Who or what is observing I've heard it taught by various secular teachers that through mindfulness one can uncover the "true authentic self" because we realise that we are not thought but that we are awareness of thought. Please correct me if I'm mistaken but in my understanding this is not in alignment with Buddhist teachings and a misunderstanding of mindfulness.  We can discover that there is an awareness of thought, emotion etc but are we this awareness? Wouldn't Buddha say that even awareness is not self?  If we are not thought, not awareness, who or what is the observer? Is the observer just more impermanent phenomena?

The mind observes. Consciousness observes. Awareness observes.

  I've heard it taught by various secular teachers that through mindfulness one can uncover the "true authentic self"

No. Buddhism does not teach there is a "true authentic self".

  because we realise that we are not thought but that we are awareness
  of thought.

No. Ultimately, there is no "we". Buddhism explains there are only five aggregates, namely:

Physical body
Feeling/sensation
Perception
Thinking/emotions
Sense consciousness

  Please correct me if I'm mistaken but in my understanding this is not in alignment with Buddhist teachings and a misunderstanding of
  mindfulness.

Correct. What various secular teachers are teaching is not in alignment with Buddhist teachings.

  We can discover that there is an awareness of thought, emotion etc
  but are we this awareness?

The mind discovers & the mind is aware. Consciousness knows thought, as follows:

  Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three is contact.

  If anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the intellect are discerned.
  And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow
  that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable
  if anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self.' So the intellect
  is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Ideas are the self,' that
  wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self and ideas are
  not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the intellect is
  the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self,
  ideas are not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self. If
  anyone were to say, 'Contact at the intellect is the self,' that
  wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self, ideas are
  not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self, contact at the
  intellect is not-self.

  MN 148

  'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?

  'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It
  cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It
  cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'

  Discernment (wisdom) & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from
  the other, to delineate the difference between them?

  Discernment (wisdom) & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to
  delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one
  cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these
  qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having
  separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between
  them.

  MN 43

  Wouldn't Buddha say that even awareness is not self?

Yes.

  If we are not thought, not awareness, who or what is the observer?

The mind is the observer; awareness is the observer; but "we" is not the observer.

  Is the observer just more impermanent phenomena?

Yes. Refer to SN 12.61

  It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
  swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
  it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
  Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
  called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
  arises as one thing and ceases as another.

  SN 12.61


What is the symbol sometimes depicted on images of the Buddha which looks like a swastika? I often look up images of the Buddha online to use as desktop backgrounds for pc or phone. I've seen quite a few images that show a symbol that looks like a swastika on the Buddha's chest. What is the meaning of this symbol?

Swastica is an ancient symbol of sun, rotation, wheel, cyclic activity esp. in nature, and by extension -- eternity. When German Nazis adopted a then-emerging theory of racial superiority of Germans, finding it well suiting their political goals, they took swastika as a symbol of their supposed identity with the Aryan race, and, more generally, inherent superiority.

Buddha, too, used the symbolism of Aryan superiority as a way to point to the holistic multi-dimensional excellence of Sat-Dharma and how it manifests outwardly in behavior of its practitioners. Such true excellence is beyond the concept of superiority, beyond any trace of conceit. In Mahayana we call this "unity of wisdom and compassion".

To weave in the solar symbolism, Buddha (and incidentally, Chogyam Trungpa) called himself a kinsman of sun. In my understanding, this is a reference to the message of positive constructive attitude inherent in Buddhist philosophy: taking on the universe with all its inherent problems, and winning (remember Buddha is often referred to as "Victor" in texts). In Chogyam Trungpa's explanation, the philosophy of Raising Sun is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of Setting Sun, because the latter relies on solving the problems through external means (feeling hot -- turn on the AC; feeling pain -- drop a pill of painkiller; feeling depressed -- watch a movie or smoke a joint), which too easily ends up encouraging weakness of character, while in the philosophy of Raising Sun, the problems are solved at a deeper, more holistic level.

So if I were to summarize the meaning of swastika as used in Buddhism I would say it is a symbol of true excellence transcending even the highest ideals, including the ideal of transcendental excellence itself; taking on the universe with all its inherent problems, and winning in the most fundamental sense.

It is the attitude of facing your darkest shadows; becoming a heir to Sat-Dharma and then coming back to the marketplace to share with people; embodying the eternal cycle of teachers and students, the Unconditional Buddha Nature.

In one word, it is a symbol of perfection.


Is Being a Bartender Considered Right Livelihood Selling animal for its meat is considered a wrong livelihood. Made intoxicants and sell them is also a wrong livelihood.  If people are working on a non-vegetarian food counter, I believe that is not a wrong livelihood. With the same understanding, if someone is working on the wine counter, the duties are serving customers who ask for wine, beer, filling shelves, that is also considered not a wrong livelihood.

But is being a bartender considered a wrong livelihood or not?

Vaṇijjā sutta discusses Right Livelihood in for levity which include: business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

If you sell meat or drinks for a living this is not right livelihood. I think is suffices if you are part of the establishment and need not be the proprietor / owner / shareholder. So if you work in a meat shop or bar or liquor store then this is not right livelihood.

If you are working is a big supermarket which sells among anything meat and drinks and you work in a generic counter not dedicated for the sale of meats or drinks then this might be OK. I.e., if you are part of a large store out of which a small part of business is meats, drinks and poisons unless you are involved is specifically to procure and sell these items it might be OK. As management or owner or shareholder of such business might be OK if this is a minor line of business and you are not involved in the planning and management of such activities.

Kandaraka Sutta, Apannaka Sutta mentions that those who torment themselves, those who torment others, those who torment both, and those who torment neither themselves nor others, out of which the last is the most conducive. Similarly one's job or business should be ideally organised around the same principles.

Also Ama,gandha Sutta discusses that it is not meat you should abstain from but from evil action.

So in conclusion bartending, being in the wine counter, being part of a butcher or meat shop, or being in the meat counter, is not right livelihood, but eating meat is not an issue.


Female Zen teachers and writers The Zen center where I live is very male dominated. This might be because it's very small. Anyway, I think Zen sometimes tend to be a bit masculine in its form, wit a kind of quasi militaristic approach. I find this kind of fun and try to have an ironic attitude - irony is indeed a good medicine.

There are plenty of famous women in different schools of Buddhism, esecially Tibetan. But not so much in Zen, it seems.

Is there anyone who knows a good book on Zen practice written by a woman? And I'd also like some online resources/courses/training on Zen by women.

Charlotte Joko Beck revolutionized how Zen - if not the whole of Buddhism - is taught in America.  Her books are extraordinary.  She also started the San Diego Zen Center.  Peggy Jiyu Kennett started Shasta Abbey.  Those are two that I know off the top of my head.

And a link.


Is a Dhamma follower always a stream entrant? Is a Dhamma follower always a stream entrant?

According to MN 70:

  “What kind of person is a Dhamma-follower? Here some person does not
  contact with the body and abide in those liberations that are peaceful
  and immaterial, transcending forms, and his taints are not yet
  destroyed by his seeing with wisdom, but those teachings proclaimed by
  the Tathāgata are accepted by him after reflecting on them
  sufficiently with wisdom. Furthermore, he has these qualities: the
  faith faculty, the energy faculty, the mindfulness faculty, the
  concentration faculty, and the wisdom faculty. This kind of person is
  called a Dhamma-follower. I say of such a bhikkhu that he still has
  work to do with diligence. Why is that? Because when that venerable
  one…into homelessness. Seeing this fruit of diligence for such a
  bhikkhu, I say that he still has work to do with diligence.

It appears that the Dhamma-follower has assured Strem entry in this very life. He is in the Sotapanna path (Magga) but not experience fruits (Phala) He is a stream entrant to be.

  "One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

SN 25.1

See also this topic Regarding Cula Sotapanna


Inferiority because of failure in meditation I've tried hard to practice meditation - Anapansatti & Vipassana but I just can't concentrate on my breath. Now, I'm feeling inferior as if I can never concentrate my breath or get rid of my inner problems/ sufferings. I feel as if peace or enlightenment or eradication of suffering is not for me.

After proper analysis, I've found that I just simply can't concentrate. So my questions are

What are necessary & sufficient condition to get enlightened? If I don't have those qualities how can I develop those qualities? What I would have to do?
How to concentrate provided I have tried my best to concentrate my breathing but mind wanders away in no time. It is making me sick thinking I don't posses qualities to eradicate my own sufferings. It makes me feel as if I will never be at peace.

Note: I have been into 10 days Vipassana course also.

Anyone help me.

as i see it in OP based solely on content of his post.

  The faculty of conviction - seems to appear
  The faculty of persistence - seems to appear
  The faculty of mindfulness - seems to appear
  The faculty of concentration - self reported weak
  The faculty of discernment - seems to appear

Indriya-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of the Mental Faculties

On concentration:

  "And what is the faculty of concentration?  There is the case where a
  monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go,
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.

So it has attainment of singleness of mind as property of mind.

So how to develope it:
https://suttacentral.net/en/ma42

  At that time, the Venerable Ānanda rose from his seat of repose in the
  afternoon and went to Buddha. He bowed his head at his feet and then
  withdrew to sit at one side. He said: “World Honored One, what is the
  meaning of this: ‘to keep precepts’?”

