism because I care too much about what they think? Or having regret that I did not purchase something when there was a discount which has now expired?

Or is this often linked to the greed (lobha) and hatred (dosa), and seldom exists standalone?

For example, I judge someone negatively in my mind, but it's actually because I did not understand the reason why they are in that situation?

Or I do things like dressing up better for getting recognition from others, but it's actually because I have the wrong notion of putting too much importance into that recognition?

Other types of negative mental states

How do other types of negative mental states like envy, sloth, conceit, miserliness, restlessness, lack of shame etc. (list of other unwholesome mental states here) connect to the three unwholesome roots?

Mild versions of Lobha would be the weak sensual desire of a Sakadagami or the Lobha of an Anagami

lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo)
lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arūparāgo)

Mild version of Dosa would be the mild aversion that may arise in a Sakadagami.

Mild version of Moha would be the conceit, restlessness and ignorance of an Anagami.


Buddha as "lord" and Buddha as "choosing" his followers The following section in the Modernist poem The Waste Land is often linked to Buddhism, in the academic literature.

  Burning burning burning burning / O Lord Thou pluckest me out / O Lord
  Thou pluckest // burning

It ends section three, The Fire Sermon.

I wanted to ask

How common is the term "lord" for Buddha?
Would the followers of any of the Buddhist traditions ask the Buddha, who gave the fire sermon, to choose them, or pluck them out?

I'm just a little skeptical that it is about the Buddha, despite the title to that section.

"Lord Buddha" is used all the time ". Translations from Pali would often use language from the Bible, at least in earlier translations.

Sounds like appreciation to Lord Buddha for plucking one out of the fire of sensual desire.

Many people asked to be taught the teachings in many ways, some misunderstood the teachings before they asked and some understood at least what they were basicly about but in the above I think perhaps they are using poetic licence.


Why are the words "mano" & "manasa" used in the opening Dhammapada verses? The well-known yet often differently translated opening verses of the Dhamma use the Pali words "mano" and "manasa", as follows:

  Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā,

  manoseṭṭhā manomayā;

  Manasā ce paduṭṭhena,

  bhāsati vā karoti vā;

  Tato naṃ dukkhamanveti,

  cakkaṃva vahato padaṃ.

  Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā,

  manoseṭṭhā manomayā;

  Manasā ce pasannena,

  bhāsati vā karoti vā;

  Tato naṃ sukhamanveti,

  chāyāva anapāyinī

What do the Pali words "mano" and "manasa" specify refer to & why are they used in Dhammapada verses 1 & 2?

As to the word manas, Thrangu Rinpoche said (paraphrasing):

  All mental events—all thoughts, memories and anticipation of the future with all its emotions of happiness, sadness, excitement, and frustration takes place in the manas. It is the manas which differentiates and thinks and makes judgements about the perception. After the eye, ear, nose, tongue and tactile consciousness perceives an object, the manas judges the sensory perception with thoughts.

So the word manas here is used to drive home the idea that it is our mind -- in the sense of our outlook, our way of seeing and interpretation -- is what creates our reality.

In Tibetan Buddhism they have this notion called "pure perception" or "sacred outlook". It's a practice of seeing everything as expression of Buddha-Nature, without a taint.

When we see the world with pure perception, there are no enemies of ours, no aggression is provoked in us, no anger, no antipathy. The reality of our perception is pure. Then our reactions are pure, our karma is pure, and it results in peace.

But when our perception is tainted, we see a different reality, we are in a different world. So naturally this world provokes very different reactions in us, which lead to trouble.

It is our outlook that defines our reality, our actions, and its results.

This outlook is a state of mind.

This is what is meant here by the word manas.

  If one speaks or acts out of an addled manas, dukkha follows him like the cart's wheel follows the ox's hoofprint.

  ...

  If one speaks or acts out of a clear manas, sukha follows him like a shadow which never leaves.

Now, what exactly is addled/dirty manas and what is clear/pure manas?

Manas is not memory, it is only an organ of mental (inner, reflective) perception, thus supporting further interpretation and judgement - so how and why can it be dirty or clean?

Manas is exactly the part of mind where Upadana or Feeding occurs. Upadana is when we keep going over a certain idea or image or event, triggering our interpretation and emotional reaction again and again. As a result of this cyclic feeding, manas constantly keeps this idea "loaded", and presence of this idea affects or skews all new interpretation and judgment.

So the dirty manas or dirty outlook is what happens when we feed on negative, selfish, aggressive, divisive thoughts.

And the pure manas is when we don't feed, don't maintain these tainting dharmas (known as klesha or asava). As a result we see things yathabhuta - as they are. Seeing things as they are leads to right action, and right action leads to the ending of suffering and to harmony and peace.

This is why the subsequent verses of Dhammapada speak about (not) harboring offense and enmity, (not) dwelling on pleasant experiences, and eventually "vomiting all the asavas". These are examples of maintaining the dirty manas vs purifying it.


What is the meditation position in which Ananda thero became an arahant? We all know that Ananda Thero was Buddha's personal attendant -- Wikipedia says,

  In the long list of the disciples given in the Anguttara Nikaya (i. xiv.), where each of them is declared to be Prime in some quality, Ānanda is mentioned five times (more often than any other). He was named Prime in conduct, in service to others, and in power of memory. The Buddha sometimes asked Ānanda to substitute for him as teacher and then later stated that he himself would not have presented the teachings in any other way.

So my question is: after Buddha's Nirvana, Ananda Thero became arahant before the The First Council; so what is the position of meditation that Ananda Thero became arahant?

