Is Buddhism antinatalist? I was listening to a discussion with David Benatar, and the point that Buddhism seems to be antinatalist was raised. It seems that people argue this both ways. Can Buddhism be said to be antinatalist? Or some strands but not others? If it is, what consequences does this have?

I have always kind of dismissed Benatar's ideas as being a kind of Larkin-esque pose, and making a mistake in hierarchy that puts pleasure above meaning, like utilitarians. But if the charge of antinatalism sticks, it seems I am going to have look more carefully at which of his points also apply to Buddhism.

Antinatalists argue that people should refrain from procreation
  because it is morally bad

According to the third precept, it's not procreation that is morally bad, it's sexual misconduct. So it's perfectly fine for a Buddhist layman to have a family and make kids. Buddhism doesn't really care if you have kids or not. Although the Buddha once said "Putta wattu manussanam"- son is an asset to man. But that's about it.

For monks, it's out of the question as they are not allowed to have any kind of sexual activity with anyone. But it's not because of women getting pregnant. It's because the lust that is involved is detrimental to their spiritual progress.

Birth is indeed part of suffering, but Buddhism never says that the solution to it is to stop people from making children. Even if you ban women from getting pregnant by law, beings will still be born elsewhere. The only way to end it is to cut off craving. So to call Buddhism antinatalist shows a weak understanding of the teachings of the Buddha.


past memory of recall previous life There are discussions about previous life recall and it is can't be scientifically proven. According to modern science memory are electrical traces on neuron cells in brain and that is scientific fact and modern scientist have recreate memory artificially as it is. So memory has physical aspect rather than mysterious spiritual aspect. My specific question is how do it prove that recall of previous lives which does't cope with facts?

Think of the brain as a proxy server connecting you to the internet(all past life memories). Just because your browser can only see the proxy server, is it wise to assume that the whole internet is contained in the proxy server?

Think of the electrical traces stored in neuron cells as the information stored in the cache memory of the proxy server. If somebody alters or adds new content to the cache memory, it will be shown on your browser. Then is it wise to assume that the whole internet is just electrical traces stored in the cache memory of the proxy server?

The brain is simply a tool used by the mind. Mind doesn't cease to exist even if the tool breaks.


Neither standing nor swimming, I crossed the flood From the Crossing the Flood Sutta below, we read that the Buddha said that he crossed the flood (i.e. of suffering, of clinging to the world), neither by standing still, nor by struggling (or swimming). And that when he stood still, he sank, and when he tried to swim, he was swept away.

What does this mean?

What does standing still mean?

What does struggling or swimming mean?

If he neither stood still, nor swam, then how did he cross the flood of clinging and suffering?

From SN 1.1 (Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation):

  “How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?”

  “By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood.”

  “But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and by not straining you
  crossed the flood?”

  “When I came to a standstill, friend, then I sank; but when I
  struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this way, friend, that by
  not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood.”

From SN 1.1 (Bhikkhu Sujato's translation):

  “Good sir, how did you cross the flood?”

  “Neither standing nor swimming, sir, I crossed the flood.”

  “But in what way did you cross the flood neither standing nor
  swimming?”

  “When I stood still, I went under. And when I swam, I was swept away.
  That’s how I crossed the flood neither standing nor swimming.”

Following introduction to the Sutta by Piya Tan explains this. There are 7 interpretations from the commentaries. Essentially standing still and swimming here are extremes, and the middle ground is neither of them.

Ogha,taraṇa Sutta

The floods in this context are:

Ogha,taraṇa Sutta


is language a barrier? If I am an illitrate of all (this worldly languages) and I am aware of all the unanswered doubts, then how come i'll explain you 'what I have asked or answered ? There are so many bars in putting questions or placing answers people. Ahh.. Nt easy admin.

I think I remember a story told of the Dalai Lama walking through a crowd, and meeting someone in the crowd who had some mentally illness. According to the story, the Dalai Lama took that man's hand in his own and held it for a while, and the man (who had been unhappy) relaxed.

The story was told as an example of His Holiness's compassion (and communication).

I suppose there are several different types of language barrier:

Doesn't understand written language ("illiterate")
Doesn't understand spoken language ("deaf")
Understands one natural language but not another (e.g. understands english but not chinese)
Doesn't understand technical vocabuary (for example Pali words such as dukkha)
Sensory barriers (e.g. different people are in different rooms)
Learning disability (e.g. someone didn't learn to communicate when they are an infant child, etc.)
Mental barriers (e.g. someone is drunk, drugged, mentally ill, etc.)

Language is a "system of communication". It might be like "a bridge over a river" or "two people holding hands". There might be a limit to what or how much can be communicated, but language can be as much "bridge" as it is "barrier".

On the other hand, the part of one's mind which communicates using language can (I guess) be mistaken as the 'self' or 'ego'. Language is a sensory (conditioned) phenomenon. Some meditative practices (e.g. "guarding senses" etc.) may be intended to reduce one's dependence on communication.


Uncertainty vs Cause and Effect Isn't uncertainty and cause and effect conflict each other ? Did Lord Buddha teach about uncertainty ? (Ven. Ajahn Brahma thero on uncertainty - Life is a series of unexpected events )

My understanding: To the Buddha, life is not uncertain. Because Lord Buddha knew his and other people's past karma. He knew almost everything about the universe. So, He had ability to predict the future. But for us, We don't have that knowledge. So, Life is uncertain to us.

Uncertainty occurs because of causes. There is no difference between uncertainty and cause & effect.

Death is certain, life is uncertain: maranam niyatam, jivitam aniyatam
It disintegrates, monk, that is why it’s called ‘the world’: lujjatīti kho, bhikkhu, tasmā lokoti vuccatī
'Many are the [possible] causes of my death. A snake might bite me, a scorpion might sting me, a centipede might bite me. That would be how my death would come about. That would be an obstruction for me. Stumbling, I might fall; my food, digested, might trouble me; my bile might be provoked, my phlegm... piercing wind forces [in the body] might be provoked. That would be how my death would come about.


The first rule of 8 Garudhammas So according to the 8 Garudhammas of Bhikkunis this is the first one.

  1) A nun who has been ordained even for a hundred years must greet respectfully, rise up from her seat, salute with joined palms, do proper homage to a monk ordained but that day.

For me this sort of pushes the males to superiority. What is the reason for this? Is it accurate? Where can I find a reference to it in the Vinaya Pitakaya?

The reasons are many:

Males are superior. Males left their homes, lived in forests, attained enlightenment, started the religion, wandered & spread the religion, often at great danger to their lives. The women did not do this but came along later, demanding to join the men. If the women were equal, they would have started their own religion but they did not do this because women do not have the spiritual, moral &/or social authority to start their own religion that is respected by the world at large. The women joined the male Sangha and the men had to make many sacrifices in order for the women to be protected and live safely, so the Sangha would not fall into disrepute if women were harmed. In summary, the male monastic community is based on men that left the family life and women are always 'guests' or 'visitors' to this community.
The Buddha (AN 6.52) taught the ideal of women is to dominate & want to be mothers. If women are given the freedom they want in the Sangha, they would want to act like mothers, lecture the monks, particularly the young monks, fault-find and the other behaviours women have the natural tendency to do because of their natural instincts to be mothers, nest-builders & housewives. This is contrary to the Dhamma, since the Dhamma is not the household life but a life of independence. Even today, we can witness new Buddhist nuns complaining & making demands like Western feminists rather than devoting their time to meditation practise (example, here).
In summary, men do not need to push their superiority. Instead, they must uphold the monastic community so it does not degenerate from its essence. Even today, most nuns are teaching metta (love) & feminism (attachment) rather than emptiness (sunnata). The Vinaya states:

  As the story makes clear, gender is not an issue in determining a person’s ability to practice the Dhamma and attain release. But from
  the Buddha’s point of view it was an issue in his design of the Sangha
  as an institution....His concerns were pragmatic and strategic, aimed at the long-term survival of two
  things: the true Dhamma and the holy life.

  The analogy of the clan predominantly female shows that, in the Buddha’s eyes, the survival of the holy life through wars, invasions,
  and the fall of civilizations required a Community predominantly male.
  Experience in Sri Lanka, India, and Burma has borne this point out:
  Bhikkhunı Communities were wiped out when these countries were
  invaded, whereas bhikkhus—if they could not survive in place—were able
  to flee and regroup elsewhere...Thus the Buddha formulated the eight rules of respect to help prolong the survival
  of the holy life by favoring the gender more likely to survive

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc2.pdf page 367


Buddhist practice and physical exercises What is the right mindset we should have towards physical exercises according to buddhist practice ? e.g. Weight training , cardio , running etc.

In my case I'm spending most of my day sitting at desk , so having some exercise is necessary to be healthy . But would this consider as clinging to body? I can understand having supplements such as protein shakes could be considered as clinging.