  The World Honored One replied: “Ānanda, the meaning of keeping the
  precepts is to bring about non-regret. Ānanda, if someone were to keep
  the precepts, he would readily attain non-regret.”

https://suttacentral.net/en/an10.2

  (1)–(2) “Bhikkhus, for a virtuous person, one whose behavior is
  virtuous, no volition need be exerted: ‘Let non-regret arise in me.’
  It is natural that non-regret arises in a virtuous person, one whose
  behavior is virtuous.

  (3) “For one without regret no volition need be exerted: ‘Let joy
  arise in me.’ It is natural that joy arises in one without regret.

  (4) “For one who is joyful no volition need be exerted: ‘Let rapture
  arise in me.’ It is natural that rapture arises in one who is joyful.

  (5) “For one with a rapturous mind no volition need be exerted: ‘Let
  my body be tranquil.’ It is natural that the body of one with a
  rapturous mind is tranquil.

  (6) “For one tranquil in body no volition need be exerted: ‘Let me
  feel pleasure.’ It is natural that one tranquil in body feels
  pleasure.

  (7) “For one feeling pleasure no volition need be exerted: ‘Let my
  mind be concentrated.’ It is natural that the mind of one feeling
  pleasure is concentrated.

Later again from Meanings Sutta but it fit here more in this post:

  Again, he asked: “World Honored One, what is the meaning of this:
  ‘concentration’?”

  The World Honored One replied: “Ānanda, the meaning of concentration
  is to bring about seeing according to reality and knowing according to
  reality. Ānanda, if someone were to be concentrated, he would readily
  attain the seeing that is according to reality and the knowing that is
  according to reality.”

Else?

For developing  of non-distractiveness association with people collected in mind, avoiding restless people and mindfulness of arising and ceasing of phenomena in general according to Buddhagosa s commentary

I think this is it for your concentration problem OP, dont think i have to state the seemingly obvious in regards to your leaks:)

In regards to feeling inferior,

  there is no competition in search for peace

i heard that

Also this

Sarakaani Sutta:

  "Take the case of another man. He is not even endowed with unwavering
  devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. He is not joyous and
  swift in wisdom and has not gained release. But perhaps he has these
  things: the faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of
  concentration, of wisdom. And the things proclaimed by the Tathaagata
  are moderately approved by him with insight. That man does not go to
  the realm of hungry ghosts, to the downfall, to the evil way, to
  states of woe.

  "Take the case of another man. He is not even endowed with unwavering
  devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. He is not joyous and
  swift in wisdom and has not gained release. But he has just these
  things: the faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of
  concentration, of wisdom. Yet if he has merely faith, merely affection
  for the Tathaagata, that man, too, does not go to... states of woe.

On Vi:

When training Satipatthana it is not the objective to get well-concentrated, the concentration comes in succession and has its role and appropriate function. IE it also is involved as a causal condition for people attaching to certain states and that hinders progress.

Sati as a factor of Enlightenment, translated as mindfuless has function of remembering or keeping in mind, re-cognizing. Mindfulness of physical and mental states arising of and within a body is a single theme for the mind, which will develope concentration faculty no problem.

It seems to me that you could try paying more attention to arising and passing of states of "disliking", "wanting/liking", "sadness/despair", "judging/evaluating", "doubting" and "thinking/wondering" as well as "knowing", knowing ie when your concentration is low you can know it as "my concentration is weak", then maybe "disliking?;)" or "wanting" for it to be better or "evaluating" that it makes you a bad meditator, should note that your are thinking at this point and see where it goes from there. You see it will keep you within the theme of mindfulness of the body, conditioning victory.


The relation between Dhamma and reality itself What is the orthodox position or the sutta's position about the knowledge of reality itself, beyond any intervention of subjective factors?

In science, when we find evidence that proves some hypothesis, we cannot say that we've found the truth behind the studied phenomenon. We can only say that, until this point, the hypothesis works and it's useful to explain that phenomenon, and that, until refuted, we can use that hypothesis as a provisional working hypothesis, which is subject to eventual modification. In sum, science help us to find the most useful ideas to use in our lives.

Does this apply to Dhamma as well?

Evidence, (no matter how much evidence, whether theoretical or experiencial) is not enough to posit that the truth has been reached without any posible future refutation.

Let me ask this with an example:

We can say that the khandhas are not the self, but does that imply that there is not self at all? How can we reach that conclusion without any doubts?

Isn't better to simply say that we cannot know, and that it shouldn't matter at all? After all, if something is beyond the realm of experience, we shouldn't be able to say anything about it.

EDIT: a few more details...

Is Buddhism concerned with ontology (how and what thinfs are by themselves, and not only how we humans perceive them), epistemology (the possiblity of knowing things about reality itself, objectively) or pragmatism (to use whatever seem to work for some specific end)? Is it concerned with all of them, some of them, or none of them?

Pragmatism, for example, doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge, and technology and scientific progress seem to be evidence for that. The problem lies in assuming that this -unknown- degree of certainty is somehow the same as the truth (or the expression of all possible definition or information about a phenomenon). If we arrive to the truth, how could we know? Because of a certain X amount of evidence? How much evidence is indication of reaching the truth?

Or in other words, is enlightenment enough and definitive proof of having reached the truth about reality itself? Does it even matter if it works?

After all, some physicist, in the 19th century, thought that there only a few stuff left to be known about reality, because apparently, there was no important evidence to suggest or indicate that the current theories and hypothesis were wrong nor incomplete.

Thanks for your time and patience!

Kind regards!

Buddha's Dhamma and the Reality is one thing. Why we are facing problems in this world? And why we are running after different things?

It is because we haven't understood the reality of the world.

Different people run after different things (Youngers -> Money, Politicians -> Power, Who-does't-have-water-to-drink -> Water, Mother -> Children, Students -> Knowledge, etc...) They all has one thing in their mind, that is they will get satisfied after they achieved their goal. If you ask from an old person has he/she achieved their goals, they will replying saying Yes, But then if you ask them whether they are Satisfied. They will think twice to answer. Because What they really ran after was, Satisfaction, or Ultimate Satisfaction But they couldn't find the ultimate satisfaction on any of their goals.

(Note: If you are ultimately satisfied of something you don't want to do it any more and you should have the happiness in your mind about it. Isn't it?)

Why? Why they couldn't get satisfied? Because They don't know where they should look for ultimate satisfaction which gives them the ultimate happiness. Then where's that place which will make someone happy forever. Which will make someone stress-free, suffer-free.

Buddha's teaching is to teach us where that ultimate satisfaction / happiness is. If you understand the problem of the world, which I mentioned above, according to the science you will identify there's a problem. And If you follow the path of Buddha you will see that how it can be solved. Basically when you are following the path you will see why we are not satisfied with this world and what's the reason for that. And how the ultimate happiness feels like.

If I answer to the example you gave;

  We can say that the khandhas are not the self, but does that imply
  that there is not self at all? How can we reach that conclusion
  without any doubts?

You can't reach there because that's not the correct Dhamma. In Canon, Cūḷavedalla Sutta  Sakkaya is defined as below. (Please replace the word identity with Sakkaya and read the below) And you will understand that Sakkaya has nothing to do with Self or Identity. These translations doesn't give the exact meaning of Buddha's teaching.

  “Ma’am, they speak of this thing called identity. What is this
  identity that the Buddha spoke of?”

  “Visākha, the Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are
  identity. That is: form, feeling, perception, choices, and
  consciousness. The Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are
  identity.”

So instead of trying to conclude with there is not self at all Find Buddha's meaning of Sakkaya Ditti. Because that's the entrance to Buddha's Dhamma.

Update - 1
Based on the comment below part is added. It's hard to say Yes, No as Buddhism is towards the Nivana = Englightment.

Epistemology (Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief.) : Yes, Buddhism concerned about this. Because We don't understand the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief that's why we are in suffering. The Buddha studied this and understand the nature of how we think towards above factors, and that made him realized the root cause for this Sansara journey.
Ontology (Ontology is the philosophical study of being) : Buddhism explains the existence of the world, the reality of the world, and how beings are related. The main thing Buddhism focus is the reality of the world. While getting there how things are related to each other and how/why that exist are also get explained.
Pragmatism (An approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application) : In the path to Nivana he / she can evaluate which makes him/her success. Because how Buddha has advised is it's up to us to follow the path getting advises from the teacher which is Dhamma not a person.


How does one know which kamma-cetana and action is related to which kamma-vipaka being experienced? For instance if I go to a forest and a dog bites me on my leg while there.

How do I know whether:

example 1:

a) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka from my intentions and actions from the past or from a past life

or

b) the dog biting me is my kamma-vipaka for being in that forest

?

example 2:

I do something bad and something bad happens to me 2 days later.

How do I know whether:

c) The bad thing happening to me is related to the bad thing I did.

or

d) The bad thing happening is not related to the bad thing I did.
?

Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable (AN 4.77):

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

In other words, I don't think it's possible to know -- or at least, knowing that would be  an unusual/supernatural ability.
I guess it (the law of karma) is useful as a general rule, too complicated to see in detail. It's like, you can usefully predict that a river will flow downhill, without understanding every eddy and wavelet.