Ven. Ananda’s realization of emancipation happened when he was neither walking, standing, sitting or lying down.  Ven. Ananda was doing the walking meditation at that time.  It is interesting to note that meditation could be practiced employing any of the four bodily postures, and he never got out of his 'walking meditation..  For emancipation one has to eradicate influxes (asava) and this is how Ven. Ananda got emancipated. At that very moment when he was about to lie down, when he was between standing and lying down to sleep, just before his head hit the pillow, he became an arahant.
Nyanaponika Thera discribed it thus, in his book "Great Disciples of the Buddha - Their Lives, Their Works, Their Legacy":

“He practised the four foundations of mindfulness throughout the night - sitting and walking, sitting and walking, sitting and walking. In the early hours of the morning, as he was preparing to lie down after a full night of striving, just when he has raised his legs off the ground but had not yet laid his head on the pillow, his mind was released from all cankers....”
"...When Ananda was 120 years old......Ananda chose a way to die in keeping with his gentle nature: he raised himself into the air through his supernormal powers and let his body be consumed by the fire element. The relics were devided and stupas erected."


What is the meaning of the word Dhamma? Can anyone please explain the meaning of the word Dhamma in the sentence "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta"?
Since Anatta is Truth; Am I an instance of Dhamma?

"Dhamma" is a complicated word, or a simple word that's used in many different contexts.

Here is a definition.

I'd summarise it to myself as "described thing" or "anything you can identify".

In the phrase "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta", I think it's used in contrast to the other two of the three characteristics, i.e.:

  The three marks are:

  sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"
  sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"
  sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self"

Explanation:

saṅkhārās are aniccā and dukkhā
saṅkhārās are anattā too
nibanna isn't a saṅkhārā but it too is anattā

So instead of saying "saṅkhārās and nibanna are anattā", summarize that as "all dhammās are anattā" (where "all dhammās" is meant to include all saṅkhārās and nibanna too).

(In reply to the two comments below)

So:

Dhamma -- a teaching or a reality
Sankhara -- a compound thing or a conditioned thing
Anicca -- impermanent
Dukkha -- unsatisfactory
Anatta -- non-self or not-soul or without I/me/my
Sabbe -- all

And:

All sankharas are anicca, dukkha, and anatta
Nibanna is not annica and not dukkha but is anatta
Nibanna is not a sankhara but is a dhamma
So all dhammas (including sankharas and nibanna) are anatta

Here (for example) is a reference to Nibanna being a Dhamma:

  The Buddha refers to Nibbana as a 'dhamma'. For example, he says "of all dhammas, conditioned or unconditioned, the most excellent dhamma, the supreme dhamma is, Nibbana". 'Dhamma' signifies actual realities, the existing realities as opposed to conceptual things. Dhammas are of two types, conditioned and unconditioned. A conditioned dhamma is an actuality which has come into being through causes or conditions, something which arises through the workings of various conditions. The conditioned dhammas are the five aggregates: material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. The conditioned dhammas, do not remain static. They go through a ceaseless process of becoming. They arise, undergo transformation and fall away due to its conditionality.


Feeling of Superiority and what to do about it? Sometimes I can see myself feeling superior to others because of what I know and they don't . I know that it is my ego which raises it head and is active at the moment. I also see persons, who are successful in profession, business, sports display show of superiority just to break the opponent's composure. Often ego needs bolstering and acknowledgement to survive the life's challenges. My question is how to achieve the balance without pampering the ego and without showing disrespect to others, by own accomplishment, knowledge, possession, gender, class etc and carry on.

This is perhaps due to seeing your journey on the path as "self improvement".  Chögyam Trungpa wrote a book addressing this exact issue: Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism that I have found to be very helpful in providing insight to this trap.

Ultimately, the spiritual path involves awakening the mind and eliminating ego.  "Bolstering" the ego may seem to help but often results in allowing the ego to use spirituality to reinforce its own power over your mind.

  If we become successful at maintaining our self-consciousness through spiritual techniques, then genuine spiritual development is highly unlikely.  Our mental habits become so strong as to be hard to penetrate.  We may even go so far as to achieve the totally demonic state of complete "Egohood".

Also from this book:

  Retreat to nature, isolation, simple, quiet, high people-- all can be ways of shielding oneself from irritation, all can be expressions of the Lord of Form.


Qualitative Benefit of Longer Sits I have recently tried meditating for 15 min at a time, at least once per day. I'm wondering, however, if long sits have a qualitative benefit. In other words, I'm wondering whether longer sits have a benefit other than  more of those of shorter sits, perhaps uniquely different benefit/s? (Here, longer sits would mean about 1h-1h30).

Let's phrase this a different way.  If you just worked out for 15 minutes, would it be as effective as if you worked out for an hour?  The answer should be obvious.  The more time you dedicate to anything, the better you'll be at it and the more benefit you'll receive.  The mind is a muscle; same as your biceps.  If you only train it halfheartedly, you'll only get halfhearted results.

But it goes deeper than this.  Sitting is like baking a cake.  You can throw in all of the ingredients - the breath, the cushion, the concentration - but if you take the cake out of the oven before it's done baking, you don't pull out a cake, you pull out a hot mess.  The mind requires time to settle.  It has to remain secluded for an extended period of time before those ingredients can undergo the alchemy of practice and begin to phase change into true samadhi.

And it goes still deeper.  There are states that are only available when one sits for extended periods of time.  No matter how long you have been practicing, you probably will never reach access concentration until you've sat for at least an hour.  The day to day mind is just too scattered to reach it much sooner.  You will only begin to touch the outskirts of jhana after you've sat for an hour and a half.  Full jhana is only available to those who sit for hours a day and even then usually only on retreats of multiple days.

There are no shortcuts.  You get out what you put in.


Are the higher arupa jhanas supernatural states expanding beyond the physical body? The higher arupa jhanas are:

fifth jhāna: infinite space (Pāḷi ākāsānañcāyatanaa),
sixth jhāna: infinite consciousness (Pāḷi viññāṇañcāyatana),
seventh jhāna: infinite nothingness (Pāḷi ākiñcaññāyatana),
eighth jhāna: neither perception nor non-perception (Pāḷi nevasaññānāsaññāyatana)

Are these supernatural states?
Does the plane of infinite consciousness of the sixth jhana refer to the Universal Consciousness or Cosmic Consciousness of Advaita Vedanta?
Do the fifth, sixth and seventh jhana takes the meditator beyond his physical body and into infinite space, infinite consciousness and infinite nothingness?
Can the meditator now observe things in other galaxies by entering these states? Can they see what is happening in the deva or brahma worlds by entering these states? Can they sense through the senses of other living beings? Are they supernatural states of being?
Or are they simply different states of mind? That is, not supernatural.
I have also heard that they are related to compassion, loving kindness and other Brahmaviharas - how is this the case? Is there a clear connection?
Why are they described as formless (arupa)?
I would appreciate it, if canonical references (from the Pali Canon) are available to support this. Commentaries or secondary sources (e.g. Visuddhimagga, traditional commentaries, modern commentaries from scholar monks etc.) are also welcomed, in addition.