It is ok(ethically) to do physical exercises even for the purpose of being attractive. Lay people are not expected to follow the rules of monks. Such conflicts occur mostly when you try to live a monk's life as a lay person. Is it clinging/attachment that motivates you for physical exercises? Absolutely! But it's similar to asking if it is ok to have love affairs or get married.  They all involve unwholesome mind states. But you are mostly expected to keep to the 5 precepts as a Buddhist layman. So you should focus more on the 5 precepts as they can be easily broken if you are not mindful. If you want to live a more noble life, you can get ordained. Things become conflicting and confusing when you try to walk on the fence, not picking either lifestyle.

In fact, it is clinging that makes you do the job you do. It is clinging that keeps you in lay life. If you don't have clinging, you can't live as a householder. You have to go get ordained within 7 days or die(parinibbana).


How do handle termite/white ant Buddhism most basic perception is avoid killing.
Assume the house is filled by termite and killing is unavoidable, assume house is too badly affected and without killing need the house to be left unoccupant for months and repair is very expensive.
This is question is meant for normal lay Buddhist and not monk.
How is Buddhism handle in this case ?
There was a Mahayana Buddhist Scholar answered is to recite Mantra to the ants that been killed as much as possible n hope ants can incarnate to a better place.

Life wants to promote life. That too a very special life . A life which is free of diseases and dirt. A life which is holy. But if your house is infested with termites then probably you have karmic problems.
For example , there was a locust attack in Saudi Arabia, Africa , Pakistan , India etc ..millions of hectares of crop  got eaten by those insects. Why do you think that happened ? It was our karma in some ways.
Life would generally not interfere in your holy pursuit but if it happens then it means you may have become impure in some ways.
So what should be done? As a layperson you will obviously kill those insects for survival and if you are serious about Dhamma then you will commit to 8 fold path and never intentionally kill any insect.


Metta meditation ever taught to householders? Are there references that the Buddha taught such as metta-meditation to householders (wordlings, without complete Sila), giving ground for hypocritical practice, agree with such, in manners of: "There is the case where a householder..."?

Didn't he not focused on getting right view and Silas first?

Was modern householder-metta-meditation ever taught, even trained by the elders, such as doing it inbetween business as usual?

[Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and to maintain houses but for liberation and with non-hypocratical metta: may all beings give causes to find there way out for themselves with ease.]

Here's one about householders and the four pleasant mental abidings. But I think this refers to the four rupa jhanas rather than the four brahmaviharas.

From Gihi Sutta (AN 5.179):

  Then Anathapindika the householder, surrounded by about 500 lay
  followers, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down
  to him, sat to one side. So the Blessed One said to Ven. Sariputta:
  “Sariputta, when you know of a householder clothed in white, that he
  is restrained in terms of the five training rules and that he obtains
  at will, without difficulty, without hardship, four pleasant mental
  abidings in the here & now, then if he wants he may state about
  himself: ‘Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the
  hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad
  bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again
  destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!’

Not metta specifically but I can find a sutta where the Buddha recommended some lay people to allocate some time to practice jhana meditation.

From the Piti Sutta (AN 5.176):

  Then Anathapindika the householder, surrounded by about 500 lay
  followers, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down
  to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said
  to him, “Householder, you have provided the community of monks with
  robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for the sick, but
  you shouldn’t rest content with the thought, ‘We have provided the
  community of monks with robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal
  requisites for the sick.’ So you should train yourself, ‘Let’s
  periodically enter & remain in seclusion & rapture.’ That’s how you
  should train yourself.”


Skillful Buddhist Meditation Teachers What teachers of Buddhist meditation can guide students skillfully? I mean, teachers who are lay or monastic, teachers who are alive, teachers who have died but left skillful dhamma works to guide students and teachers of any tradition that follow the Buddha's words from the three baskets.

*I am basically asking about teachers that might not be we'll known but the few students that do know always praise the teacher's approach as skillful.

Edited from:

It seems there are some great and unique meditation teachers out there that aren't as popular as some teachers, possibly because they shunned publicity, didn't allow teachings to be recorded, lived far from the world in hard to get to places and so on.
.    So the questions are:

1- What tends to be the differences between the more  charismatic or popular teachers and the less known but master   teachers?
2-What hard to find master teachers of Buddhist meditation are out there and what is there approach to teaching?
Thank you :)
It seems there are some great and unique meditation teachers out there that aren't as popular as some teachers, possibly because they shunned publicity, didn't allow teachings to be recorded, lived far from the world in hard to get to places and so on.
.    So the questions are:

1- What tends to be the differences between the more  charismatic or popular teachers and the less known but master   teachers?
2-What hard to find master teachers of Buddhist meditation are out there and what is there approach to teaching?

Thank you :)

As far as my curiosity managed to spread to far, I think Ajaan Fuang is a great example. Not much is known about him except for a few transcribed talks and some quotes here and there, and some stories told by his students of their experiences with him.

One thing I remember about him, as far as being different goes, was that one time some Thai Monk Magazine (or something along those lines) went after him, trying to get an interview. When he heard about this, he avoided them at all cost. Finally they managed to pin him down somewhere, and asked him, "Could you give us a dhamma talk?" His response was, "Yes. Today's dhamma talk is one word: 'buddho.' If you can't keep this in mind, there really isn't any point in my telling you anything else."

Another great quote is,

  If I have to explain everything, you'll get used to having things handed to you on a platter. And then what will you do when problems come up in your meditation and you don't have any experience in figuring things out on your own?

I highly recommend the book Awareness Itself available for free at DhammaTalks.org.


How does the 2nd Noble truth explain the cause of suffering-as-suffering (e.g. resulting from a severe burn)? I would like to ask question regarding the 4 Noble Truths. The second Noble Truth broadly speaking is that suffering is a result of craving, aversion and ignorance. I can see how this can been seen as a cause of suffering-as-change (Viparinama-dukkha), and suffering-as-conditions (Sankhara-dukkha); but can not relate craving, aversion and ignorance to suffering-as-suffering (Dukkha-dukkha). For example how can the cause of suffering resulting from a severe burn be explained by those three factors?

Dukkha-dukkha is just painful feelings accompanied by craving. Painful feelings are simply feelings. In the case of severe burns, one would experience a lot of painful feelings. But it is still just a physical feeling like any other physical feeling. It becomes suffering only when you wish it to go away. That is called Vibhava-tanha. In other words, the craving for a certain experience to go away causes you suffering.


Why is Budai often associated with the future Buddha Maitreya? Many times I've heard of Budai (pictured below) being associated with Maitreya, the future Buddha. Why is this so and how widespread is this belief? Wikipedia lists a short verse uttered before Budai's death:

  Maitreya, the true Maitreya
  has billions of incarnations.
  Often he is shown to people at the time;
  other times they do not recognize him.

Is there more to this association or was the simple utterance of that verse so long ago the sole reason for believing that Budai was the bodhisatta?

Here is a reference to the Japanese Miroku Bodhisatva.

Another reference says that Hotei was Kaishi Zen priest and a Boddhisattva, the future Maitreya:

  Hotei stands out from the other six Lucky Gods because he is the only one known to have been a real person, rather than a mythical being. According to Chiba, his Chinese name was Kaishi. His birth date is unknown, but his date of death was in March of the year 916. He was a Zen priest who could quote Buddhist text verses almost nonstop. Some sources affirm that he was an  incarnation of the Bodhisattva Miroku (Maitreya in Sanskrit), the Buddhist Savior of the Future (Giraud 404). However, some of his actions would not be  considered particularly saintly. For example, he would beg for meat and fish  even though they were foods forbidden to priests.

Bits of details about claims to Maitreya and where references of it could be found in the pali canon.


The Buddha-nature of a dog I keep seeing the following koan:

  A monk asked Zhàozhōu, "Does a dog have Buddha nature or not?" Zhaozhou said, "Wú".

What does this mean and why is it important?

More specifically: Does "Wú" mean "no" in this context, or does it mean "the question doesn't make sense and therefore cannot be answered"? I've seen both interpretations, which one is correct?

We should really have a rule on here not to provide koan answers!  It's so important that you figure them out for yourself!  Written out, the answers become hollow and never approach their true 'meaning'.  That said (and no spoilers follow!)...

Mu does mean no, but it also can translate as blankness, voidness, or absence.  That should ring a bell regarding the concept of emptiness or shunyata.  The koan really doesn't have anything to do with dogs or whether or not they have a Buddha nature.  It has more to do with this idea of emptiness - what it is and the initial experience of it.  The monk in this koan is all caught up in scholasticism and conceptualism.  He's using his small mind to try and understand a concept that it's just not capable of of apprehending.  Zhaozhou's answer is an attempt to shake that monk out of his smaller way of thinking and point him instead to mu - the true essence of Zen.


Seeking guidance on avoiding meditation distractions and sluggishness Do any of you readers , know of a very simple, dependable starting point for an old meditator , who sits everyday, but I do not have contact with any meditation teacher, who I am connected with. I sit, and make an effort to practice the mahasatipattana practice. For example, a thought to start out my meditation, that will enable me to have a session where I am not distracted or get to nervous , or sluggish, and so on. I say some prayers and refuge, and the I meditate, afterwards , I dedicate to merit to all living beings, not excluding a single one.