If I were to speculate further, my conventional/modern understanding (i.e. not based on Buddhist scriptures) is that you can't say that "the" cause of something is either instant or related to the past -- instead, an event has both kinds of cause, e.g. a "proximate" cause (what happened near or close to, just before, the event?) and some "ulterior" cause -- in fact, maybe several proximate causes and several ulterior causes (furthermore, samsara has "an inconstruable beginning ... not evident").
It's difficult, I suppose it's a mind-made projection (see also "sunyata"), to identity any one cause. IMO that's the same kind of difficulty (or impossibility) that you experience when you try to find the single thing which "is" a person (is it their name, their reputation, their fingers, their mood, etc.? Maybe none of these, maybe all).
And yet (obviously or conventionally) people are different, they inherit differences, they react differently, train themselves for better or for worse; and they "reap what they sow", more or less, though the details can be difficult to decypher, they develop habits -- so it wouldn't make sense to say that "karma doesn't exist" (like you wouldn't say that people don't exist).
I'm not even sure whether every event is considered a fruit of karma -- see also What, besides karma, determines the future? -- e.g. in this video I think Ven. Yuttadhammo is explaining that people dying in a Tsunami is an act of nature, which has various scientific causes, e.g. to do with the movement of "atoms" ... and that "karma" (in contrast) explains the role of "the mind" within that, e.g. why some people will be scared, others angry, others calm.


What does enlightenment actually entail in Shugendo? We already have some questions about enlightenment, but this is going to be a bit more... esoteric. What I would like to know is what enlightenment entails in Shugendo, which is a particularly syncretic variety of Japanese Buddhism.

What with Shugendo being strongly syncretized with the native animistic practices of Japan (i.e. Shinto), it appears that the notion of enlightenment has somehow become intertwined with the idea of kami (spirits/deities). Specifically, it appears (from some basic reading) that a practitioner of Shugendo (a shugenja) attains enlightenment when he "becomes one" with the kami in some sense. This is quite unlike many other varieties of Buddhism - after all, in most cases, there are no kami to begin with!

In any case, this is all very vague, so I was hoping somebody could clear this up for me - what, exactly, does enlightenment entail in Shugendo?

Well it is the same exact Enlightenment as in other schools, just expressed differently.

Kami are the spirits or energies of the universe. These are things of the same nature as devas and maras of Pali Canon and deities of Vajrayana and Shingon. In Greek paganism they were called daemons. Jung called them complexes. In our times we could call them memes.

Because in Theravada and more so in Yogacara the world is made out of phenomena of mind, external entities having their own existence are not posited. Still, what animalistic schools would call "mastery of spirits" is practiced in phenomenological schools as "mastery of phenomena".

When seen at universal scale, kami are made out of Musubi, the creative power permeating the universe, which refers to the same principle that is invoked by the concepts of Mahavairocana of Shingon, Tao of Taoism, Buddha Nature of Mahayana, Shunyata of Madhyamaka, Three Marks of Existence of Theravada, Dang energy of Nyingma and so on.

As the goal of Shingon is the realization of one's nature as identical with Mahavairocana, and the goal of Taoism is unity with Tao -- the goal of Shugendo is becoming one with kami.

This should not be understood primitively, as expanding one's "I" to the size of the universe (an interpretation sharply criticized by Gotama), but rather, as deconstructing "I" completely and practically, while attaining effective insight into one's own nature being an interplay of formations.

The naive experience of non-duality ("I am the universe"), which is sometimes mistakenly equated with bodhi, is what Buddha called “the state of Brahma”. It is just one of the experiences that practitioner has along the way, and may both happen before bodhi and be intentionally generated after bodhi. In addition to the state of Brahma, Buddha enumerates the following liberation-related states (AN 4.190):

The state of a deva — ability to intentionally generate rapture, pleasure, bliss, and equanimity in one’s body-mind at one of the four jhana levels.
The state of Brahma – development of loving-kindness (really, the four immeasurables) culminating in the experience of unity with the world.
The state of imperturbability — ability to maintain one of the four formless absorptions.
The state of an arya ("noble" / "civilized") — the state of having first-hand experience and direct realization of the validity of the four noble truths, the principle of this/that conditionality, and the three marks of existence. More broadly, the state of arya entails deep understanding of practical implications (benefits, drawbacks and limitations) of any conceptual construct, as well as the virtual nature (aka "shunyata") of all modes of phenomenal existence.


Why activity makes me material & full of desires? I am in very dilemma- When I am inactive or lazy I meditate well, read good religious books etc. But whenever I come into action like studies or useful work I become very material & also get desires to earn a lot of money, respect or other material desires by which I stop doing meditate & completely become indulgent. Can anyone tell me the way to be active & meditator simultaneously. In this current globalized & dynamic world it is huge requirement to be active but that activity makes me material & forget to work for this birth to cross Sansara or Dukkha. So how can I be active & aspirant to dissolve Dukkha/future births simultaneously?

What really matters for a lay person as per Buddhist teaching is whether you are at least a Sotapanna which assures you the enlightenment withing seven births. As far as you have the right livelyhood you do not have to worry being materialistic and being rich.


What Is the significance of 'Sal Tree' in Buddhism? 'Sal Tree' is revered by most people in sri lanka and most temple in the country grown it. Is this tree mentioned in the buddhist tradition?

The Sal Tree has Religious significance in Buddhism. It was believed that the prince Siddhārtha was born under Sal Tree and Gautama Buddha did Parinibbana (DN 16) under the pair of Sal Trees.

The sal tree in Sri Lanka might be different from India and Burma but if people do respect to sal trees, it must be the two reasons above.


how can spirts/sould see physical things without eyes I was listening and watching the Tibetan Book of the Dead (Audiobook) and i got one question in my mind. When soul/conciousness leaves physical body how can it see all the physical things without a physical eyes?

You need the eye faculty to see. In Humans and animals you have a physical eye made of gross material. In finer material spheres you will have eyes with finer material. Only in immaterial realms you will be without sense faculties.

In finer material realm your sense faculties are finer / shapere than being gross faculties. This is why in super normal powers this one of the power is know are divine [godly/heavenly] eye.

In all realms you have the 6 faculties in some for or the other except in the immaterial realms where you do not have the physical faculties.

Being in some finer material realm (heavens and hells) can see people in our realm and perhaps other realms also.

Perhaps in other realms also there might be being without an eye faculty like the blind in our realm. I don't this there being would be able to see.


mind-body relationship “finding a place for the mind in a world that is fundamentally physical”

—has been puzzled over for centuries, and is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. The reason is that apparently every possible solution has inadequacies. Anyone familiar with the philosophical literature is aware of all the problems with Cartesian substance dualism, reductive physicalism, eliminative materialism, behaviorism and functionalism, non-reductive physicalism and emergentism. One is tempted to agree with Colin McGinn that the cognitive apparatus of humans is intrinsically inadequate to the problem of explaining the relation between the mind and the brain.  How something like consciousness can emerge from something like the brain seems totally inexplicable.

What is the Buddhist explanation for Mind-Body problem?

I think the problem stems from a desire to know the mechanistic workings of reality; e.g. how one thing affects or effects another, rather than simple that it does so.  Buddhism is, for the most part, terribly devoid of explanations about the former, since it is ultimately a practical path. As the Buddha said time and again,

Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering.
-- MN 22 (Bodhi, trans)

In the context of your question, as others have pointed out, there really isn't any problem on the surface: physical reality clearly exists, as does mental reality; they also clearly interact with each other in a manner that is fairly easily definable.
The problem comes when you try to know more beyond these simple facts, i.e. how and why they exist and interact the way they do. These questions are foreign to Buddhism because they are not really useful at all, and moreover are probably ultimately outside of the realm of what can be empirically known.


Is too much of good kamma an obstacle for enlightenment? The more good kamma one has, the more likely one is to be reborn as a deva, and not a human, right? This article says the following about devas:

  So in spite of their excellent concentration and present opulence, they are even at a disadvantage compared to human beings, who are driven by pain and frustration to seek the path to deliverance.

Later on, it says that devas actually aspire to be humans, in order to comprehend impermanence, suffering, and non-self. Does it mean that generating too much good kamma is an obstacle for following the path towards enlightenment?

First of all some information in the question needs enplaning before going any further.

About devas aspiring to be humans

This is the full story...

Just like any other being the karma of devas run out.Then something amazing start to appear.The flowers they ware start to loose their beauty and die (Like our flowers in the evening),their body's start to sweat for the first time,They loose the appeal for the comforts in deva realm.

When others see this they come to these friends who are about to leave them and say this "Focus on the Human realm,you can continue your path there.You can even come back to us."

Then they follow as advised and come for a birth here.

The common misunderstanding

Do this before believing what i am about to say.

Go to "Youtube" and watch few executions by terrorists,If you watch anymore than half a dozen you will need some help to sleep today.

So what's the point of doing that?

This is why,

That was only few videos Devas are not bunch of playboys having a good time without a care in the world.As to "Suttas/Sutras" they are given territories
to look after,Some come down to earth to help the people in need (After all we are their children,parents,relatives),Some travel between realms to teach other the path to nirvana.

Unlike us they do not look away,You only experienced few tragedies and cruelty.They see it million times bigger all over the globe everyday.Not to mention the other realms with life.What is our pain they do see the pain in hell (the naraka / apaya).pain in those realms are nonparallel with any other,it is that high.
They are not covered from reality of life.

One day a monk who genuinely tried his best to reach nirvana died
before reaching nirvana.Now he opens his eyes as if he just woke
up.He is terrorized by what he sees,"The deva realm." A lot of devas
were gathering to greet him knowing that he was a good monk.They were
beautiful and kind but our ex-monk deva saw them as if they were ugly
ghosts.With immense pain he came to see lord Buddha and told what
happened to him.Lord Buddha kindly advised him and asked him to
continue his practice.He went back to his realm and told his many
female devas (who were born for him) "I am continuing my practice and
i consider you all my sisters."