The canon does not mention them as Jhana but formless states, good householder Ruben, to mention that.
Are these supernatural states?
Yes, since based on the 4 Jhanas. Detail discussion on Parajika 4 on supernatural states in BMC might be useful.
Does the plane of infinite consciousness of the sixth jhana refer to the Universal Consciousness or Cosmic Consciousness of Advaita Vedanta?
Any answer here would be speculation for the most unless one would have attained also knowledge of what is thought of it in the Advaita Vedanta and Awakened to beyond as well. There is of course much reasonableness behind to compare it.
Do the fifth, sixth and seventh jhana takes the meditator beyond his physical body and into infinite space, infinite consciousness and infinite nothingness?
Yes: formless states
Can the meditator now observe things in other galaxies by entering these states? Can they see what is happening in the deva or brahma worlds by entering these states? Can they sense through the senses of other living beings?
Form, objects of the senses, are absent, so not very reasonable. Not forgetting that Dhamma can't be received as well here.
Or are they simply different states of mind?
The question doesn't make sense in regard of 'or'. Of course they are different states of mind.
I have also heard that they are related to compassion, loving kindness and other Brahmaviharas - how is this the case?
Best sample on it has been already given by Upasaka Karl.
General good advices and explainings on concentration, at least in regard of the aim of the practice *räusper*, can be found in Right Concentration in "Wings of Awakening", generously by Bhante Thanissaro.
[Note that this has not been given for stackes, exchange, other worldbinding trades, but for release from this wheel.]


Does Buddhist scripture mention Zoroastrianism? Do any of the Buddhist texts mention anything about Zoroastrianism?

Has the Buddha ever met Zoroaster?

Do any of the Buddhist texts mention anything about Zoroastrianism?

At the time of the Buddha the Indian spiritual scenario was under heavy influence of vedic brahminism which was on the west of Buddha's kingdom.

It is highly unlikely that Zoroastrianism which lay further west of Indus valley would cross the valley and influence Buddhist monks to get an honourable mention.

Also, it was only after the invasion of Alexander the Great that Indians came in heavy contact of Persia through the Satarps of Alexander. And his conquest was some 200 years after the Buddha. So it is unlikely that the Buddha himself would have encountered any human from Persia to tell him about Zoroastrianism as He met Jainas and Vedic brahmins.

Buddhist geography in the scriptures does not mention anything in the west not even Egypt.

Has the Buddha ever met Zoroaster?

Zoraster was hundreds or thousands of years prior to Gautama the Buddha so they might not have met in person.

But the Buddha is known to have a council with Gods and He was also possesor of super natural powers. So may be they would have had a chat in some different realms. But that only a Buddha can confirm for you.


When is a wordly consequence a karmic retribution? Let me illustrate this question with an example: Assume "A" killed someone intentionally, as a consequence the police took A and he is in jail. After all his/her time in jail, will A be free from his Kamma OR A will still need to experience being killed as a consequence of his/her actions?

So, when do worldly consequences "clean" Kamma and when don't they?
Sorry for the example involving killing, it is just to illustrate.

Worldy consequences don't purify a persons kamma, unless the worldy consequences that happened were caused by that specific kamma.


Can We Teach Animals the Dhamma? I have a dog that i love very much.I don't feel like his a dog.I have a lot of respect for him.And treat him like an old friend.As he is old now.I heard somewhere that animals who hear the Dharma can be reborn as a human??I don't know if that's true or which sutta it's in.But I have formed a habit of either reading the sutta to him,chanting in Pali,or sometimes just talking to him about the Four Noble Truths.As that's the one thing i want to remember when i die.I know it seems too silly but i just feel like somewhere inside he can understand me.He has a very serene and calm demeanor too.I hope that there is a sutta about animals hearing The Dhamma having a better rebirth,because this dog has qualities that even i as a human being lack.I hope that there is some way to share the greatest gift(The Dhamma) to our animal friends.

Is it true is there a way to benefit animals by helping them come into contact with the Dhamma? Such as teaching them the Dhamma?

There's a Jakarta story of a previous incarnation of the Buddha giving his body to a hungry tigress. The reason for that act was to prevent the tigress eating her cubs, which would have damaged her sila.

  Therefore, I will kill my miserable body by casting it down into the precipice, and with my corpse I shall preserve the tigress from killing her young ones and the young ones from dying by the teeth of their mother.

My mum rescued a stray dog. She (the dog) was initially aggressive to other dogs, but my mum taught her not to be.
My mum also taught her self-restraint: including to not rush to get her dinner immediately, but to wait when the dinner bowl is set on the floor, wait until she is told that she can get it.

I like to think that you're able to help a dog, for example by teaching it some morality.

In terms of teaching them Dhamma, although they cannot read books I hope they can read you.


Does any buddhist school, extant or otherwise, say that there is no svabhava what-so-ever? Does any buddhist school, extant or otherwise, say that there is no svabhava what-so-ever?

I was thinking maybe an early school without the abhidahrma (mahasanghika) or perhaps prasangika-yogaraca in which non duality and convention / absolute emptiness is all there is.

However, do these schools say that there is no essence?

I will explain some views in accordance with Madhyamaka-Prasangika:

"Essence" is something assigned by mental elaboration.

Therefore we can say that apart from mental elaborations there is no essence.

Another view is that

whatever appears (as an individual phenomenon) is its own essence.