Part of  my problem , is as I get older I have more health problems that affect me now, physically.So, I hope I made my question clear. I know , if I could go on a retreat, I would be sitting more firmly, but I can't attend a retreat at this time in my life. I have started , lately, the last two years, sitting for 5 minutes, twice a day. with prayers, dedication of merit and so on.

Does any one have a similar situation , were you have figured out how to start correctly? Meaning, starting out and having an undistracted session? The alternative is, I just don't meditate , but maybe read some Buddha sutra, or a good teachers explanation..

A standard beginner's practice for those who get distracted is to count your breaths. You can count them by subvocalizing, or on fingers. I counted by touching my thumb to three phalanges on each finger, and for each full hand - count one phalanges on the other hand.

Another practice to establish the mind in the beginning of the session is to 1) review all body sensations, head to toe and explicitly note every discomfort, then 2) review all breathing tensions and emotional sensations and note all of the preexisting conditions, then 3) review the state of the mind and note the quality of thinking & awareness today. Once the review is complete this way, it helps to set all distractions aside.

Then again, it's not like the distractions and sluggishness is one, and meditation is some perfect state separate from those. The whole point of (Buddhist) meditation is to work with your inner condition, until you learn to manage it, and in the process get some insight. So don't treat the obstacles as something unexpected, working with obstacles is the meat and bones of meditation.


Metaphysical Contemplation and Speculation There are many parables and stories from the Buddha's life suggesting he valued above all what is practical and conducive to virtue. He discouraged metaphysical speculation and musings.

Given without knowledge one can only speculate, does Buddhism suggest one should delay certain questions until one can empirically get a definite answer?

For example, the jhanas are not immediately accessible, and thinking about them might lead to speculation. What is speculation in Buddhism? Should one always restrict their attention and cognition to what is immediately accessible?

I guess I could also add: How does one know when one is speculating?

OP: Given without knowledge one can only speculate, does Buddhism suggest one should delay certain questions until one can empirically
  get a definite answer?

  OP: For example, the jhanas are not immediately accessible, and thinking about them might lead to speculation. What is speculation in
  Buddhism? Should one always restrict their attention and cognition to
  what is immediately accessible?

The Buddha certainly valued pragmatism and discouraged metaphysical speculation.

Does this mean that ALL speculation is discouraged?

The answer to this is NO. Only speculation that is not useful towards the ending of suffering is discouraged.

For e.g. when did samsara first begin? How did the universe originate? What's the range of the Buddha's abilities? How do the consequences of karma work precisely? You can find some of these in Acintita Sutta and also the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow. Speculation on topics like these were strongly discouraged.

As for topics that are useful towards the ending of suffering, speculation is not discouraged. Without investigation, contemplation, reflection and speculation, it's impossible for a learner to learn and understand new things. Correcting your mistaken speculations is a great learning method.

Over time, as you learn and understand more aspects of the Dhamma and gain more insight, your speculations would be replaced by wisdom. It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle of which you do not know how the final picture looks like. But it gets clearer over time.

Also, in the suttas, asking difficult questions based on speculative thinking was not just allowed by the Buddha but also used by him as a tool to convey teachings.

For example, from SN 12.46:

  As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What now, Master
  Gotama: Is the one who acts the same one who experiences [the results
  of the act]?"

  [The Buddha:] "[To say,] 'The one who acts is the same one who
  experiences,' is one extreme."

  [The brahman:] "Then, Master Gotama, is the one who acts someone other
  than the one who experiences?"

  [The Buddha:] "[To say,] 'The one who acts is someone other than the
  one who experiences,' is the second extreme. Avoiding both of these
  extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by means of the middle:
  (explains dependent origination)

  When this was said, the brahman said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent,
  Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what
  was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to point out the way to one
  who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes
  could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many
  lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for
  refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. May Master Gotama
  remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day
  forward, for life."

And there are many more such examples in the suttas. In the Attakari Sutta, we find someone speculating that there is no self-doer and he was corrected by the Buddha.

Of course, one also needs to practise the teachings (through the Noble Eightfold Path) and not just contemplate it. But, investigation, contemplation, reflection and speculation forms part of the journey of learning the Dhamma, in order to foster Right View, which is the forerunner of the path.

  OP: I guess I could also add: How does one know when one is speculating?

If you have doubt (vicikiccha) in your mind, then you're most likely speculating about the Dhamma. The explanation of doubt in Buddhism from this Wikipedia page is:

  The reality of vicikicchā is not the same as what we mean by doubt in
  conventional language. Vicikicchā is not doubt about someone's name or
  about the weather. Vicikicchā is doubt about realities, about nāma and
  rūpa, about cause and result, about the four noble Truths, about the
  “Dependent Origination”.

Another sign of mistaken speculation is that it may lead you towards the three poisons of lust/ greed, aversion and delusion. A good example of this is the Vesali Sutta - in which some monks who misunderstood the Dhamma committed suicide.


Is it possible to reconcile the evolution theory with Buddhism? Is it possible to reconcile the evolution theory with Buddhism, or they are 2 things that simply cannot go along? In other words you have to choose one.

I'm really not sure what one has to do with the other.  The Buddha taught the path leading to the cessation of suffering.  Evolutionary theory explains what happens through the interplay of a given species and its surroundings.  I think the example set by the Dalai Lama is very instructive in demonstrating how a Buddhist should approach science.  He strongly embraces what science has to teach us about reality - which is what Buddhism seeks to do in it's own way.  He even goes so far as to say that if science (and by science, I understand him to mean rigorous testing and reproducible evidence) could prove an aspect of Buddhism teaching false, a Buddhist would have to side with science.  I'm really don't see anything in evolution that would impinge on the dharma.


What is the meaning of the Zen quote: "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water"? In the question "A question regarding the level of worldly participation for a buddhist monk", Bhante gave an answer containing a Zen quote.

The quote is;

  "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water.  After enlightenment chop wood, carry water".

What is the origin of the quote?
What is the meaning of the quote?

Thank you for your time.

I am not sure about the origin of this quote but possibly as it used as a Zen message it may have come from Bodhidharma. I am sure about its meaning however. It relates both to Enlightenment and Mindfulness. The true practice of mindfulness which means watching the mind to find the Essence of the Mind will lead to Wisdom and Enlightenment. In simple terms we can say that before I developed the true nature of Wisdom I could chop wood and carry water but my mind was everywhere-it was heavily polluted with mental obstructions and worldly thoughts-it was not present. After I found the Essence of my Mind and found true Wisdom then I experience Enlightenment. To the external eye nothing is different-I still appear to chop wood and carry water but in fact within the internal eye everything is different. Everything has changed. It teaches us to be aware of the transience of visual forms. Nothing is what it appears to be and No thing is what it appears to be.

Thay


(Why) did the Buddha teach rebirth? Was rebirth introduced in the First or Second Turnings, and why did the Buddha teach it? E.g. was it necessary to understand emptiness, causality, etc.?
For example, I imagine that some "reasons why" might include:

Maybe it helps deemphasize a person's current lifetime, highlighting its impermanence, so that one does not cling to it or themselves.
On the other hand, for some, it seems to be a source of inspiration to persevere on the Path, for a "good rebirth".

Would any of the Buddhist doctrines, excluding karma and rebirth, fail to make sense without rebirth?

The Truth of Rebirth seems to be one of the larger points of dispute between participants on this site. See here and here for similar questions and answers. I guess this is not all that surprising to me since the site seems heavily represented by Western practitioners. In my experience it seems that westerners have (and I definitely include myself here) a particularly difficult time with the Truth of Rebirth as taught by the Buddha. Here is what Venerable Thanissaro Bhikkhu has to say about this:

  Yet as these Buddhist religions have come to the West, they have run
  into a barrier from modern Western culture: Of all the Buddha's
  teachings, rebirth has been one of the hardest for modern Westerners
  to accept. Part of this resistance comes from the fact that none of
  the dominant world-views of Western culture, religious or
  materialistic, contain anything corresponding to the idea of repeated
  rebirth. Plato taught it, but — aside from an esoteric fringe — few in
  the modern West have treated this side of his teaching as anything
  more than a myth.

  For people who have felt burned or repelled by the faith demands of
  Western religion, there is the added barrier that the teaching on
  rebirth is something that — for the unawakened — has to be taken on
  faith. They would prefer a Buddhism that makes no faith demands,
  focusing its attention solely on the benefits it can bring in this
  life.

There seem to be many approaches on this site:

Simply denying outright that the Buddha taught rebirth.
The Buddha taught the reality of rebirth as a (re)birth that takes place in this very life whenever self-views of "I" and "mine" occur. No "afterlife" concept of rebirth was taught or acknowledged by the Buddha.
Admitting he taught it, but insisting it was just skillful means.
Rebirth as a combination of metaphor and upaya.
Those who take rebirth at face value, but insist that mere experience can end.
Like above, but do not posit an end to this mere experience.
Those who think rebirth (generally) can be known incontrovertibly through reason alone.
Those who think rebirth requires a dose of faith to be known (generally).