This is only one story,Let me present the details directly from lord Buddha..

Lord Buddha said that what happens there is more like what happens here.Just like in our world people who look away from pain and go get lost in joy exist there.The people who want an understanding search for truth,They get help from others and they even have discussion sessions with "Brahmas (Beings from the highest realms)".

If you think having anything on demand is going to harm concentration or the path to nirvana itself do this.

Look at yourself,now you are on the internet.Whatever you wish to have is on demand, you can entertain all of your six senses,go after any temptation for free!

Let me remind you...

Instead of reading about Buddhism you can do anything else right now.I mean what's wrong with us?, reading texts on some page about Buddhism!

This is the difference between common people and people like us.It's the fire that keeps burning leading us to try to find more meaning to life.This my friend is the spark that burns in any wise being in higher realms!

Also let me tell you some less known fact!

I hope you know about "Albert Einstein's - Relativity" because it will help you to understand this easily.

"Lord Buddha said beings in Deva realm have very long lives".The relativity comes in to action making us live in different speeds of time.

I know it was a bit hard to understand.Let me tell you a story mentioned in Buddhism that would do the trick.

One day a female in deva realm went to a garden with her husband and their friends.While spending time there she died because of her birth karma expiring.She was born among humans,she remembered her last life so she became a follower of lord Buddha and did many good things in hope of seeing her husband again.she lived a full human life and lied.She was born back at her place like she wanted.S she rushed to that garden of her last life they were still there and they asked an amazing question "Where were you in the morning we searched everywhere" she replied saying i was born among humans and lived a whole life time there.They were very sad and said "Oh how short is a human life!"

Get ready for the surprise of your life!

As to calculations given in Buddhism to deva Realms it has been only five days from Lord Buddhas leaving (death).There are still arahants there who offer doubtless advice to the ones who practice the path.

Looking at the Extra long life,A mind that is way faster and better than ours,Being in the company of arahants it is way better than being human!
Here in my country (Sri Lanka) where there is a Theravada practice we are often advised to focus on Deva realms because of the growing evilness of the world.Most of us plan to leave here,honestly i advice you the same if you do not reach nirvana in  this life.The future world is not for us,it is for "kill or be killed" people.

About too much of good karma

There is no such thing,Lord Buddha said that any good karma is good no matter the size.

This is Lord Buddhas words.....

"There is only one friend to the beings who wander in sansara,it is nothing else but their own karma"

May triple gems bless you!

Please comment if you have any questions.


What was the motivation for the prohibition on eating onions and garlic? I've heard two speculations:

1) Onions & garlic are used to flavor meat, so they are guilty by association. I've heard the Jains have a similar prohibition for this reason.

2) Onions & garlic incite the "passions"-- in other words, its a Indian herbal viagra.

Does anyone know the real motivation for prohibiting onions and garlic? Is the real motivation lost to the mist of time?

This is the 4th minor Precept in the Brahma Net Sutra.

Page 55 of this books tells a story about why no garlic

http://books.google.com/books?id=91OPcSUTFQ0C&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=why+prohibition+of+onions+and+garlic+by+buddhist&source=bl&ots=-zabxvpxAT&sig=GLbsLl7P1h6soNNWDG8SXrzfzM0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GN1OVISdDcz-yQS9q4DgCQ&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw

The text is from the Chanyuan Qinggui - the stories there are that the nuns were allowed to pick 5 heads of garlic a day but one day picked all of them. The Buddha then banned the use of garlic.

Another story tells that people who use garlic were not allowed near the Buddha when he was giving his sermon because of bad breath, body odor and possibly flatulence.

This seems more plausible to me if you have ever been around someone eating lots of garlic.

Onions, especially sweet onions, do not exhibit these same symptoms after eating.


Awkwardness in the world Here is my question:

  How does a lay Buddhist respond to awkwardness and how does a monk
  respond to awkwardness such as dropping something while ordaining or
  falling on the floor?

I suppose the buddhist way to deal with awkwardness is similar to any emotion: Accept it, don't act on it, and go on with life.

Unless it's awkward in a precept-breaking way. If so, refer to the vinaya.


How to propery pay back goodness and develop gratitude? Today morning, while browsing certain virtual Dhamma-places, the thought came into my persons mind: "Indeed, there are seldom people who give without out expecting anything, food (for good thoughts), clothes (accounts), shelter (space), and medicin (assistanes to exist further) for long life and comfortable existence, shelter and help for the Dhamma and long time welfare for many. What if I ask about the secound kind of seldom people in this world, to bring this also into attention?" Now having taken time for following that thought, my person likes to ask:
What would be the proper way to pay back goodness done to one?
What kind of ways are there, to do so?
What are the stages of being grateful, in accordiance to right view and ones personal circumstances?
...when we make use of facilities, time, sacrifies... of others.

Has done much
"These three persons have done much to a person. Which three? The person gone to whom this person takes refuge in the Enlightenment, in the Teaching and the Community of bhikkhus.
"The person gone to whom this person knows as it really is, this is unpleasant, this is the arising of unpleasantness, this is the cessation of unpleasantness and this is the path leading to the cessation of unpleasantness.
"Again, the person gone to whom, this person destroys desires, releases the mind and released through wisdom, here and now abides having realized. These three persons have done much to this person.
"It is not possible that these three persons could be thoroughly repaid with gratitude, by this person revering him, attending on him, clasping hands towards him and honouring him with robes, morsel food, dwellings and medicinal requisites."

May you like to let remembering words of Dhamma but also you most inner heart try to give an good answer.
(Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains)

I think that a typically Buddhist recommendation is that you try to be "easy to support". For example if someone tries to do you a kindness (for example, by offering you food), then you're "easy to support" if you accept what's offered without making further, difficult demands.
Another example of being "easy to support" might mean being inoffensive and harmless (although arguably everyone should try to be so anyway, not only when repaying a kindness).
That said, I'm not sure that I agree with the premise of the question (that you should "pay back" goodness). I thought that kindness isn't necessarily supposed to be transactional: for example, monks don't sell Dharma. So when lay people support monks, and monks support lay people, I'm not sure this ought to be viewed as "paying back".
A fairly widespread (not necessarily only Buddhist) alternative to "paying back" is called paying forward. That means, if someone is kind to you, then you "return" that favour by being kind to someone else!
"Paying forward" is a famous concept, at least on the internet: it's mentioned in one of this site's help topics, for example:

Pay it forward
Saying “thanks” is appreciated, but it doesn’t answer the question. Instead, vote up the answers that helped you the most! If these answers were helpful to you, please consider saying thank you in a more constructive way – by contributing your own answers to questions your peers have asked here.

As an idea it's perhaps not incompatible with Buddhist ideals.


Does each Buddha find a new path? I have a question that I find kind of interesting, and can't find an answer anywhere. Will the next Buddha find a new path, different from the middle way? Or will he rediscover the middle way once it's been forgotten. I think both are possible, but I'm not too sure.

Each Buddha rediscovers the same path and the same truth all over again, on his own.
You can find this narrated in the Pali Canon for Vipassi Buddha (SN 12.4), Sikhi Buddha (SN 12.5), Vessabhu Buddha (SN 12.6), Kakusandha Buddha (SN 12.7), Konagamana Buddha (SN 12.8), Kassapa Buddha (SN 12.9) and of course, Gotama Buddha (SN 12.10).
Furthermore, the Buddha foretold the coming of the future Buddha, Metteyya Buddha or Maitreya Buddha in DN 26 - to do the same.


Is intention the result of rational or logical thinking or some other? According to one of many sources, the definition of intention is described as Right intention is the intention and resolve to give up the causes of suffering, to give up ill-will and to adopt harmlessness. It contrasts with wrong intention, which involves craving for worldly things (wealth, sex, power) and the wish to harm.

What is unclear is whether intention is an act or thought that precedes or follows rational thought?

My understanding is that intention plays a critical role in one karma. If my thought is the result of anger however i do not have intent to harm is that not the result of rational thought?

If i do act irrationally, to save or protect a life, is that not intention without thought?

EDIT

To add to ChrisW's question on clarification, when i say that if my thought is of anger e.g. how this person would disappear or no longer be around, but this is not followed by action because rationally i do not wish to cause harm.

The second example of irrational thought is that when caught in the spur of the moment, i may say or do things however this is to protect a child.

Lets take 2 examples where the action are the same:

A surgeon takes a knife and cuts through a person's stomach to save his life
A robber takes a knife and cuts through a person's stomach kill him and take his belongings

In both cases the action is the same but what differs is the intentions. Hence it is the intention that counts.

Now lets take another example.

A baby squirrel falls into the sea and is washed away. The mother squirrel dips her tail into the sea and runs to the shaking off water with the intention of drying water of the whole sea.

The intention is good but irrational. Regardless of rationality the Karmic effects would nevertheless good as the intention is good.


Buddha Sasana of Ariya Maitreya Buddha The Sasana of Gautama Buddha will last for 5000 years of which more than 2500 years are over. Ariya Maitreya will be the next Buddha. How long will the Sasana of Ariya Maitreya Buddha last?

I am a Theravada Buddhist and as far as predictions go here's what i was able to find...

  The coming of Maitreya will be characterized by a number of physical
  events. The oceans are predicted to decrease in size, allowing
  Maitreya to traverse them freely. Maitreya will then reintroduce true
  dharma to the world.