That's because the phenomenon is what can be directly perceived; anything else would be mental additions (conceptualizations, associations). Therefore only the phenomenon itself can be its essence.

In that sense we can say that appearance and essence (or "essence and function") are the same thing.

See also discussions on svalakshana.

Note that, in order to understand "what is", we can't rely on flat view of "is" or "isn't". We should see how does appearance relate to mental processes; only there we can see real answers.

So "existence" can be seen as a construction, a way we construct our world - elaborating over directly perceived appearances.

And the deeper we go there, the more we understand that ultimately everything is "Don't Know".

PS: Note that from other points of view other concepts will be true. It would be wrong to think that a Buddhist school claims its concept as the only possible truth. For example, in Zen we can use views both of Yogachara and Madhyamaka, though they seem to contradict. "Everything is Consciousness" and "Consciousness doesn't exist". Logically these two sentences seem to contradict, but in fact they can be seen as both true; only as constructions built from different starting points; describing different levels of analysis. Likewise, we can discuss the duality of essence and function - in order to understand something - and then we can say that essence and function are the same thing, and understand something even deeper.


Is nirodha (cessation of suffering) dependent on the existence of suffering? This answer includes the following statement:

  But some other dharmas are still empty without being dependently originated, like nirodha or tathata.

A comment after the answers gives the following definitions:

  nirodha is cessation of suffering (nirvana), and tathata is true reality.

Doesn't the cessation of suffering depend on the existence of suffering, and is therefore dependently originated?

Although nirodha is usually translated "cessation", its main meaning is "restraint", "prevention" - e.g. of crime or any undesired activity/outcome. In modern Hindi, nirodh is even used as a word for condom.

If you really think about it, this makes sense. The way cessation of dukkha is achieved is through non-attachment - i.e. non-creation of conditions that make arising of dukkha possible. In other words, non-attachment is prevention of dukkha.

Prevention of X does not depend on existence of X.


At what stage / step of development do we start to contemplate on non-self? List below is extracted form Kimattha Sutta noting how skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship.

The question is does skillful virtue require knowledge of non-self or knowledge of non-self is achieved at step 8 when one contemplate on impermanence / conditioned nature of all things including serenity and pleasure one get from virtuous act?

Skillful virtues
freedom from remorse
joy
rapture
serenity
pleasure
concentration
knowledge & vision of things as they actually are
disenchantment
dispassion
knowledge & vision of release
consummation of arahantship

Whatever that is unsatisfactory is not self. Whatever is impermanent is not satisfactory. This is a realisation by direct experience not a form of contemplation. This realisation happens at the stage of "knowledge & vision of things as they actually" which in turn triggers the next stage.


Four Analytical Knowledges Is it still possible to attain the four analytical knowledge? Bare insight seems to be the lowest attainment among arahants.

I need some help for correct below writing's grammar.

I don't understand the question, can you rewrite the question by the below pāli word? Why you think "direct knowledge of the four analytical knowledge"? Because if it means "Abhiññā of Paṭisambhidā", it looks weird according to below title sequence.

The sequence concept of Theravāda Buddhism

The sequence concept of Theravāda Buddhism, start from sīla to paṭisambhidā, summarized from paṭisambhidāmagga, visuddhimagga, abhidhamma, atthhakathā, and all sāriputta's canons:

Paññā = understand the fact: causes&effects.

Paṭivedha = Paññā.

Ñāṇa = Expert Paññā.

Dassana = View, Understood, Diṭṭhi, Cakkhu.

SammāDiṭṭhi =SammāDassaṇa.

Ñātapariññā = Base of sammādassaṇa.

Tīraṇapariññā = Beginning sammādassaṇa practice.

Pahānapariññā = Advance sammādassaṇa practice.

Visuddhi = The base level which cleared from the extended enemy of the next level's enemy, so it is able to go to the next level.

Sīla = Arising physical & verbal behavior.

SīlaAdhiSikkhā = Physical & verbal behavior's training that supporting CittaVisuddhi.

SīlaVisuddhi = The CittaVisuddhi's base level which cleared from AvītikkamaKilesa, extending from CittaVisuddhi's enemy (PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa), so it is able to go to the next level, CittaVisuddhi.

AvītikkamaKilesa = Present life's arising physical & verbal unwholesome, extending from PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa.

PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa = Present life's arising mental unwholesome, extending from AnusayaKilesa.

AnusayaKilesa = Unwholesome behavior which ready to arise in the name "PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa". It arises as the name "PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa", but it stands as the name "AnusayaKilesa". It is similar to behavior because you can't find your behavior in any organ when you are not doing it, but you know your behavior still available to arise. The arising unwhole behavior is AvītikkamaKilesa/PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa.

Citta = Arising mind's behavior, Arising consciousness's behavior, arising Thought's behavior.

CittaAdhiSikkhā = Thought behavior's training that supporting DiṭṭhiVisuddhi.

CittaVisuddhi = The DiṭṭhiVisuddhi's base level which cleared from PariyuṭṭhānaKilesa, extending from DiṭṭhiVisuddhi's enemy (AttaAnuDiṭṭhiAnusayaKilesa), so it is able to go to the next level, DiṭṭhiVisuddhi.

SammāDassana = Right understood of conditioner and conditioned (four noble truth, dependent origination);  diṭṭhivisuddhi + kaṇkhāvitaraṇavisuddhi; nāmarūpaparicchedañāṇa+paccayapariggahañāṇa; Ñātapariññā; Vipassanā Paññā; YathābūtaÑāṇaDassana.

four noble truth, dependent origination = conditioner aggregates and conditioned aggregates.

DiṭṭhiVisuddhi = The DiṭṭhiVisuddhi's base level which cleared from AttaAnuDiṭṭhiAnusayaKilesa, extending from KaṇkhāvitaraṇaVisuddhi's enemy (VisamahetukaDiṭṭhiAnusayaKilesa), so it is able to go to the next level, KaṇkhāvitaraṇaVisuddhi.