And probably a number of other views that I've missed completely or misunderstood. Myself, I'm somewhere between 6, 7, and 8, I guess, but I struggle with this.

Was rebirth introduced in the First or Second Turnings, and why did the Buddha teach it?

To my mind, unquestionably it was taught and introduced. I think the Buddha taught it because it was/is a conventional truth and the Buddha taught the truth.

Would any of the Buddhist doctrines, excluding karma and rebirth, fail to make sense without rebirth?

Yes, I think there are obvious logical problems and inconsistencies that present if you deny the truth of rebirth. For instance, as BodhiWalker mentions above one could seek the end of suffering by merely ending this current life. Even more problematic, one could "liberate" others from suffering by murdering sentient beings painlessly. That's monstrous and I want nothing to do with it. I want to make quite clear, I'm sure this is not what others have in mind when denying or glossing the truth of rebirth. I'm emphatically not concluding that those who deny or gloss the truth of rebirth are murderous monsters, just that denying or glossing the truth of rebirth presents logical problems that I don't see a way around.

Anyway, I think Venerable Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article above is excellent and highly recommend reading it many times and contemplating these questions.


What is the best way to practice humility I've studied both "Western" and "Eastern" philosophy (mainly Buddhism) for some time, and enjoying it a lot. Western philosophy is all about clarifying concepts. The exception might perhaps be phenomenology (I include Heidegger in that category, and so did he. When Heidegger talked about existentialism, he specifically referred to Sartre).

When I was writing my MA, I asked my fellow students "how does studying philosophy affect your personal life?" The general answer was "not the slightest bit". I generally had the feeling that it was a lot of competition and everyone were trying to be better and smarter than the next guy. This is one of the things I find so utterly different in Buddhist philosophy - it's affecting my daily life and ethical outlook to a much greater extent. I think our culture is so fixated on competition and being the best, and that outlook is still affecting me to a certain extent.

Does anyone have good advice for practising humility, both on and off the cushion?

Good start is to do 100000 prostrations, say 100 a day.

Another practice is to identify and drop your attachments to intelligence, accumulation of knowledge, and making spiritual progress. Any time you catch yourself indulging in a thought which implies that intelligence, knowledge, or spiritual progress makes you better than others - you should get frustrated with yourself and drop that thought immediately.

Another practice is to surrender in all disagreements even if you are right, especially if you are right.

Another practice is to always take all blame upon yourself.

Another practice is the transfer of merit.

Reverence to Dharma books, handling them with care, not placing them in the floor, not placing other objects on top of them.

Reverence to teachers of Dharma - the attitude of a good servant: show respect, listen intently, follow exactly.


Can Buddhism be viewed as a threat to the capitalist way of life? As capitalism depends on the desire to consume (the more you consume the better), is it fair to say that Buddhism goes against capitalism?

Or does anyone thinks that Buddhism can coexist very well with capitalism?

Buddhism is a threat to the universe... the answer to the famous "what would happen if everyone became enlightened?" is that the universe would cease to exist.

In the meantime, sure, the more people in a society practicing Buddhism the less the demand for new products, prices drop, people have less money, less spending, even less demand, and so on.

On the other hand, I don't think this would immediately threaten capitalism as a philosophy, in the sense that barter could still carry on unimpeded; truly necessary items could still be shared and traded, and a free market would probably do well in such a society.

I imagine there would be many socialist aspects to the society as well, involving health care, social assistance, etc. But would the society incline towards communism? I doubt it - communism seems too structured to me; people would probably just mind their own business, sharing or trading as needed.

I've always thought that the only problem with capitalism is greed. I'm not an economist, by any means, but my short answer is no, I don't think it would be a threat to capitalism.

Economic materialism, sure.


When you don't do akusla you do kusala? When you don't do akusla actions you do kusala actions?

And I'm aware of the middle way  -  harming yourself is not.

And another question (you can answer whatever you like or both)

When you don't do stuff for fun  do you do good things? ....   of course with 2 important exceptions:   you have right view and you don't avoid fun stuff (meaning not to do on purpose stuff cause they are fun but you can do stuff that are fun if it serves you)

And my main question is:  if I avoid doing bad stuff (akusala)  will I do only good stuff (kusala) or neutral ones?

Because I'm pondering a way to advance in the path after trying many many ways as to just focus on avoiding doing bad  and cause I have right view more or less  I will be pushed to do good.

Also many things for fun are akusala (bad)  so it seems avoiding them I am pushed to do good.

(And yes I know there are "levels" and you can look at actions in general or moment by moment - and I ask this on each level - also in the big picture of actions and also moment by moment)

Sorry if it's a mess of a question - but I hope the smart people here can give their opinion on this line of thought nonetheless  - you don't have to answer the question directly.

I think generally speaking you are on the right track. Your question seems very clear to me and your logic is valid.

Don't do akusala, on all levels from coarse - to very subtle, exactly this was my path, this can be your path. You don't need to worry about kusala, as long as you put serious effort in not doing akusala, you will advance.

Now, "serious effort" is very serious. There is akusala hiding inside kusala, and there is kusala hiding inside akusala. So you should be very bold and very brave. I see you are making progress since you joined.


Are the differences between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism merely semantic/perspective? having studied Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, I've seen that the differences between the two are almost non-existent.

This video does a good job at fleshing out the Vedanta and Buddhist perspective and he himself seemingly states that the differences between the two are trivial at best.

I'd be interested to hear some input from those more familiar with Buddhism.

Buddhism teaches Anatta (not self) and the Nibbana is the final goal. You can't find them in Advaita Vedanta. Buddism also has Noble Eightfold Path with a clear set of instructions as to how to attain Nibbana. In my opinion, it is just more than semantics. The only way to be sure is to study and practice both.


Can one be a part-time monk? Can one be ordained as a monk and yet take up an office job part time and be a monk part time?

In other words can one be beyond a lay practitioner yet not lead a full monastic life?

Some people become temporary monks -- I think that's a common practice in some countries.
How to become a monk? says, about "temporary bhikkhus",

Naturally, temporary bhikkhus are allowed to keep their possessions, but these must be put aside or entrusted to someone else for the duration of their monastic experience.
He takes the robe for a few days, a few weeks or a few months to dedicate one or more periods of his life to train into monastic life. He is still engaged in various activities, which he does not feel ready to renounce. However, he knows enough to distance himself from them in order to dedicate some time to a life of detachment. If he ascertains that this experience is beneficial to him, he could eventually envisage extending it until the end of his life.

There's a status called Anagarika, which isn't a monk and allows the handling of money (I don't know whether that includes earning/possessing money, or whether it is only handling monetary donations e.g. for the benefit of the monastery).

In Theravada Buddhism, an Anagarika (Pali: anāgārika/ā; lit., "homeless one") is a person who has given up most or all of his worldly possessions and responsibilities to commit full-time to Buddhist practice.

There's also an intermediate status, Maechi.

There's also being a novice monk.

Ten Precepts
The Ten Precepts refer to the precepts or training rules for śrāmaṇeras (novice monks) and śrāmaṇerīs (novice nuns). They are the same in most schools of Buddhism.

The tenth precept is, "Refrain from accepting money."


Are there any teachings about how we should censure happiness which arises without right view? Please note that I’m not referring to momentary happiness from distractive actions, like narcotic or alcohol consumption: I’m referring to excessive happiness that arises, from birth of a child, or success in career, which are not unwholesome in themselves.

Socratic/stoic tradition identifies intense pleasure as a nail that rivets us with the desire of the body, and causes cyclic rebirth again and again. To remain detached, the stoics say we should never give full license to the appearance of happiness, and should not allow our pleasure to go as far as it chooses: instead we should check it, and curb it. For example they say, when kissing your child, to remind yourself that he who you love is mortal and momentary, you should say with a lisping voice, "tomorrow you will die"; and to a friend also, "tomorrow you will go away or I shall, and never shall we see one another again".

The Buddhist tradition arose before the Socratic/stoic tradition and, since Greeks were very interested in Buddhism, it is likely the Socratic/stoic tradition was influenced by the Buddhist tradition. In other words, what is written in the question is essentially Buddhism. The following links are merely a small sample of similar Buddhist teachings:

  Kisa Gotami was the wife of a wealthy man of Savatthi. Her story is one of the more famous ones in Buddhism. After losing her only child,
  Kisa Gotami became desperate and asked if anyone can help her. Her
  sorrow was so great that many thought she had already lost her mind.
  An old man told her to meet Buddha. Buddha told her that before he
  could bring the child back to life, she should find white mustard
  seeds from a family where no one had died. She desperately went from
  house to house, but to her disappointment, she could not find a house
  that had not suffered the death of a family member. Finally the
  realization struck her that there is no house free from mortality. She
  returned to the Buddha, who comforted her and preached to her the
  truth. She was awakened and entered the first stage of Arhatship.
  Eventually, she became an Arhat.