  His arrival will signify the end of the middle time, the time between
  the fourth Buddha, Gautama Buddha, and the fifth Buddha, Maitreya,
  which is viewed as a low point of human existence. According to the
  Cakkavatti Sutta: The Wheel-turning Emperor, Digha Nikaya 26 of the
  Sutta Pitaka of the Pāli Canon), Maitreya Buddha will be born in a
  time when humans will live to an age of eighty thousand years, in the
  city of Ketumatī (present Varanasi), whose king will be the Cakkavattī
  Sankha. Sankha will live in the palace where once dwelt King
  Mahāpanadā, but later he will give the palace away and will himself
  become a follower of Maitreya Buddha.[15]

  The scriptures say that Maitreya will attain bodhi in seven days
  (which is the minimum period), by virtue of his many lives of
  preparation for buddhahood similar to those reported in the Jataka
  tales.

  At this time a notable teaching he will start giving is that of the
  ten non-virtuous deeds (killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying,
  divisive speech, abusive speech, idle speech, covetousness, harmful
  intent and wrong views) and the ten virtuous deeds (the abandonment
  of: killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, divisive speech,
  abusive speech, idle speech, covetousness, harmful intent and wrong
  views).

  The Arya Maitreya Mandala, founded by Anagarika Govinda is based on
  the idea of the future coming of Maitreya.

  Pali sources say that beings in Maitreya's time will be much bigger
  than during the time of Sakyamuni. In one prophecy his disciples are
  contemptuous of Mahakasyapa, whose head is no larger than an insect to
  them. Buddhas robe barely covers two fingers making them wonder how
  tiny Buddha was. Mahākāśyapa is said to be small enough in comparison
  to cremate in the palm of Maitreya's hand.[16]

~Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya

Here's the thing about the periods of time in different Sasanas of Buddhas. It is a matter of how long the humans live.In the time of our Lord Buddha maximum human life expectancy was 120-125 years.But in next Lord Buddha's era it will be way longer, Therefore that Lord Buddha's Sasana will hold on for a long time.


Would a skin condition stop someone becoming a monk? I am asking this behalf of my friend. He was gonna commit suicide. But I managed to calm him down by taking him to a Buddhist temple. He had a really fun life, movies, friends, night outs, girls, cars, everything. But suddenly he got to know that he has a skin condition called herpes. Something like a pimple. But it seems he regret a lot a lot as it has no cure. But it is a very common all over the world. He doesn't understand and tried to suicide. He has given up life.

Luckily I brought him to this Buddhist temple and managed to save his life. Now he is very interest in becoming a Theravada monk and spend the life in a temple meditating, learning and practicing Buddhism. I decided to support him as he was a good person, help others, donate etc. I am wondering if his conditions and previous life style matters to become a monk. Thanks.

Previous lifestyle & herpes should not prevent a person from becoming a monk. If your friend wants to become a monk, he should talk to a monk at the temple.


Anesthesia, being knocked out, unconsciousness...what does the Buddha have to say about it? This is something that I have trouble coming to grips with. If the mind can be aware without a body or brain then how is it possible that one can experience things like the Bardo when we know that without certain conditions the mind becomes unaware? Anesthesiologists can purposely put people into this state. One second you are going under for surgery and the next second you are laying in a hospital bed without any awareness of the lapse of time. If one were to extinguish ever becoming or going doesn't that mean an unconscious state? Does Buddha ever explain this phenomenon?

The mind is always reacting to sensation on the body what every any state you are in, including but not limited to anesthetized, knocked out, unconsciousness, etc. Only time you do not sense any sensation is when you are in Pala Samapathi. So you are always have some level of awareness of the body through sensations at the deepest level of the mind or subconscious mind. At the surface level (conscious mind) you might not be aware of it.

Also see: From the Deepest Coma, New Brain Activity Found


Kakacūpama Sutta and Mistress Vedehika I'm not sure sure if this is opinion based or not but my question is. is it fair to judge Vedehika, poorly (and does  the sutta really do this). It seems like she was pushed to the breaking point (malicioulsly)  and is the lesson here that she is not really as good a person as was previously reported? After this account the sutta seems to switch from this perspective to the actions expectation of a bhikkhu and not a lay person.

I'm not sure sure if this is opinion based or not but my question is. is it fair to judge Vedehika, poorly (and does the sutta really do this). It seems like she was pushed to the breaking point

Well, simply by going with what's described in sutta MN 21, it doesn't seem like Vedehika was really that gentle and peaceful. Let's see her reaction the very first time her maid Kali got up late:

  “So the maid Kalı got up late. Then Mistress Vedehika said: ‘Hey, Kalı!’—‘What is it, madam?’—‘What is the matter that you get up so late?’—‘Nothing is the matter, madam.’—‘Nothing is the matter, you wicked girl, yet you get up so late!’ and she was angry and displeased, and she scowled."

And then what she did the last time being tested:

  ‘What is the matter that you get up still later in the day?’—‘Nothing is the matter, madam.’—‘Nothing is the matter, you wicked girl, yet you get up still later in the day!’ and she was angry and displeased, and she took a rolling-pin, gave her a blow on the head, and cut her head. Then the maid Kalı, with blood running from her cut head..."

Now whether it was a true story doesn't matter much for it was a simple analogy the Buddha used to really drive home the point of a very real issue for many monks:

  So too, bhikkhus, some bhikkhu is extremely gentle, extremely meek, extremely peaceful, so long as disagreeable courses of speech do not touch him. But it is when disagreeable courses of speech touch him that it can be understood whether that bhikkhu is really kind, gentle, and peaceful."


What are the consequences of a monk eating meat? This is not a question about being a vegetarian. My question is since the Buddha didn't prohibit monks from eating meat, and since monks are supposed to be easy to maintain and take what is offered, how should/would a monk who has chosen to be a vegetarian handle being offered meat by a lay person?

If they chose to refuse the meal would that make them high maintenance, proud or unappreciative? If they ate it, how would they reconcile that with their personal practice?

I'm particularly interested in an answer from any monastic on how they have handled or would handle this.

As far as the theory of monastics eating meat is concerned, here are two enlightening videos/articles on the subject:

Ask A Monk: Mark Zuckerberg, Vegetarianism and Killing
The Bhikkhus' Rules
A Guide for Laypeople -- Meat Eating

In Buddhism, the problem with eating meat is in many ways as much about the craving that meat promotes as it is about the non-violence and killing aspect. For a monastic, the rules regarding eating and alms are very much about not giving in to either greed or hatred for a specific food; a monastic should be totally content with what little or lot he has. Thus, if a monastic were offered meat, to decline would represent preference and "pickiness", which is in many ways much worse than simply being grateful for what one has. This is true even if you may oppose how your food was made/grown/processed/ etc.

Anecdotally, I'll note that I've found food in particular to have a tremendous emotional resonance with people -- we've all seen people become literally angry when confronted with to little or too much or too different a food. Buddhism is all about overcoming this emotional attachment to something that should only matter insofar as it is absolutely necessary to survive.


What's the aim of avoiding attachment? I've recently started to research Buddhism, and one of the first area's I've been looking into is that of attachment. I found this quote -

"Seeing through the delusion of separation means we no longer give "external things" the power to make us miserable."

So does this mean we are supposed to feel emotionless to everything around us, only relying on ourselves for our emotions?

This seems to be a rather common misunderstanding, that Buddhism is a doctrine of emotionlessness or aloofness. Instead, (Mahayana) Buddhism is a doctrine of emotional maturity, emotional intelligence, mental agility, and robust practical excellence.

In (Mahayana) Buddhism we don't avoid attachments-as-connections, we still form relationships with people, make commitments, pursue long-term goals -- but we learn to let go quickly when situation changes, this saves us tremendous amounts of energy. That's why in English we call them "attachments", not "connections". Connections are alright.

Attachment is a much more broad notion than mere fondness of something good. It could be attachment to self-image, attachment to fairness, attachment to skills and intelligence, attachment to higher values, attachment to security, attachment to a certain perspective and so on. Every time we let go of attachment we let go of a button that "external" world may push to trigger an automatic reaction in us.

This is what that quote says, that when we ("I") consider ourselves a separate entity, we think we are entitled to our pathologies and neuroses. But when we understand that this is an ocean of information riding on top of various media, including the media of the primate brains, we can take ownership of our reactions, and choose not to get pushed around by the fluctuations of the signal.

This does not mean we are frozen cold -- this means we can be positive, energetic, and happy all the time, because we now operate our own electrical generator that works both low tide and high tide, which makes us pretty independent and free.

Another metaphor I can offer is that of a sailboat -- once we learn to balance away the environmental influences, we are free to choose our course regardless of wind. It does not mean we lower our sails and stay in place, which is a metaphor for avoiding relationships altogether, and it does not mean aberrating randomly, which is a metaphor for avoiding long-time commitments, it just means we are not attached to one wind and one current, especially after it's gone.

Plus, "seeing through the delusion of separation" we no longer consider ourselves the center of the world. Once we stop obsessing about our own grief, it magically subsides, our eyes open, and we notice others stuck in all kinds of horror worlds. This is when it feels natural to go and help them out, but of course we must learn to float our own boat first.


What does "safeguard cognitive process" mean? In this answer by Ronald Cowen, what does "safeguard cognitive process" mean? What is the Pali, or Sanskrit Buddhist term for the term, "safeguard cognitive process"? Could it be panna, or Sampajnana (by which I mean, right discrimination or proper discernment)?