Attā (of the wrong view) = The misunderstood concept of conditioner aggregates and conditioned aggregates. This misunderstood concept make ordinary people think "there are some controllable aggregates left to be nihilistic or eternal". But the truth is "there are no any controllable aggregates to be nihilistic or eternal. There are only uncontrollable conditioner aggregates and uncontrollable conditioned aggregates".

AttaAnuDiṭṭhi = The misunderstood behavior about aggregates whether "some/whole aggregates are Attā".

KaṅkhāvitaraṇaVisuddhi = The MaggāmaggaÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi's base level which cleared from VisamahetukaDiṭṭhiAnusayaKilesa, extending from MaggāmaggaÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi's enemy (VipassanāUpakKilesa), so it is able to go to the next level, MaggāmaggaÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi.

Vipassanā = SammāDassaṇa; VipassanāPaññā; Vipassanā; Ñātapariññā; Pajānāti.

Anupassnā = ÑāṇaDassaṇa; VipassanāÑāṇa; Vipassanā Bhāvanā; Vipassanā Meditation; Tīraṇapariññā + Pahānapariññā; Anupassati.

MaggāmaggaÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi = SammāDassaṇa at cleared ñāṇa level from the extending enemy (the ignorant about the right or wrong practice [maggāmagga;paṭipadā]) of the next level's enemy (the ignorant about the four noble truth), so it is able to go to the next level, to practice watching three characteristics without confusing of the right or wrong practice; BapavaUdayabbayañāṇa.

PaṭipadāÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi = above ÑāṇaDassana at cleared ñāṇa level  from the extending enemy (the ignorant about the four noble truth) of the next level enemy (the ignorant about the four noble truth), so it is able to go to the next level, to stop the ignorant about the four noble truth forever by the complete&perfect watching three characteristics; From Bhaṅgañāṇa to Anulomañāṇa.

ÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi = above ÑāṇaDassana at cleared ñāṇa level(enlightenment) from the extending enemy (fetters; saṇyojana) of the next level enemy (rebirth; becoming; bhava; paṭisandhiviññāṇa), so it is able to go to the next level, to stop the rebirth as many as the level of the enlightenment.

Paṭisambhidā = ÑāṇaDassanaVisuddhi according to Abhi. Vibhaṅgo ñāṇavatthuvibhaṅga, Sutta. Khu. Paṭisambhidāmaggo mahāvaggo ñāṇakathā mātikā, Paṭisambhidāmaggo's atthakathā, Visuddhimagga Khandhaniddeso. All ariya must enlighten Paṭisambhidā of own meditation. They can analysis everything about own meditation (super mundane jhāna), but they maybe don't know about mundane jhāna, Abhiññā, and the other practitioners' meditation. They enlightened Paṭisambhidā of own meditation only, they may be not the Paṭisambhidappatto.

Tevijjo = Ariya who is an expert, vasī, of jhāna. That expertise increases the power of ÑāṇaDassana to be greater, to be able to recall many past lives and to be able to recall many deaths&rebirths more than the practitioner who is no an expert of jhāna. Normally, the only vipassanā practitioner can recall about 1-2 past lives, but the expert of jhāna can recall more than that. The expert of jhāna spend the lesser time to recall the past lives at the same number of life.

Abhiññā = Special practice of an expert, vasī, of jhāna. Two Abhiññā, Pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇa and Cutūpapatañāṇa, have the similar practice as ÑāṇaDassaṇa, so the expert of jhāna can enlighten as a Tevijjo easier.

Chaḷabhiñño = Ariya who is an expert, vasī, of every Abhiññā.

Paṭisambhidappatto = Chaḷabhiñño who is an expert of own and the others' Paṭisambhidā.

For the example question:

  if I become a stream-enterer I will automatically have four analytical knowledge right? Will I also have three clear knowledge and six higher knowledge?

if you become a stream-enterer without being an expert of jhāna&abhiñña&paṭisambhidā, you are a stream-enterer who automatically have only four analytical knowledge right of your meditation. You are only a Sukkhavipassako, but you are not Paṭisambhidappatto, Chaḷabhiñño, Tevijjo.

For the conclusion:

Buddhism's Existing Period Counting

The contexts about Buddhism's Existing Period Counting appear as 3 tenses in Aṭṭakathā:

1. The existing enlightenment of the current Buddha's follower (45BBE - about 5,000 BE):

Buddhism's existing period counting of current Buddha  according to Vinaya.A. (samanta.3) Bhikkhunikkhandhakavaṇṇanā, An.A. (manoratha.1) Dutiyapamadadivaggavannana:

1st 1000 years after Gotama, Current Buddha, died:

  Arahanta with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>

2nd 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

  Arahanta with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>

  Arahanta with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>

  Arahanta via Insight-only still occur=>>

3rd 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

  Anāgāmi with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>

  Anāgāmi with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>

  Anāgāmi with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>

  Anāgāmi via Insight-only still occur=>>

4th 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

  Sakadāgāmi with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>

  Sakadāgāmi with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>

  Sakadāgāmi with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>

  Sakadāgāmi via Insight-only still occur=>>

Final 1000 years after GotamaSambuddha died:

  Sotāpanna with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>

  Sotāpanna with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>

  Sotāpanna with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>

  Sotāpanna via Insight-only still occurs until the end of final 1000 years.

2. The previous KassapaBuddha (uncountable millions of years ago):

KassapaSamBuddha's, previous Buddha's, Buddhism existing period counting appear in Di.A. (sumangala.3) Sampasadaniyasuttavaṇṇanā; It using the past tense verbs). And Saṃ.A. (sārattha.2) Saddhammappaṭirūpakasuttavaṇṇanā, which connects to that Sampasadaniyasuttavaṇṇanā:

1st 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

  Arahanta with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur=>

2rd 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

  Arahanta with Six Higher Knowledges still occur=>

3th 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

  Arahanta with Three Clear Knowledges still occur=>

4th 1000 years after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

  Arahanta via Insight-only still occur=>>

Final 1000 years  after Kassapa, previous Buddha, died:

  Pāṭimokkha memorizer still occurs until the end of final 1000 years.