  Kisa Gotami

  210. Seek no intimacy with the beloved and also not with the unloved, for not to see the beloved and to see the unloved, both are painful.

  211. Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those who have nothing beloved or
  unloved.

  Piyavagga

  Now at that time a certain householder's dear & beloved little son, his only child, had died. Because of his death, the father had no
  desire to work or to eat. He kept going to the cemetery and crying
  out, "Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you gone,
  my only little child?"

  Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said to
  him, "Householder, your faculties are not those of one who is steady
  in his own mind. There is an aberration in your faculties."

  "Lord, how could there not be an aberration in my faculties? My dear &
  beloved little son, my only child, has died. Because of his death, I
  have no desire to work or to eat. I keep going to the cemetery and
  crying out, 'Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you
  gone, my only little child?'

  "That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who
  is dear, come springing from one who is dear."

  Now at that time a large number of gamblers were playing dice not far from the Blessed One. So the householder went to them and they said:
  "That's the way it is, householder [said the gamblers]. That's the way
  it is. Happiness & joy are born from one who is dear, come springing
  from one who is dear."

  So the householder left, thinking, "I agree with the gamblers."

  Piyajatika Sutta

  Then Sakka, ruler of gods, and the divine King Vessavana had the venerable Maha Moggallana walk all over and explore the Vejayanta
  Palace: "See, good sir Moggallana, this loveliness of the Vejayanta
  Palace! See, good sir Moggallana, this loveliness Vejayanta Palace!"

  Then the venerable Maha Moggallana considered thus: "This spirit is living much too negligently. What if I stirred up a sense of urgency
  in him?"

  Then the venerable Maha Moggallana performed such a feat of supernormal power that with the point of his toe he made the Vejayanta
  Palace shake and quake and tremble.

  When the venerable Maha Moggallana knew that Sakka, ruler of gods, was stirred to a sense of urgency with his hair standing on end, he
  asked him: "Kosiya, how did the Blessed One state to you in brief
  deliverance in the destruction of craving? It would be good if we
  might also get to hear that statement."

  Good sir Moggallana, I went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, I stood at one side and said: ‘Venerable sir, how in
  brief is a bhikkhu liberated in the destruction of craving, one who
  has reached the ultimate end, the ultimate goal, one who is foremost
  among gods and humans?’ When this was said, good sir Moggallana, the
  Blessed One told me: ‘Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that
  nothing is worth adhering/attaching to".

  Cūḷataṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta

  (1) Bhikkhus, when an uninstructed worldling meets with gain, he does not reflect thus: ‘This gain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is. (2) When he meets with loss … (3) … fame … (4) … disrepute
  … (5) … blame … (6) … praise … (7) … pleasure … (8) … pain, he does
  not reflect thus: ‘This pain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is.

  Gain obsesses his mind, and loss obsesses his mind. Fame obsesses his mind, and disrepute obsesses his mind. Blame obsesses his mind, and
  praise obsesses his mind. Pleasure obsesses his mind, and pain
  obsesses his mind. He is attracted to gain and repelled by loss. He is
  attracted to fame and repelled by disrepute. He is attracted to praise
  and repelled by blame. He is attracted to pleasure and repelled by
  pain. Thus involved with attraction and repulsion, he is not freed
  from birth, from old age and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  dejection, and anguish; he is not freed from suffering, I say.

  Lokavipatti Sutta

  With contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a
  pleasant feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it and remains
  holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one.
  When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one sorrows, grieves and
  laments, weeps beating one’s breast and becomes distraught, then the
  underlying tendency to aversion lies within one. When one is touched
  by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one does not understand
  as it actually is the origination, the disappearance, the
  gratification, the danger and the escape in regard to that feeling,
  then the underlying tendency to ignorance lies within one. Bhikkhus,
  that one shall here and now make an end of suffering without
  abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling,
  without abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful
  feeling, without extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in
  regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, without abandoning
  ignorance and arousing true knowledge — this is impossible.

  With contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a
  pleasant feeling, if one does not delight in it, welcome it, and
  remain holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust does not
  lie within one. When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one does
  not sorrow, grieve and lament, does not weep beating one’s breast and
  become distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion does not
  lie within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant
  feeling, if one understands as it actually is the origination, the
  disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard
  to that feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance does not
  lie within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of
  suffering by abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant
  feeling, by abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards
  painful feeling, by extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance
  in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, by abandoning
  ignorance and arousing true knowledge — this is possible.

  Chachakka Sutta


Where do westerners get their "Buddhist" names? Many western Buddhists have non-western names:

Jeffrey Block -  Bhikkhu Bodhi
Geoffrey DeGraff -  Thanissaro Bhikkhu or Ajaan Geoff
Deirdre Blomfield-Brown - Pema Chödrön

Are they given to them when they are ordained as monks/bhikkuni (like Dances with Wolves), or are they more informal (e.g. Ajaan Geoff)?

Just curious.

Where do westerners get their “Buddhist” names?

In the Theravada tradition a novice receives a new name in Pali when a senior monk accepts his/her request to become Preceptor.

For more information see "Ordination Procedure in the Theravada Tradition".


What is knowledge and vision? I just wonder whether the translation of the following is correct.

  And what are those things that are better and finer than knowledge and vision?
  Katame ca, brāhmaṇa, dhammā ñāṇadassanena uttaritarā ca paṇītatarā ca?

  SuttaCentral

I translate this as:
What knowledge and vision are better and finer than this.

ñāṇadassana is a neuter noun (ending in "a") -- and therefore I think that the ena ending is the "instrumental" case.

So, for a start, I don't think that can be the subject of the sentence.

Similarly dhamma is a masculine noun, therefore I suppose that dhammā is the nominative plural.

Given that ñāṇadassanena is instrumental ...

  The fundamental use of the inst. in Pāli as in the older languages is to denote the thing with which an action is performed. Hence Brugmann prefers to call this the with-case (‘Mit-Kasus’, KVG §540), because the with-idea may either signify connection or denote the means by which an action is done or something happens.

... I'd therefore be inclined to try a translation like "using knowledge" or "with knowledge" -- possibly, "what things using-knowledge [are] better?"

But I'm quite reluctant to contradict Ven. Sujato's translation -- partly because he has far, far more experience with Pali than I have, partly because he studied this sutta and other suttas and so better understands the context of this sentence, and partly because I expect he has read any commentaries on this (which I haven't).

And indeed, here -- §86. Inst. of Comparison. -- says that one of the uses of the "instrumental" case is that it's used in comparisons, e.g.

  dhanena seyyo M II.73
  “better than wealth”;

So I think that justified Ven. Sujato's translation, i.e. his use of it as the object or target of a comparison:

  higher and finer than knowledge and vision

If it doesn't prove that translation (i.e. that's not the only possible translation, at least grammatically) then at least it shows that translation is plausible.

So literally (word for word) something like:

  Katame ca, brāhmaṇa, dhammā ñāṇadassanena uttaritarā ca paṇītatarā ca?
  Which-one then, oh-Brahmans, things compared-to-knowledge-and-vision [the verb "are" or "is" is implicit here, not explicit, optional in Pali) higher and finer also?


Is self enlightenment achieved through contemplation of impermanence? Not asking for a friend, or as a plan... I started doing this some 11-14 years ago, and wondered if it was over - in any significant sense. Not that it matters - I might take the bodhisattva vows, now :)

THanks.

My question is: is self enlightenment achieved through contemplation of impermanence :) ?

It really depends who you ask, and what you mean by "contemplate". The Buddha said:

When one sees with wisdom that 'all formations are impermanent', this is the path of purification.
(Dhp. 277)

So the actual path is through "seeing" impermanence. One might correct your question to say that self-enlightenment can be achieved through seeing impermanence.
It can also be achieved through seeing suffering, or non-self.
One could also adjust and say that self-enlightenment is achieved through contemplating the impermanent, i.e. the five aggregates, since contemplating them - or observing objectively, rather - is what leads one to see impermanence, suffering, and non-self.

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
-- SN 22.59 (Nyanamoli, trans)


Pursuit of raising children ok? Is the pursuit of having children to raise and teach good morals unwholsome or wholsome?

Since you tagged this with "accademic Buddhism" I'll point you to "Family Matters in Indian Buddhist Monasticism where the author reads all the various ancients rules for dealing with monastics that had family obligations of various types.  I've only read the first chapters-- I don't want to pay $41 for the thing. The author's thesis is that the ideal of the "Rhinoceros Horn"-- quitting all social ties to wander away alone, was an ideal that people liked the sound of, but didn't really want to follow through with it.  So they maintained contacts with their family after ordaining. Sometimes, married couples would ordain at the same time, ordain at with kids, and so on. What it remind me of were some sort of modern commune.

Anyhow, that's just ancient Indian Buddhism. The institution varies from place to place.


What is the difference between Shikantaza and Zazen? What is the difference between Shikantaza and Zazen? I used to think that Zazen was synonymous with just sitting but I'm starting to doubt that. Is it Shikantaza that is synonymous with just sitting practice? It would help me if someone could define them and bring out the relationship between the two and the relationship between them both and just sitting practice. Thank you.