The term seems to be defined in the referenced answer itself:

  It helps for you to know that your mind cannot understand something unless it makes sense to you and your mind cannot do something unless it makes sense to you. You have a very sophisticated intelligent function or mental process that constantly makes sure that what you think, do, or decide actually makes sense. This process can be viewed as a safeguard against errors in learning or against errors in the application of what you have learned.

It's also mentioned in one of the OP's books (How Mindfulness Meditation Works: A Modern Buddhist View):

Bodhicitta is, I think, mostly a Mahayana term.

Amazon's About the Author says,

  Ronald Cowen has practiced mindfulness meditation for 50 years under the direction of the late Venerable Namgyal Rinpoche.

Namgyal Rinpoche is mentioned on Wikipedia (which may concur with Dhammadhatu's assessment: that the teaching may be expressed in terms related to Western psychology).


Is there an online copy of English translation of Pramanavarttika of Shri Dharmakirthi? Is there a an online copy of English translation of Pramanavarttika of Shri Dharmakirthi?
Of the available links only second chapter is available.
If the full version is available, please provide the link for it.

Here is a chapter.
I didn't see any full translations, but you can find bits like this, also like the second chapter you found.
https://www.academia.edu/30822030/Dharmakirtis_Pramanavarttika_An_annotated_translation_of_the_fourth_chapter_Vol_1_k_1_148_


Is (and why is) physical health important, as well as mind? As we all know, the Buddha taught that everything is about mind -- including for example that Dukkha exists because of mind, because desire came into mind first no matter if it would affect us physically, because the main stream is the mind.

Even when the Buddha wasn't able to walk, yet he was enlightened.

So I would also ask if physical health would ever affect mind or mental health?

What about breaking precepts if it's matter of health -- for example if I'm suffering from headache then I can have aromatic therapy, or medicine including a little alcohol, or listening to music like that.

Why is the body important when one is enlightened or mindful? Can't we ignore what is happening with our body, and concentrate still on being calm, and focus on mind?

The Bhikkhuni sutta recommends food, for example, as follows:

  This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food. 'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

I suppose that taking medicine is for a similar purpose -- i.e. it's to destroy old feelings (of pain), and not to create new feelings (from intoxication or sensual indulgence).

The vinaya for example permits medicines to monks if they're sick, including medicines which contain alcohol, if the alcohol is in more-or-less undetectable quantities (alcohol is useful when creating certain medicines because it's an effective solvent e.g. of alkaloids).

See also the answers to the topic Experiencing physical pain.

You might also want to read:

What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care and dying

  Management of terminal pain and sedation

  Most Buddhists believe that the mind must be as alert as possible at the time of death.

  Taking into consideration overall well-being (including the mental state of the patient), nurses must balance the level of pain relief needed against the need for alertness in the dying Buddhist.
  Proper pain management can be achieved with minimal disruption of alertness by the use of the WHO analgesic ladder.
  The choice of non-opioid analgesics (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) and weak opioids should be preferred over strong opioids and neurolytic block therapy whenever possible, with the aim of reducing adverse side effects (i.e. sedation and cognitive impairment), thus maintaining alertness of the individual so that effective spiritual practices may continue. However, if severe uncontrolled pain develops, cognitive impairment (e.g. delirium) may result that may require the use of strong opioids for effective relief to achieve the best cognitive function possible that would support meditative spiritual practices.

The above is a small quote/extract, I recommend reading the whole article.

In other words medical providers are advised to (more or less as usual) adjust the amount and type of medicine, according to the amount of pain, and according to the patient's ability to tolerate it. The difference is that Buddhist patients tend to prefer to avoid mind-altering drugs for as long as feasible.
A Buddhist Guide to Death, Dying and Suffering

Why is the body important when one is enlightened or mindful?

Part of Buddhist doctrine is a Middle Way, e.g. MN 36 explains something like this:

  "I thought: 'Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the past have felt painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None have been greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the future will feel painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None will be greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the present are feeling painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None is greater than this. But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'

  "I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then following on that memory came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?' I thought: 'I am no longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities, but that pleasure is not easy to achieve with a body so extremely emaciated. Suppose I were to take some solid food: some rice & porridge.' So I took some solid food: some rice & porridge. Now five monks had been attending on me, thinking, 'If Gotama, our contemplative, achieves some higher state, he will tell us.' But when they saw me taking some solid food — some rice & porridge — they were disgusted and left me, thinking, 'Gotama the contemplative is living luxuriously. He has abandoned his exertion and is backsliding into abundance.


What distinction is made between "awareness" and "consciousness"? What Buddhist distinction is made between "awareness" and "consciousness"?
I view "mindfulness" as a purposeful application of awareness.
However, I am at a loss for a clear distinction between awareness and consciousness.

Here is a short passage from What the Buddha Taught by Dr. Walpola Rahula that discusses how consciousness is different than perception. I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I found the example given helpful to my own understanding of consciousness.

  It should be clearly understood that consciousness does not recognize an
  object. It is only a sort of awareness-awareness of the presence of an object. When
  the eye comes in contact with a colour, for instance blue, visual consciousness arises
  which simply is awareness of the presence of a colour: but it does not recognize that
  it is blue. There is no recognition at this stage. It is perception (the third Aggregate
  discussed above) that recognizes that it is blue. The term 'visual consciousness' is a
  philosophical expression denoting the same idea as is conveyed by the ordinary
  word 'seeing'. Seeing does not mean recognizing. So are the other forms of
  consciousness.


Is there any authenticity to the book 'The Deathbed Sutra of the Buddha: Or Siddhartha's Regrets'? I found this book in a local bookstore and went online to research it. I could not find much reference to it.  The author, George C. Adams Jr., purports to have been given a lost sutra of the Buddha, given on his deathbed, to Ananda. It looks like a work of complete fiction to me but was wondering if anyone has more information on it.

Deathbed Sutra of the Buddha
From the customers' reviews of the book, I get the impression that it is a fictional work to provoke a reassessment of one's thinking in light of controversies.
A few reviews from customers:

This book a very clever merging of philosophy and fiction, which examines and challenges some fundamental Buddhist beliefs in a manner that manages to be both deeply insightful but also delightfully entertaining. It’s a short work, but packed full of dense analysis of Buddhist thought, using the clever device of a fictional conversation between Buddha and his attendant, Ananda. Readers are likely to love it or hate it, but in either case it’s definitely a great read.
While it's not a "DaVinci Code for Buddhists" as stated on the back cover, it does offer a fast moving narrative conversation that moves along through the final night of the Buddha's life. It left me wondering what will happen next, and what will the Buddha say next? Thought-provoking and fun at the same time.

MVFWIW is if you are new to Buddhism then it is advisable to learn about the authentic teachings first and when you have cultivated wisdom and faith then to challenge that faith and wisdom with controversies.
As it is Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana have provided enough divergent materials for your wisdom and faith to work on.


I'm looking for an outline of the practices going from beginner to jhana or streamentry I'm looking for something similar to this little book, The
Basic
Method
of
Meditation (10~20 pages) from Ajahn Brahm.
Or something like this -- Meditation:
What is taught and practised in Pa-Auk.
Personally, I would need it to be Theravada and preferably be on the gentle side (unlike Brahm and Pa Auk which are pretty strict).
But mainly what the title says: an outline of the practices going from beginner to jhana or streamentry.

Observing five precepts is the shortest way to enter the path. Then read the following.
A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening
OR
Buddhism Course by Chan Khoon San (take about 12 hours to read and give you a good idea about the teaching)


Buddhas after Bhadra Kalpa I have seen in certain books that there is gonna be a lot of buddha shunya kalpas after the bhadra kalpa. Also it has stated about names of 10 Buddhas after the Bhadra kalpa.

Is there a sutra source for these facts? Where can i find them?

There's no mention on the future buddhas except Metteyya buddha in the pali canon. However, there's a book, Dasabodhisattuppattikatha which was written much later than the compilation of the pali cannon, possibly influenced by Mahayana bodhisattva ideals. Here's a list of the 10 buddhas in that book.

Metteyya
Rāma
Dhammarāja
Abhibhū
Dīghasonī
Cankī
Subha
Todeyya
Tissa
Sumangala

Source: https://what-buddha-said.net/drops/III/The_10_Future_Buddhas.htm


Does the Consciousness vanish when the objects of consciousness are removed? In the following excerpt from the book Yoga Sutras by Edwin Bryant, the author is arguing that the fundamental difference between Buddhist and Hindu philosophy is that Buddhists believe that when 'all the objects of consciousness are removed, consciousness vanishes'

I think it is wrong. When we leave all the objects of consciousness and enter in the first Jhnana then we are not conscious of any - 'sense-object' but we are conscious nonetheless otherwise it will be like sleeping or unconscious.

Also there is a plane of 'infinity of consciousness' which is the 3rd Jhnana so we are experiencing something that is infinite, so there is a human experience so consciousness is there.

So is the author right or  wrong?
What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart
from human brain?
Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings? (IMO even if that exists that does not contradict with Annatta.. So we have space for Idealism.

Small Edit: I am trying to defend the position of 'monistic idealism' within the framework of Buddhism. Also, check this paper

According to Buddhism does the Consciousness vanish when the objects of consciousness are removed?

There are different types of consciousness, or different things which are all translated as "consciousness".