3. The current Buddha's living time (45 - 0 BBE):

The sequence of existing enlightenment of the Buddha's followers just in current alive buddha's time, not died, appear in Saṃ.A. (sārattha.2)  Saddhammappaṭirūpakasuttavaṇṇanā.It's explaining the Buddha's answer to KassapaThera's question in Sutta. Saṃ. Ni. Saddhammappaṭirūpakasutta:

  "What is the cause, lord, what is the reason, why before there were fewer training rules and yet more monks established in final gnosis, whereas now there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis?"

At alive GotamaSamBuddha's time after he has enlightened, at the beginning Arahanta with Four Analytical Knowledges still occur. As time went by Arahanta with Six Higher Knowledges still occur Arahanta with Three Clear Knowledges still occur. As time went by Arahanta via Insight-only still occur. As time went by Anāgāmī still occur. As time went by Sakadāgāmi still occur. As time went by Sotāpanna still occur. As time went by Sīpavanta still occur.

A short term of all above Buddha's periods are up and down depending on the situation, but it tends to go down in long-term of every period. It's something like this:

Cr. wikipedia


How do you know if you have attained Nibbana? You read the suttas, understand their meaning, and put the teachings into practice. At the end of the day, how do you know if you have attained Nibbana? I think this is an important question because Nibbana is the ultimate goal and you need to know if you have finally reached the end.

If the mind has reached final Nirvana, nothing in the whole world can bother it and make it suffer.

The mind will completely cleansed of greed, lust, anger, hatred, irritation, delusion, attachment, fear, worry, hurt, sorrow, self-view, etc.


How to breathe into your stomach and not get light headed during meditation? During conventional Buddhist sitting meditation I have a problem whereby because I am thinking about my breathing my breath is quite short (I can't seem to change that) and just a few minutes in, just as I am starting to get into a deeper state and see something, I find that I start feeling quite light headed and almost hyperventilating because I am thinking about the breath and thus not breathing as I usually (which may still not be the perfect way for meditation, but at least normally when I'm not thinking about my breath I don't hyperventilate).

I have been told by teachers that I should try to breathe into my stomach as this is good energetically and will make the breath to the degree and the length it needs to be.

However, no matter what I try, I don't seem to be managing to achieve this stomach breathing.

So I was wondering if there is a particular knack to it or any advice? Am I actually trying to breathe into my stomach or just to expand my lungs down there (different teachers have said contradictory things on this matter)?

How to breath into your stomach and not get light headed during meditation?

When you breathe with your diaphragm (instead of just with your rib cage) you breathe more deeply.
To avoid hyperventilating then, you presumably need to breathe more slowly:

Longer pause between breaths
Longer duration during breaths (during each inhale or exhale)

Try both:

Breathe slowly (because deeply; the only time I deliberately breathe deeply and rapidly would be during vigorous exercise)
Don't be in a hurry to deliberately take/start the next breath after exhaling (instead, taking a next breath is a reaction to needing more air)

I have a problem whereby because I am thinking about my breathing my breath is quite short

"Where" are you think about your breathing: is your focus somewhere around your nose?

An alternative might be to focus somewhere lower: e.g. on your diaphragm; or lower (e.g., according to the Chinese, "The Lower Dantian (Jing), located two inches below the navel, is the source of energy which builds the physical body").

Or even lower: my Tai Chi teacher once said to imagine breathing through your heels!

In Anapanasati -- Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Bikkhu Buddhadasa, it recommends you shift your point of awareness (in Appendix D in the section titled "Getting Started: Establishing Sati"):

  Note the three primary segments of each breath: beginning, middle, and end. For the inhalation these
  correspond to the nose, the middle of the chest, and the abdomen. For the exhalation the reverse is true, beginning at the
  belly and ending at the nose. Watch and wait at the nose until the incoming breath is felt there. Then skip to the middle
  of the chest and watch there until the breath is felt. Then skip to the abdomen and watch there until the breath is felt.
  Continue watching as the inhalation ends and wait for the exhalation to begin.

That's just a preliminary practice though:

  This hopping from point to
  point is a relatively easy way to establish sati on the breath. It is a good way to get started. It becomes, however,
  somewhat crude and agitating after a while. Once we are skilled at it, we will want a more refined and peaceful way to
  be mindful of the breath

After that, it says,

  Next, we connect the three points into a continuous sweep or flow. This more closely approximates the breath
  itself. We call this "following, chasing, hunting, stalking." While breathing naturally, without any forcing or
  manipulating of the breath, sati follows the breath in and out, between the tip of the nose and the navel.

And finally:

  Once "following" becomes easy and constant, it will begin to feel unnecessarily busy and disruptive. Now we
  are ready for "guarding," a more peaceful way to practice sati with the breathing. By this time, a certain point in the
  nose will stand out.

In summary:

  If at first our breaths are short and shallow, with movement in the chest only and not in the abdomen, then simply
  follow the breath down however far it goes. After sati is established we will relax and the breathing will become deeper.
  Before long we will feel movement in the abdomen. If we see that the breath is passing by many places at the same
  time, do not use this fact as an opportunity to complicate things. Keep it simple. A simple flow from the tip of the nose
  to the navel and from the navel to the tip of the nose is sufficient for our purpose.

These quotes are extracts; I'd recommend you read the book for a further or more complete description.

Am I actually trying to breath into my stomach

Air should go into the lungs as usual, not literally into your stomach!

I think it means to drop your diaphragm (so that the lungs expand downwards).

When you do that there's less room (less volume remaining) for your stomach, intestines, etc.: so you need to relax your abdominal muscles (which might normally keep the belly from protruding) and let your belly appear to push forward when you breathe in.

Imagine you had a metal band, tied around your ribs, so that you couldn't inhale by expanding your rib-cage: you'd still be able to breathe by using your "stomach" (i.e. diaphragm and belly) ... that's what "breathing into the stomach" means.