Shikantaza is a kind of Zazen. Any Zen meditation is called Zazen, including breath meditation, koan meditation, observing-the-thoughts meditation, and just-sitting-meditation (shikantaza).

To quote my buddhist friend J. from Japan:

  In shikantaza you don't focus on anything, just sit, until there is no observer, you really do nothing besides sitting there without reason, focus, observing, eventually you become thoughtless, and eventually unbecome you. No more than the wall, or better, everything and nothing.

Also see my answer about relationship between different kinds of Zazen.


Is Dana (donation) more about detachment from one's possessions & to break one's ego or is it more about helping others? Whether it is booking a flight ticket, hotel room, buying an electronic gadget etc there are so many online stores which offer so many deals, that I spend a good deal of time finding the right deal, before spending. Furthermore, where I belong its common to haggle with shopkeepers to get a good deal.

And then, I occasionally donate money to some cause as Dana.

That makes me think, what is the real purpose of Dana? Is it more about detachment from material possessions and sharing one's merits/ earnings with others to dissolve the ego or is it more about helping those in need? If it is the former, I might not as well worry about haggling with a shopkeeper or try finding a good deal online, and buy things at first sight, with metta to the seller considering I have donated the amount I could have bargained for to him. If it is the latter, I continue finding good deals and then donate the saved up money to those "I feel" (very subjective) are in need.

So, how can Dana be explained in this context?

DANA SUTTA

In this Sutta, Buddha broke it down to 7 categories of why people give Dana
(1) To answer your question as to purpose of dana, people give for many reasons.
(2) some give to detach(ornament of mind) which bears great fruit and great benefit.
(3) some people give to help others.

I think you can answer yourself if the reason you want the merchant to maximize his profit is because you want to help him out or you are doing it to let go of your attachment.


While body is not me or mine what is a wise response to those claiming various degrees of ownerships on body? What are some kind, wholesome, skillful, wise and helpful responses and views to the following various claims of body ownership:

“The United States government claims 100% ownership over all your DNA and reproductive rights. This astonishing revelation has emerged from the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office claims the power to assign ownership of your DNA to private companies and universities who apply for patents on your genes.

To date, more than 4,000 genes have been assigned ownership to corporations and universities by the U.S. patent office. Such an assignment of ownership proves that the government believes it owns 100% of all human genes -- you cannot transfer ownership of something unless you first own it yourself.

To date, 20 percent of your genetic code is owned by someone else. About two-thirds of these patents belong to private companies, and one-third belong to universities. The company that owns the most patents is called Incyte, a drug company based in California which "owns" the patents on 2,000 human genes.” Via https://www.naturalnews.com/040400_gene_patents_genetic_slavery_human_DNA.html

And from 2012 via http://anh-usa.org/fda-new-claim-body-is-a-drug/ :

...[The] FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states!

We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-C™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells.

The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Medical Clinic for two reasons:

1) Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!)

2) The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would “depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by FDA.”

[note: full articles linked here link to source documents]

The body is considered not mine since one cannot maintain it as one wisher. The fact that others may store certain genetic information without one's liking is a good example that the body is not completely in one's control, hence not-self/non-self.


Weird experience during meditation I had a weird experience couple of days ago while doing meditation, I hope someone more expert than me could help me understand.Two months ago I started practicing 30 min of yoga and 30 min of mindfulness meditation daily, everything was going good and I felt some changes in me, little by little, I felt I was becoming kind of more aware of myself and my thoughts were slowly become less strong in my mind as I was slowly able to focus deeply inside myself. The other day while I was in a deep state , without thoughts I felt something at the bottom of my spine become hotter and hotter and all of a sudden a warm powerful energy moved upward my back. I immediately felt an intense feeling of ecstasy (as I would take drugs), my head started to spin and I lost balance. Also I had a strong sense of nausea and I had diarrea. I also felt that something was released at the level of my hips. At that point I got really scared and I opened my eyes but the feeling was still there, I felt really peaceful , complete absence of thoughts and like if I was completely extraneous of my body and nothing in life was really important anymore. Also I noticed my senses were a lot more accurate. That feeling decreased a bit over the night and the day after I wakes up completely in hang over, and I remember I could see the colours a lot more bright, and I was really sensible to light. I got really scared From this experience and I’m not able to do meditation anymore , I feel like that if I dig a little bit inside me I can “touch” that  energy again but I don’t want to!can someone explains what happened to me ? Sorry for my bad English , I’m not native English speaker. Cheers

It’s called a “kundalini awakening” in yoga, and “tummo” in Tibetan Buddhism. Seek out a qualified teacher who can guide you through this, as it is both a beautiful and a possibly dangerous event. You can get lost in it and suffer various emotional or motivational problems, but properly harnessed it can launch you into major spiritual advancements. The key is to understand what is happening to you and how you work with it. But be careful, as many yoga teachers are ill-prepared to help with something so profound, as ‘modern’ yoga practices are often focused more on external body forms, rather than on energy movements in the subtle energy body.
Congratulations, and good luck.


Is there anything like discriminating intellect in Buddhism? I was watching this Youtube video about 'witnessing self':

3 Stages in Witnessing Meditation - On the Journey towards Spiritual Enlightenment
This video describes the three stages in witnessing meditation. It is a technique known as Shakshi Bhav in Vedanta.

In it he talks about developing intellect that discriminates between 'subject and object'. He says discrimination between the 'contents of consciousness' and 'consciousness or awareness' has to be cultivated for spiritual growth.
I haven't come across any Buddhist term which relates to this. Is this Vipassana? If not whats this in Buddhist terms?

In the Theravada traditions, I understand this be a reference to the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya-bhojjanga).
In the field of dhamma, discrimination comes about by the very act of investigation, and what is discriminated is then known as arising in dependence on other factors and that, globally, those factors harbour three definitive characteristics: transience, unsatisfaction and not-self. This is understood through what he calls the contents of consciousness but what I would call the six-sense consciousnesses - sometimes enumerated as 8 or 9 consciousnesses to include mānas-vijñāna and mano-vijñāna. I think the ninth consciousness is seen as nirvana.
With regard to the consciousness or awareness aspect (possibly nirvana) I suggest reading the fascinating answers to this very interesting question: What is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface?.
It is only by investigating (and discriminating) the six-senses in this way that they are broken down by wisdom-understanding leaving behind a deeper understanding of reality; what you might call consciousness or awareness. I cannot see this as a cultivation. Nothing is cultivated. It is just that complications and their disturbances were removed to reveal the simplicity that had always been present.


How to deal with body pain during meditation? I am doing vipassana meditation as taught by Goenka. I get numbness and tingling in my feet from nerve pressure while sitting cross legged. I put up with it for quite a long time and then the sensation becomes so unpleasant I have to move.
Do I have to get to a point where I can put up with quite severe discomfort in order to progress in meditation or can I progress even though I have to move. At the moment my choice to move feels like a damage to my progress.

In principle, many contemplations that are part of satipatthana don't require our bodies to be still. In fact, a good portion of it are "24/7" practices to be developed whatever we are doing wherever we are.

On the other hand, all of these practices are immensely helped by concentration1  -- thus, the satipatthana sutta opens with concentration practice (calming of the breath). And some, I think, are particularly hard to do (that is, severely limited) without some degree of concentration. And concentration is hard (or seemly impossible) to develop in the presence of significant body discomfort.

Therefore, ideally, it's quite important to have a practice without discomfort. And here it's important to remember that, ultimately, the body form has little to do with the actual work: what is important is not the form, but if the posture (whatever it is) enables the practice.

There is the possibility that the pain from sitting in a certain posture is temporary and will not be an obstacle after a while. But there is the possibility that every sitting will be unbearable after a few minutes or a an hour or two (I meditate for over 15 years, and still can't sit cross legged for more than 30 minutes without discomfort, let alone ~2 hours -- which I've done twice in the past, enduring excruciating pain).

For this last case, if your sitting is of 20 minutes, 1 hour or 4+ hours, I think the best long term solution for practicing is to find out a posture where your body can be still and rest comfortably for the desired period while your mind is alert. Finding out a solution may involve trying out cushions and leg positions, exercises, or entirely different alternatives (e.g meditating laid down or in a chair).

1 a.k.a: tranquility, samatha, samadhi, jhana practice.


Is Sakyamuni a "higher power"? Is Sakyamuni a "higher power"?

I know what I mean, by "higher power" but it may still be opaque, to you. I don't mean a substance, or all powerful personality. But something like that.

So, I mean to ask, is he like the Abrahamic God?

The Dharma is the higher power, not the Buddha Shakyamuni, who is a Nirmanakaya.

Out of the three treasures, Dharma is primary, because it remains operative regardless of appearance or not appearance of Buddha and Sangha.