I gather from answers and comments to this question that:

There are five sense-consciousness (e.g. eye-consciousness) which arise when there's a sense-object and attention
There's a sixth, analogous to the five, where the mind becomes conscious of thoughts (like the eye becomes conscious of sights)

Later forms of Buddhism posit two further consciousness (see e.g. Eight Consciousnesses).
I suspect that early Buddhism might do something similar but perhaps using different names -- my (poor) understanding is that the function of the (early) sankhara aggregate might be similar to the function of the (later) ālāya vijñāna consciousness.

So is the author right or wrong?

I think he's right that there's no sense-consciousness when there's no sense-object.

Wrong in that there are longer-lived aspects of the mind.

Also I think that the (or a) difference between Buddhism and Hinduism is that consciousness, whether short or long, isn't viewed as "self" or "soul".

What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart from human brain?

I don't know, "sentient beings" aren't necessarily human -- they may be animal, ghost, or in a hell or a heaven.

I think that Tibetan Buddhism also posits a Bardo, and existence after death and before the next birth, whereas I think that Theravada assumes that consciousness exists in a body.

Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings?

I don't know; that sounds like it might be Hindu "Brahman" -- I don't think it's a feature of the Pali suttas, maybe it's (I don't know) in any of the later doctrines.

Also there's e.g. Brahma (a God), not to be confused with Brahman -- Brahma exists (according to the suttas) -- probably a living being but not a human being, a human body.


How do you reach Nirvana when you are craving Nirvana? They say once you reach Nirvana you remove craving. However, don't we need to crave the state of Nirvana in order to reach it? Doesn't that contradict everything an enlightened person who reached Nirvana stands for? Because in order to continue this state, meditation and other things need to be constantly practiced which is a sort of craving in itself.

You do not need to crave Nirvana to reach it.

Nirvana is present in every moment. The belief that you need craving to observe Nirvana is contradictory because it is incorrect.

Since it is always present, there is no prerequisite to observe it. This is how spontaneous enlightenment is possible.

Because it is present in every moment, there is no maintaining that needs to be done.

The reason the Buddha created his teachings was to combat craving. Craving is what distracts us from observing Nirvana in every moment. That's why he teaches non-attachment. It is only through uninterpreted experience that the illusory separate self and Nirvana can be seen clearly.


How much concentration do I need to practice vipassana? I have read some articles and book, it says that you need to develop some basic level of concentration before you can start practicing vipassana(insight) meditation.

What are the criteria to know if I already reached that basic level of concentration?

Thank you very much!

In Tibetan tradition, before you can do Vipashyana, you have to practice Shamatha-type meditation until you learn to attain so-called "Calm Abiding" or "Fully Pacified Stable One-Pointed Effortless Meditative Equipoise".

According to a traditional presentation, Calm Abiding is considered attained when a meditator can effortlessly focus on a chosen object of observation, without getting distracted and without falling into lethargy, for a substantial period of time.

"substantial period" is  a subjective measure. Some say it is 2 minutes, some say 10 or 15.
"object of observation" means any object or theme, like a flame of a candle, flower, a far away mountain peak -- or a visualized/imaginary object of any kind, the most popular being an image of Buddha statue. (With imaginary objects it is best to use something very familiar that you remember very well.)
"without getting distracted" means without forgetting about meditation and getting carried away in thoughts.
"without falling into lethargy" means, without getting sleepy or even losing clarity of mind.
"effortlessly" means without fighting with oneself over distractions and lethargy.

Here is a set of more detailed guidelines on achieving Calm Abiding: an excerpt from a lecture given by Gelug meditation master Lati Rinpoche.


If teacher punishing student is also supposed bad karma? Either school teacher or Buddhist teacher in monastery, if they would punish their students is also supposed bad karma even if it cause of bad behavior of students?

Buddha did not do any violence. The suttas say:

  it is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life. But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing.


When saying that the aggregate is not-self are we not predicting the existence of a thing called self? Parmenides, a presocratic philosopher, said:

  The only roads of inquiry there are to think of: one, that it is and
  that it is not possible for it not to be, this is the path of
  persuasion (for truth is its companion); the other, that it is not and
  that it must not be — this I say to you is a path wholly unknowable.

In short, we should bar our thought from an inquiry of what is not. Of course, we can say that "the apple is not red" there is nothing wrong with that, but unless a thing called an apple exist we can't say that "a thing is not an apple".

In the same way, when we say " the aggregate is not self" unless there is a self our statement is a wrong inquiry because as Parmenides says "we can only speak about what is: what is not cannot be thought of, and what cannot be thought of cannot be."

When saying that the aggregate is not-self are we not predicting the existence of a thing called self?

I think that perhaps "we" are not predicting nor denying the existence of a thing called self: for details see for example How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

Parmenides, a presocratic philosopher, said ...

I don't know him but it sounds like he's being a sophist. :-) I guess he's saying we should (or can) only talk truthfully about things that exist, because the non-existant is unknowable.

I think that Buddhism asks a slightly different question: i.e. is a belief beneficial, is it a skilful view?

unless a thing called an apple exist we can't say that "a thing is not an apple"

Can't we say that "a thing is not a unicorn"?

More importantly people generally do view the aggregates as self (at least more-or-less depending on what you mean by "self"): for example, "this is my body, it is mine, my body is me", and so on.

So if that's a common but an unskillful view (from which arises suffering and so on), perhaps it's worth contradicting.


Should a Buddhist go to the gym? I have to be honest with you, this question was already answered by an authority on Buddhism and long-time practitioner, which is the spiritual leader of the Sangha which I meditate with. And yet, I feel the need to listen to other opinions.

The question is the one in the title. His main argument was that going to the gym is not beneficial in any way and it actually worsens us by feeding our pride, thus making the schism between ourselves and vain glory more difficult to realize.

What do you think?

i think it depends on the attitude and the frame of mind

a care to keep in mind the fact that it's a business of maintaining fitness of a frail and mortal bag of bones and impurities may negate the tendency of the attachment to body and self-association with it to become stronger, which such type of activity in my opinion is prone to foster

but if one IS a Buddhist they must be able to skilfully counteract that tendency

in any case the motive for going to gym for a Buddhist should not be improvement of bodily appearance but rather health considerations in the frame of mind along the lines of the attitude to eating recommended for monks in the suttas

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

Aparihaniya sutta (AN 4.37)


Is it harder to attain enlightenment without a living Buddha? In many Buddhist stories we hear about people attaining enlightenment, stream entry and other blessings.

It seems like it is much easier to progress in the path when there is a living Buddha around, is that right? Or is it related to the way society was, more religious and devoted?

I guess it is both. On one hand, Buddha new the weaknesses of each individual and was able to recommend what type of meditation that's suitable for him. He new how much each person's five spiritual faculties were developed and provided the right recommendation. This type of knowledge that a Buddha possesses is called indriya-paro-pariya-ñāṇa. I think this is why some monks practice different kinds of meditation techniques alternatively since there's no Buddha to guide them now.
On the other hand, the people during Buddha's time have had perfected paramis onto such an extent that some of them would get enlightened by hearing just one stanza of a sutta. e.g. Bāhiya the merchant, Sariputta thero and Moggallana thero.
In Puggalapannatti of abhidhamma pitaka mentions four types of people,

Ugghatitannu - an individual who encounters a Buddha in person, and
who is capable of attaining the Holy Paths and the Holy Fruits through
the mere hearing of a short concise discourse.
Vipancitannu: an individual who encounters a Buddha in person, but
who is capable of attaining the Paths and the Fruits only when the
short discourse is expounded to him at some length.
Neyya : an individual who needs to study the sermon and the exposition, and then
to practise the provisions contained therein for 7 days to 60 years,
to attain the Paths and the Fruits during this lifetime if he tries
hard with guidance from the right teacher.
Padaparama : an individual who cannot attain the Paths and the Fruits within this
lifetime. can attain release from worldly ills in his next existence
if he dies while practising samatha or vipassana and attains rebirth
either as a human being or a deva within the present Buddha Sasana.

In Buddha's time most of them were type 1,2 and 3. So I guess Bāhiya the merchant, Sariputta thero and Moggallana thero fall under the first category.
These days unfortunately most people fall under third and fourth categories.


Resolving right action & intention in a white lie I know that lying is unskillful in general but in the case where saying the truth could hurt someone and its necessary to lie in order to heal that person but you cannot fake the lying in front of him/her since it would be obvious you are lying rendering the method ineffective.So in accord with right action and intention how can this be resolved?

I read this question

Does any/every form of lying violate the precept of “not-lying”?
which justifies white lies.

However Iam concerned with saying it genuinely,if you are going to say a series of lies one after another and you don't believe they actually happened it can be hard not only to genuinly say them but to have a conversation about facts .

There are 4 conditions which need to be met for something being classified as a lie:

FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA)

So if you are mentioning the white lie with the intention to deceive then it is false speech.


Where did Buddha state "Mother is the Buddha of the home?" I grew up in Sri Lanka where we often hear

  Gedara budun amma

Which translates to

  Buddha of the house is mother

I also learned that this was to reinstate the lost value of a mother in the country back then due to discrimination of women.

I'm positive there are proper references for this but I would like to know where in Tipitaka or other historical books this is documented.

I am only aware of the suttas stating:

  Mother and father are called
  "Brahma," "early teachers"
  And "worthy of veneration,"
  Being compassionate towards
  Their family of children.

  Iti 109

  A wife as the West be ministered to by a husband by...handing over authority to her...

  DN 31

DN 31 also states:

  (iv) she protects what he brings, (v) she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties.