To be honest what I just described seems to be contradicted by something in the Anapanasati book I referenced above (in Lecture Two, in the section titled "Step One: The Long Breath"):

  When there is a deepest
  possible long breath, does the chest expand or contract? Does the abdomen expand or contract? These are things to
  examine. In doing so, you may learn that it works differently than you thought. Most people have the overly simple idea
  that when we breathe in the chest expands and when we breathe old: the chest contracts. In studying the breath
  carefully, however, we find that in taking the longest inhalation, the abdomen will contract and the chest will expand.
  With the very long exhalation, then, the abdomen will expand and the chest will contract or deflate. We find the reverse
  of what common sense teaches. You ought to investigate this business of the very long breath, the longest possible
  breath, to see what changes happen. Do not take anything for granted. You ought to understand even these most basic
  natural facts.

This is explained later (in Appendix D, in the section titled "Long & Short Breaths),

  After sati is established (techniques two or three) we begin to notice the long and short breathing. The mind still may
  wander some but stays with the breath enough to learn what it is like. The first and easiest quality to note is length, in
  terms of both time and extent of physical movement. For our purposes, an exact dividing line between short and long is
  not important. Become familiar with your own breathing and learn what your longest breaths and shortest breaths are
  like relative to each other. There is no need to compare your breaths with someone else's. (D. 29)

  Generally, you will find that abdominal breathing is longer than chest breathing, that is, if abdominal breathing comes
  naturally. This is something we observe, however, it is not something we desire or seek. We are not "supposed" to
  breath in a certain way and we do not use Anapanasati to develop this or that way of breathing. So do not try to force
  abdominal breathing, the results would not be very relaxing. But should it occur naturally, you will see that it is longer,
  more relaxed, and healthier. (D. 30)

  Should your breaths become very long, you will discover an interesting point. You may have thought it strange when
  Ajahn Buddhadasa said that the chest expands and the abdomen contracts with the long in-breath (Marker 58). Common
  sense says that the abdomen expands on the in-breath and contracts on the out-breath. The two seem to contradict each
  other. Which is right? First, we observe the normal breathing. As we inhale, the diaphragm drops and pushes the tummy
  outward. When we exhale the tummy falls in again. This is the ordinary abdominal breathing before it becomes very
  long. It is a simple movement of the abdomen expanding (or rising) with the in-breath and contracting (or falling) with
  the out-breath. Some people will consider this short and others will feel it is relatively long. (D. 31)

  Now, there is a limit to how far the abdomen can expand. As we relax and breathe more deeply this limit will be
  reached. At that point there is, however, room left in the chest (lungs) for more air. If we continue to breathe in, the
  chest will then expand. This in turn pulls up and flattens the tummy. This is what Ajahn Buddhadasa meant. A very
  long inhalation begins just like a normal breath. The abdomen expands but the chest barely moves at all. After the
  abdomen's limit is reached the chest expands and the abdomen contracts. When the breath is really long you will
  discover this for yourself. The opposite movements (roughly) occur with the very long exhalations. So the very long
  breath is an ordinary breath plus more. Many of us will seldom experience this very long breathing until the body
  becomes very relaxed through Anapanasati. Eventually, it will happen more and more regularly - even outside the
  formal sittings. (D. 32)

In other words, a very long breath starts by depressing the diaphragm (abdominal breathing), and when that's full then the in-breath continues by expanding the rib-cage.


Why Buddhist worship Mount Kailash? In Hinduism it is said to be the place of Lord Shiva and his wife godess parvati, How is it related to Buddhist?

Did Buddha himself ever said the importance of Mount Kailash? and if it is just a culture Buddhist follows how did it start?

Jain's are also worshipping this sacred mountain.

Buddhist Monk Milarepa have climbed Mount Kailash(is it true?)

It is in the region around Mt. Kailash that Pacceka Buddhas will reside at a time just before a Supreme Buddha is born to this world.  That is when the eminent coming of a Supreme Buddha is talked about amongst the general population of that time.

So Mt. Kailash is a very storied mountain, the equally storied lake and the storied flower in it. Mt. Kailash is the mythical Mt. Meru. Read about it in the "Saptha Suryodgamana Sutta" The Sermon of the Seven Suns (Anguttara Nikaya VII. 62). In it the Buddha explains in detail about the events that would unfold, and in it, this monarch of mountains will get consumed and burnt, that neither ashes not soot will remain.

The Lake Anavatapta is said to be so sheltered and covered that the direct rays from the sun would not fall and the lake would not dry up until the day this world would come to an end, as per the Saptha Suryodgamana Sutta. In this "Sermon of the Seven Suns" the Supreme Buddha, tells us about the end of the earth due to the expansion of the dying sun.

To tell you a bit about the storied flower that is found in its forest…. It is the Kadupul flower - said to be the world’s most expensive flower. It survives around the Lake Anavatapta, because it is sheltered from the sun’s rays. The flower is said to be a midnight miracle, surviving during the night, and fading to nothing at dawn.


Is experience dependently arisen? We experience birth , death , cravings , feelings, contact etc.. We also 'experience' ignorance(like self). We also experience choices. We can experience the whole existence as a human or a dog or as a insect.
But we do not find origination of experience in dependent origination.

My question is : Is experience dependently originated ? If yes then at what stage in dependent origination ?

Yes, experience is dependently originated (in multiple steps). Dependent Origination describes this step-by-step emergence of experience. Ignorance and Consciousness are the early stages of the emergence of experience. Feeling is experience fully matured. Birth and death is experience developed to its logical conclusion.

The entire chain of dependent origination is a spiral. Its basic components are consciousness, craving, and action. It starts as vague and undifferentiated and proceeds in cycles getting more and more concrete over time.

In the beginning it is completely undifferentiated. While undifferentiated, it is still structured and active. It's called ignorance but what it really is, is the undifferentiated Ground of All.

Then, after many many cycles of activity, because similar things happen again and again, the imprints of the repetitions lead to formation of tendencies. At first these are very vague, very abstract tendencies - but after many cycles they start getting more and more specific. We call this "samskaras" - which can be translated "formations" or "imprints" or "tendencies". This is made from the same exact stuff as what we called "ignorance" - but now it is a bit more defined, it has slightly more specificity.