How would I know if I was suffering from spiritual materialism? How would I know if I was suffering from spiritual materialism as detailed in Chögyam Trungpa's book Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism? Would there be signs that I could recognise in myself and if so what would the signs be? Or is it something that is only evident to other people. Would I need to be told of my condition by a teacher or close friend?

You absolutely can recognize it in yourself. Not only can, you definitely should put effort in doing so -- it makes a huge difference in one's practice (from my own experience being a student).

Spiritual Materialism, (or we could call it Spiritual Accumulation or Spiritual Aggrandizement or Spiritual Indulging) is a tendency of samsaric mind to use spirituality (in its general sense, as an antonym of worldliness) as food for one's ego. Until the illusion of ego disintegrates, that is all the way until Enlightenment, ego uses all kinds of tricks to sustain itself, up to and including Buddhism.

Here are some of telltaling signs you are suffering from S.M. (you don't need to have them all, one is enough):

You surround yourself with Buddhist paraphernalia (tangkas, statues, prayer wheels, bumper stickers, incense, mantra CDs, tattoos, themed handbags) or you despise people who surround themselves with paraphernalia, for being too superficial;
You enjoy Buddhist workshops and lectures as socializing events, or when others enjoy Buddhist workshops and lectures as socializing events, you stay on sidelines, secretly despising everyone for not being serious about Dharma;
You are too interested in levels of realization and how yourself measure up; or you never think about levels of realization, "because advanced practitioners are above that kind of stuff".
You are eager to study obscure Buddhist philosophy and feel that understanding technicalities of Dharma makes you a better practitioner; Or you despise people who indulge in Buddhist philosophical speculation and instead take pride in being a Zen or Tantra student.
You are snappy and irritated with worldly people with their childish interests; Or you are being a super-nice or super-humble selfless holy Bodhisattva, while secretly enjoying the glow of your halo;


Sutta/Sutra guideline for choosing actions in ethical dilemmas I am searching for a sutta which gives a general guideline which helps in making ethical decisions. There are many suttas which give a skillful action for a specific scenario but I am looking for a guideline which shows us how to choose one action instead of another.

Often in ethical decisions it is possible to see how any decision hurts others indirectly. For example: Should I read printed news or online news? Printed news involves cutting down trees and destroying habitats, online news requires burning fossil fuels and polluting which harms people. We can endlessly intellectualise about the results of actions but this is paralysing rather than empowering. I would hope that a sutta doesn't suggest to analyse all possible results of an action.

I'm not sure what form the guideline will be in but I suspect that it will involve looking at one's own mind to see the motivations for an action or to see if any green/anger/delusion arises when taking the action.

The differences between an ethical action, skillful action, and meritous action are quite slim so the sutta could refer to any of these.

Don't paralyze yourself with ethical intellectualism.  You're just going to drive yourself batty.  Eventually you do have to act.

I'm going to give you two answers.  They're related to each other.  The first comes from the Majjhima Nikaya.  The Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta (MN 61) (one of my personal favorites!) rightly places morality as an aid to enlightenment rather than making it an end in and of itself.  It also recounts just how destructive certain actions are to the contemplative life and, rather being prescriptive about morality, it instead places the locus of agency firmly within the volition of the practitioner.  Providing guidelines rather than dogmatic law, emphasizing reflection rather than strict obedience, and handing off moral decisions to each of us is uniquely Buddhist.  It's also why this sutta gets my vote.

To answer what I take to be the larger part of your questions - namely paralysis by analysis when it comes to morality - let's look at a Zen koan from the Mumonkan -

  Case 38 A Buffalo Passes the Window

  Goso said, "A buffalo passes by the window. His head, horns, and four legs
  all go past. But why can't the tail pass too?"

  Mumon's Comment

  If you make a complete about-face, open your eye, and give a turning word
  on this point, you will be able to repay the four kinds of love that
  have favored you and help the sentient beings in the three realms who
  follow you.

  If you are still unable to do this, return to this tail and reflect
  upon it, and then for the first time you will realize something.

  Mumon's Verse

         Passing by, it falls into a ditch;
         Coming back, all the worse, it is lost.
         This tiny little tail,
         What a strange thing it is!

Instead of thinking about buffaloes and windows, let's instead think about suitcases and clothes.  You've seen plenty of cartoons, I'm sure, where Daffy Duck is packing for a trip.  He crams everything into a suitcase except the sleeve of his shirt is hanging out the side.  All that effort in packing, everything in there all delicately placed, neat, and even the latches close snugly.  But still that damn piece of sleeve.

So what do you do?  Do you leave it hanging out?  Well that's annoying!  But what are your alternatives?  You could cut it off, I suppose, but that would just damage your shirt.  Obviously, the thing to do is to just leave it.  I mean, how important is it really that everything fits into the suitcase perfectly?

Morality is really the same thing.  We can devise all of these perfect systems, take special care in reflecting on our actions, but the more we pack into the suitcase - e.g. the further we expand our reflection - the more likely it's going to be that something doesn't fit perfectly.  There are always going to be loose ends.  We can't worry about it.  Unless we stop fretting, pick up our suitcase, and walk out of the door, we are going to miss our train.


How to overcome Depression with Buddhist teachings There are several scientific methods to treat the psychiatric condition depression. Is there a method to overcome depression by Lord Buddha's teachings?

Depression is not just a state of mind, it is also a chemical imbalance.
And for various reasons (maybe genetical or other) this chemical imbalance will affect some peoples more than others. Therefore we should be careful not to respond by simply pointing logical and scholar facts and reasons that one "should not" be depressive.

Having said that, there is some events or thoughts that will trigger the depressive mind, and I think that because meditation teach you to monitor your feelings and be able to stop being trap in a train of thoughts it might be helpful to avoid the development of depression triggering thoughts when it is still time.

On top of that there is more and more scientific studies claiming that the practice of meditation might increase your serotonin levels and immune system. There is also a good possibility that a long term practice of meditation might change you brain chemical balance and reduce your risk of depression.
Scientific papers here

So yes, I think practicing buddhist meditation (samatha-vipassana, or zazen) can be considered as a very serious asset in a therapy.


Can Buddhism help me find my passion? I have been trying to find my passion for last many years, to be honest I do not even know how should I try to find my passion.
Though I have been practicing meditation for last couple of years (not punctually though), but I think meditation doesn't help me find my passion.

If any one have read "POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY - HAPPIER BY TAL BEN-SHAHAR"
In short the book talks about 4 type of Burger:

1 RATRACE: means those who eats a vegetarian normal burger and suffer for anticipated gain in future, which never happens.

2 NIHILISM: This burger is both bad in taste and not even good for health, means worst living style.

3 HEDONISM: This burger is only tasty but not good enough for health means i like watching videos on YouTube but it doesn't have any future.

4 HAPPINESS: This burger is both tasty and good for health means one loves doing something and also have a bright impact on future.

So everyone want to eat the 4th burger, Can anyone help me find.

The "passion" you talk about sounds like a craving for something which you haven't defined. Your question seems to be asking, "I crave something (I crave something to feel passionate about), but I don't know how to find the object of my craving. Can Buddhism tell me how to find what I crave?"

I think that basic Buddhism teaches one to recognize that "craving" as the source of dissatisfaction.

If your craving were for the sense-pleasure or the feeling-pleasure of an addictive drug (cocaine for example), I think that Buddhism would recommend that you seek less of it rather than seeking more.

The "happiness" you mention at the end sounds to me like it might be Sukha. I think there are several sources of sukha (i.e. several conditions, several types of activity which condition sukha), for example such as listed in the Pali literature section of that Wikipedia article.

Someone once lent me a book, titled The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople: Practical Advice for Prosperity and Lasting Happiness, which I recommend. It organizes, summarizes, and references suttas which contain practical advice for laypeople. There are a lot of them! It has various chapters: about earning, saving, and spending money; having good relationships with people; making good decisions; and so on.


Noting-Technique: How many notes per second/minute? I'm a bit confused by contradicting statements about the noting/labeling-technique. On the one hand, one teacher has once told me to note as fast as possible to not let anything else enter the mind, than the chosen meditation object e.g. the belly or the tip of the nose.
On the other hand, this seems to make the practice very cognitive and another teacher suggested that one should have a few seconds of pause to become aware of other things and induce more calmness.

So, what do you think? Are there simply two ways of handling noting? (one being to note very fast and the other one at a moderate speed)
Or has it something to do with how advanced one is practicing? (the first teacher also pointed out, when I correctly remember that one needs to do that this fast to enter vipassana-jhanas or something like this...)

Would be nice to hear your opinions and experiences on this topic.

Kind regards
Rafi

As Trungpa Rinpoche explained, noting/labeling is done at the time of recovering from distraction, not all the time!

You sit and breathe and let your mind expand in its natural state, while the fishes of psychosomatic shadows swim deep under the ice, and then sooner or later one of the them raises up getting progressively sharper, becomes a fully-formed thought, then suddenly swallows you and carries away. As soon as you can, you notice that you got carried away, mentally label this very fact (silently saying "thought" in your head, or just making a mental note), and come back to just sitting. Makes sense?