The wife has authority in the home when she is financially prudent, like my mother. But many women of the current 'feminist sexual liberal era' lack financial prudence. Instead of saving money, they spend money. Only individuals with morality can be the authority of the home.


Do you think that this Laughing Buddha Restaurant sign is a disrespect? Greetings to everybody,

According to the image above, what do you think from your point of view?
Is this disrespectful since The Laughing Buddha is being used for a branding?

Intentions matter.

Only people and cultures take offense. The Dharma doesn't take offense. Awakened ones who have gone forth to become the Dharma can't take offense.

In certain strictly Buddhist cultures such as Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand and Tibet, I'd expect to see a strong reaction, including jail time. In non-Buddhist cultures, it won't matter to the majority who are ignorant of the implications.

A sincere adept of Dharma can even use this insult as a stepping stone, and inquire into what in him takes offense and let go of that identity.

Karma results from volition. Someone seeking to cause injury to Buddhists would definitely be falling afoul of good intentions, and thus cause consequent karma to occur.

The act isn't the problem, it is the intention behind it.


Should I hate them who else hates me? I wasn't sure if someone hating me but I could smell it, recently I heard that person hates me, unreasonably hating me don't like me. Hesitant to see me around, but don't know why.
Even I didn't any wrong and no mistake.
It because just that person build new house so don't want anyone there in new house like me or even my granny.

Person had small house and had big loving heart now person had big house and hesitated hateful heart that became narrow in biggest house
Two persons aren't different just because skin or race there's same flesh under skin, blood color same, vessels are same, bones are same, even marrow in bones are same so there's no different in two persons

I had gave upon visiting big house but last time I was there I got that hates me. So now I will never be there.
For sure.
Still I remember was calling me to ask my health progress when I was sick and weak before I wake up.
Sorry I put so much personal.
So just let me know If I need reflect to person like a mirror or boomerang?

Hatred never ceases through hatred in this world, only through non-hostility. This is an eternal law.


Do you know of a Buddhist text explaining why living in a community? There are a number of texts explaining how to live in a community, what rules to follow, what activities, etc. For instance, the classical Vinaya texts, or the "Standards and Rules of Purity" genre in China and Japan (ex.: Chanyuan qinggui, Dogen's Ehei Shingi, etc).

However, I am looking for traditional texts that explain why to live in a community. It could be aimed at monks, lay people, or both. The denomination does not matter much.

I'm looking for commentaries or treatises rather than sutras. It is to use the material as a basis for giving lectures.

the question is why to live in community. a little effort to answer has arisen out by a slight thought giving and personal experience. we are very unfortunate not having buddha among us . if he would have been then without asking whether it is need to live in community or not , we would have gone with him .thanks to his magnetism and charisma. then how we would go to live in community?. buddha has said that his teachings will be the guide/lighthouse in place of him after his mahaparinirvana. so we have now option of understanding/studying/practicing his teachings. even though we are kicked by life so many times we dont understand its futility. we think everything as  permanent . . with this understanding if we go to any commune, we will play there also with all our weapons i.e greed,anger,hatred etc. so as per my experience it is worthy to be in community membered by like minded members only after having experiential understanding of anitya  /impermanence by practising the teaching of buddha . otherwise the community becomes a sort of resort with some sort of resort having some sorts of disciplines of getting up from bed, eating timings etc etc.


What did the Buddha say about reincarnation? I want to know the original quotes by the Buddha and their sources.

Of course the Buddha wouldn't have used the word "reincarnation" because that's English (we've been talking on Meta recently about some difficulties translating Buddhist vocabulary into English).
This article, Buddhism and Death, says,

We can thus make a clear distinction between the terms "Reincarnation" and "Rebirth."
"Reincarnation" is the term used by those who hold that a real entity (a "soul") exists and passes on from life to life, occupying successive bodies.

Buddhism is more or less antithetical to the doctrine of a soul (it teaches Anatta), and so "rebirth" is a more usual translation than "reincarnation", of "what the Buddha said".
Then, searching for rebirth instead of reincarnation, you can find many suttas which mention "rebirth" -- for example using this search of the Access to Insight web site (on that page, click on "suttas" instead of "All results") ... that search seems to return nearly 400 suttas ... and I hope that's an answer to your question?
Access to Insight hosts translations of many but not all of the suttas in the Pali canon.
These sources are the "suttas" of the "Pali canon (Wikipedia)".
Additionally, note too that there are more than 100 topics tagged rebirth on this site (many more than are tagged 'reincarnation').


Perfectionism in Meditation When I first started metta bhavana, everything went very well and I generated a strong feeling. Ironically, I am now anxious in doing this meditation (i.e. I skip some) because I feel I might not recreate the same quality as before. I feel this is definitely the wrong way of seeing, but I can almost not help it.

Are there any suggestions towards this type of anxiety/perfectionism?

The perfectionism is required to attain Jhana.

The anxiety/worry can be ceased by the memory and understanding in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 14th(15th,16th,17th) of the path of purification. In short, the professor of Jhana at Pa-Auk can advise you.

People often worry about what they don't proficiently know the way to manage. It's called Vicikiccha and Uddhacca hindrances.


What is the correct meaning of dhamma, dharma, atta, anatta? I am unable to understand different meanings of words dhamma, dharma, atta, anatta...

Does dhamma means as "path" or "truth" or "teaching" as in Ariyapariyesana Sutta or as "phenomenon" or as "things? Is dhamma and dharma same?

Does atta means 'self' or 'soul' or 'ego' or 'eternal-self' or something else?

I have read  anatta meaning as 'not-self', does this means as 'not-I' or  'not-me' or  'not-mine' or something else? It is because I have read it's use as different meanings...confusing.

What could be the correct translation of "Sabbe dhammā anattā."?

from an EBT (early buddhist text) perspective:
http://lucid24.org/tped/d/dhamma/index.html#dhammamsutva

☸Dhamma, dhamma

☸Dhamma = The Buddha's Teaching.
Dhamma = Natural laws of the universe, like impermanence, death, illness, etc.
dhamma = idea/thought cognizable by the mind (6aya):  manasā dhammaṃ viññāya.
dhamma = thing. A broad term that can mean anything.


What is Unwise Consideration? I am reading a book on the jhanas and it stated,

  All hindrances arise from unwise consideration. To overcome them one must apply wise consideration.

Now i think what unwise and wise consideration is the things you focus on. Unwise Consideration maybe focusing on your past or your future asking question that have no really meaning pondering them. While wise is focusing on suffering and overcoming it. Is thia correct?

In short:

having Vipallasa (see: Vipallasa Sutta),

I.e., not seeing the three marks of existence

having the unwholesome roots

having craving and clinging due to the unwholesome roots arising
having defilements

having the 5 mental hindrances
having ignorance

not aware of causality (4 Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, Conditional Relations) due to ignorance (not knowing the 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, Conditional Relations)
because ignorance also displaces the rights view no knowledge of the right view (not knowing or wrong understanding items mentioned in Samma Ditthi Sutta) or having know the wrong view.

Piya Tan has done a good detail explanation which I have quoted below:

  Ayoniso manasikāra, as such, means “not directing the attention to the roots of things” or “directing
  the attention away from the roots of things,” that is, not observing phenomena as they truly are, not noticing
  that they are impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self. As a result, wrong view arises, and when this
  become a habit, wrong view is reinforced so that it remains as a latent tendency (anusaya). Let us examine
  a little more as to how this happens.

  “Unwise attention,” according to the Vibhaṅga, is the regarding of what is impermanent as being
  permanent, what is painful as being pleasurable, what is not self as self, what is foul as beautiful. 6 The
  Majjhima Commentary says these are the four “perversions” (vipallāsa). It explains unwise attention
  (ayoniso manasikāra) as attention that is unskillful in means (anupāya,manasikāra), attention shown the
  wrong way (uppatha,manasikāra), that is, by way of the four perversions, namely:

  what is impermanent is taken to be permanent (anicce niccan ti);

  what is painful is taken to be pleasurable (dukkhe sukhan ti);

  what is not self is taken to be self (anattāni attan ti); and

  what is impure is taken to be pure (asubhe subhan ti).

  The (Akusala,mūla) Añña,titthiya Sutta (A 3.68) says that the three unwholesome roots (akusala
  mūla) of lust, hate and delusion arise through unwise attention. Lust arises and grows through unwisely
  attending to a “beautiful sign,” that is, being captivated by what we perceive as attractive in a thing. Hate
  arises and grows through unwisely attending to a “repulsive sign,” that is, what we take to be unattractive.
  And delusion arises and grows through unwise attention itself. In other words, delusion is present when
  there is lust or hate. Delusion arises and grows because of the four perversions mentioned above.

  On a deeper mental level, as explained in the (Āhāra) Kāya Sutta (S 46.2), unwise attention gives
  rise to the five mental hindrances—sensual desire, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, and
  doubt—which prevent us from attaining samadhi, that is, meditative mental focus, or any kind of wholesome
  attention.
  In short, we are hindered from our mental development.

  Unwise attention, in other words, is based on ignorance, which starts off the dependent arising of
  mental formations (saṅkhāra), which are karmic activities, and these lead on to a whole mass of suffering,10
  and the prolonging of the samsaric cycle (vaṭṭa) (MA 1:64 f). In short, unwise attention is the root
  of samsaric existence. Unwise attention is food for a lack of mindfulness and full awareness, which in
  turn increase ignorance and craving.

Introduction to Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta by Piya Tan. The next section discusses what is wise attention.

Also see my other explanation in these answers.