As more cycles pass, and things keep interacting and imprinting, imprints/tendencies/formations keep getting more and more specific, until they start resembling something like a (very-very vague) EXPERIENCE. At first, this experience is not vivid at all, rather like a vague recognition: "something like this was before". This basic recognition, the rudimentary inklings of experience, is what we call Vijnana or consciousness. This is still the same stuff as what we called Ignorance and Formations - now developed into something much more specific.

Just like this, things keep getting more and more specific. As tendencies get more and more defined, recognition grows into habit and attitude. Now it's not just "something like this was before", now it is also: "this has always been so and so" or "X always comes with Y" or "It's always A and then it's followed by B". In other words, as consciousness learns to recognize repeating patterns, it gets used to them. Whatever it gets used to, it is established in. From this it begins to form its attitudes: "This is the way it should be. This is right." and "This should not be this way. This is wrong".

And so, tendencies grow and develop, until they become several distinct things:
 - Consciousness, or ability to recognize patterns and situations, the basic capacity of Experiencing the world.
 - Habits and attitudes, aka pre-dispositions for and against certain experiences.

And then, after many, many more cycles - things get even MORE defined.

Consciousness grows into a full-blown ability to delineate and experience OBJECTS. While habits and attitudes develop into DESIRE and AVERSION towards these objects. Until this time, there was no "inside" and "outside". This point is the first inkling of the separation. The experience of recognition of objects will later develop into a full blown experience of "the world". And imprints/habits/attitudes will later develop into a full blown "psyche" or "sentient being".

All this time, activity never stopped. The Ground Of All kept moving and stirring. In fact, activity is exactly what supported formation of tendencies, consciousness, objects, and attitudes. As things were getting more and more defined, activity was getting more defined too! Influenced by habits and attitudes of attraction/aversion to objects, activity was getting increasingly more directional and purposeful, until it became full-blown KARMA -- action towards or away from the objects. Mind you, this karma always existed in rudimentary form, even since the times of Ignorance, and developed in lockstep with Consciousness and Craving (=attraction/aversion). Ignorance, Imprints, Recognition of patterns, Consciousness, Objects - is one branch. Ignorance, Tendencies, Habits, Attitudes, Attraction/Aversion (=craving) - is another branch. Ignorance, activity, attraction&avoidance, pursuing, goal-making - is third branch. They support each other and help each other grow and get more concrete.

Interaction feeds imprints, imprints feed recognition, recognition feeds habit, habit feeds attitude, attitude feeds interaction. It's a cycle that perpetuates itself, propelling itself forward, helping things get more and more concrete.

When we say "things get more concrete" we mean the Experience of The Outside and Experience of The Inside gets more concrete.

First, there is only recognition of "this was before", then it's "this has always been like this", then "when this is so - it's right and when it's not so - it's wrong", then it gets to the level of objects and feelings.
"When this object is here - it feels good", "When this object is here - it feels bad". Things get more concrete like that, consciousness gets more concrete, experience gets more concrete, the attitude towards things get more concrete, and action towards things gets more concrete. And along with all this, our sense of SELF gets more and more concrete.

This is called "Dependent Origination". It's a self perpetuating cycle that proceeds from complete vagueness to increasingly more and more concrete EXPERIENCE of the inside and outside, experience of objects and the world, sense of self, attitude towards things, and intentional action towards things.


How worried should one be about the lay precepts? I took the lay precepts after a short retreat. It was suggested that we say them however loudly we mean them.

I'm kinda worried about this. I may have over-estimated how much I meant them, and also, I may have said them too loudly anyway due to getting caught up in the moment.

This concerns me: what does it mean to break the precepts?

Precept is a promise or pledge or vow to abstain from certain actions. When you break a precept you break the promise, i.e., you pledged you will abstain but you have done what you promised not to do. You should retake the precept, i.e., promise or pledge or vow to abide by the rule of abstaining.

Also saying them loudly maybe you are psychologically more serious about preserving or abiding by them. Also as with any pledge or promise or vow you should mean it and have intention to keep it.

The abstainment in the precepts are towards actions that are unwholesome. So if you break them this also means you are doing something unwholesome hence accumulating bad Kamma. Precepts is a rule base or ritualistic approach from abstaining from what is unwholesome.


What is admiration? How to stop craving it? After a deep contemplation of why I couldn't move on from a relationship I found that it was because I am not getting admiration from anyone else. Actually, in past she admired me when no one else did. I was in great need of admiration and she showed me that just then. She filled a hole in me that time, made me feel good about myself. Now that we are not together, I am depressed, demotivated and not a man anymore. I am craving that admiration so much. I do not have any contact with any other girl in my life. I also realised why she admired me. But now I'd be foolish to seek the same admiration from someone else while I am not having those qualities that make people admire me anymore. Also she was my first love and soon I had developed sexual interest in her. So, admiration + first love + sexual interest made me feel on top of the world. I was teen back then. Now I can't move on. What do i do?

You need to try and focus on yourself rather than her. Whatever qualities she admired in you, you need to show yourself these qualities. Let's say she admired your smile, every time you look in a mirror, tell yourself "I have a beautiful smile and this is all mine".

You need to accept yourself first and everyone else will take a back seat. It won't be easy and instant but it's a start. Tell yourself that you are in love with a version of her that you created up in your mind. The idea of her and "her" are two different people.

Also, writing down your thoughts help. Another technique is to realize the importance of people who love you like family and friends who are around. You need to understand that these are the ones who truly care about you and you need to get your life back on track for them. Everyday try and find something in people close to you that attracts you to them. This will help lower her importance in life.

Hope this helps!


Is their any books where the collection quotation of Milarepa are available? Is their any books  where the  collection quotation of Milarepa are available ?

In French: “Milarépa - Oeuvres complètes, La vie, Les cent mille chants” translated from Tibetan by Marie-José Lamothe, Fayard, ISBN 978-2-213-62897-4
As far as I know, it’s not available in English.