You don't rigidly fasten the mind to the here-and-now, nor do you mechanically attach discursive evaluation ("thought" or whatever) to each and every mental phenomena. You give your mind some room.

This is like watching the airplanes do the touch-and-goes, you don't shut down the sky, you don't forcefully control every airplane, you wide open the sky and let them fly -- but when one of them tries to land on your airport and grasp you, you allow it to just brush your airstrip with its wheels, and then slip away letting it dissolve back to the pregnant emptiness it came from.

But if it does land and capture you, then by definition you are no longer watching. You can setup a subconscious alarm though, that will ring soon after you're caught -- and this is when you wake up, say "thought!", let go of the thought, and come back to watching.


Attachment to body and bodily sensations Right from the birth we are so attached to our body.Unwanted sensations easily disrupt the peace of our mind.Why is the mind so attached to the body and how to overcome such attachments ?

Almost every single one of us are in this very same boat, though we never say so openly. One can free from this Sakkāya-ditthi (personality-belief) by realizing suffering as a noble truth. The Satipatthāna is there for this purpose. The realization one gets out of it is the understanding of Paticca Samuppāda (dependent origination or the universal law of cause and effect). That is, the ability of seeing things in life according to cause and effect. Once a person acquires that skill, he will be able to free from the idea of ‘me’ by seeing it as a deceit (the true nature). Then, he understands that the concept of ‘me’ is just a (false) view. The first step toward the Noble Eightfold Path is for one to become Saddhānusārī (faith-devoted). It is a person who accepts this path of Dhamma who then becomes Saddhānusārī . He admits suffering of this Samsara. He accepts there exists a cause and effect. He accepts the fact that one needs to be free from suffering. He also accepts that the Supreme Buddha has freed Himself from suffering and the Dhamma can free us from that suffering. He accepts that the disciples (of the Buddha) will have to follow the Dhamma and that there are disciples who have attained the Arahantship by practicing the Dhamma. One who comes to these notions will become Saddhānusārī . One needs to come to these views if he wants to come to the Dhamma and be free from this personality belief - to be free from this Sakkāya-ditthi.


Hospitalization and its Morals I have questions regarding hospitalization and its morals

  1) Are monks/nuns allowed to be hospitalized and can they go to a
  hospital or doctor if sick? (because aren't they not allowed to
  request anything according to the vinaya?)

  2) Can a monk/nun take painkillers or will that be a breach of the
  fifth precept?

  3) If there is a parisite or other being inside of someone, can they
  take medicine to cure themselves of it, or would that break the first
  precept, or is it not if the being isn't sentient?

When I lived in Thailand:

Monks were admitted to hospital.
Monks took painkillers.
Monks used medicine for internal parasites.


Clarity During Meditation I'm wondering about clarity within meditation. I seem to have diminished greatly the agitation I experience, but there is a degree of mental sinking, of mental tiredness which I have a hard time eliminating. This tiredness seemingly makes the meditation session a meditation on the feeling of lethargy and laxity, and I am having a really really hard time ridding myself of this dullness. I've tried antidotes of uplifting thoughts, I've tried having equanimity towards the sensations, and remaining with them. I've tried tightening the breath, focusing sensations more closely on a specific area close to the nostrils. Yet, I've not managed to rid myself of this dullness, and I wonder if I should keep meditating while it is within my mindstream. Any advice would be appreciated.

It sounds like you might be experiencing the third hindrance for meditative progress, i.e. "Sloth and Torpor" (thina-middha). This hindrance is a mental tiredness that arises and makes the mind cloudy and unwieldy.
The Five Hindrances are briefly:

"Sensory desire (kāmacchanda): the particular type of wanting that seeks for happiness through the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and physical feeling.
Ill-will (vyāpāda; also spelled byāpāda): all kinds of thought related to wanting to reject, feelings of hostility, resentment, hatred and bitterness.
Sloth-torpor (thīna-middha): heaviness of body and dullness of mind which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression.
Restlessness-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca): the inability to calm the mind.
Doubt (vicikicchā): lack of conviction or trust".

There is some information about Sloth and Torpor and how to overcome it here.
Other solutions given could be to splash cold water in the face and then return to meditation or getting up and do walking meditation instead. The thing is that one has to balance the meditation practice meaning that if sloth and torpor arises then one must do the opposite in order to counter act it. In this case it would be to energize the mind.
Lastly, here is a great dhamma talk on the five hindrances by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi - Part 1 and Part 2.
This talk is highly recommended it gives a lot of information and antidotes to all of the hindrances.


Why is in the budda days, jhana seem so easily attainable but so hard now? As i read text from canon. It seem like in the budda day jhana was a lot easier and highly recommended for the fold path. But now it seem like this rare thing only a handful of people can attain. If it was so easy how can we find the path to enter it without all the complication?

All my teachers without exception said that the idea of "goal" that you are striving to "attain" is THE final obstacle to attainment.

To that aim, one is advised to completely eradicate the idea of goal from one's mind. As in, on the deepest emotional level you have to give up any slightest hope, dream, or intent to attain jhana - and keep meditating on the resulting state.


How does one Realize emptiness? Are there specific practices, meditation instructions, intended to identify and realize/experience emptiness? Is this different than realizing non-self, or the emptiness of the self? or the emptiness of other/objects?

So now we go for the Zen view.  Or I should say Rinzai view.  I want to first pat you on the back. You are absolutely right to say "realize" emptiness.  Please do not try to understand it.  That's a complete waste of time.  I'm not sure if you intended the question this way, but what you are asking for, specifically in your inquiry regarding the emptiness of other things/objects, is nothing less than a request for a full exploration of the path.  I will try to be brief as I can.  The short answer is that you need to sit and that you need to find a teacher.  The long answer follows.

When you first walk into the zendo, your teacher will normally tell you to watch your breath much in the way taught in anapanasati.  Here, you begin to develop and collect your mind.  As your sitting deepens and your focus improves - and this may happen over the course of months or even years - you will begin to notice one of any number of phenomenon.  For some people, it feels like your body is expanding, for others your body may disappear, and for still others, your head may feel like it's twisting.  What you experience isn't necessarily as important as that the experiencing is happening.  This is your first glimpse of samadhi.  In the ten oxherding pictures, this is seeing the ox's tracks for the first time.

Upon seeing the tracks, the next thing that your teacher will do is give you the Mu koan.  This practice uses the collected mind you developed with anapanasati and directs it toward an actual experience of emptiness.  On every out breath, you will say "muuuuuuuu".  As the Pali suttas say, you will follow this for the whole body of the breath with the most important place being the very end of your exhalation right before you inhale.  As this practice deepens, you will begin to notice a blankness.  This is your first glimpse of emptiness and it usually happens completely by accident.  In the ox herding series, this is seeing the ox's butt sticking out from behind a bush.  Your next task is to make that experience habitual.  This is grabbing the ox's reins.  To hold the reins is to generally know where the ox is at all times and how to find him when you need him.  With the ox's reins firmly in hand, your next task is to gain mastery over the experience.  In essence, you are deepening your command of body, breath, and mind.  This is taming and leading the ox.  With the ox tame, you may now ride him.  This is becoming one with emptiness or one with Mu.  As Master Mumon says, here "all the illusory ideas and delusive thoughts accumulated up to the present will be exterminated, and when the time comes, internal and external will be spontaneously united. You will know this, but for yourself only, like a dumb man who has had a dream."  At this point, you will be asked to call Mu by your teacher.  Your calling of mu will demonstrate how well internal and external are united...how well you, the ox, mu, the body, emptiness, the breath, and mind have all become one thing.  Getting to this point can take years.

And with that, your Zen training wheels come off.  From here on out, emptiness is no longer a realization.  Instead, it becomes a tool that you will use for the remainder of your training.  After you answer the Mu koan, you will begin to work through any number of other koans.  Zen calls this climbing the mountain of swords that is riddled with the skulls of the fallen.  And it can be every bit as daunting as that description implies.  Each koan forces you to confront some aspect of yourself - some fear, attachment, belief, etc. - that is keeping you from true enlightenment.  But rather than working with these things intellectually as you might in therapy, you approach these karmic impediments from the experience of emptiness.  The deeper you go into mu [emptiness], the better the insight you gain, and the more likely you are to unshackle yourself from these obstacles.  The entirety of this practice is a dance between the world of form and the world of emptiness.  You delve into emptiness in your sitting and you bring it back to the world of form in your probing of the koan you are working with.

Bit by bit, koan by koan, year after year, sesshin after sesshin, the wall between you and enlightenment breaks down.  Eventually, it will fall away completely.  At the moment of enlightenment, the very separation between the world of form and emptiness dissolves entirely.  You will know, just as intimately as the feeling of your butt against the cushion, what the Heart Sutra means when it says that "form is emptiness and emptiness is form".  You will directly see the emptiness of all things - of yourself, objects, thought...the entire universe.

And then you get to be the fat old Buddha who gets drunk with the butchers and generally causes a nuisance in the town below.  Happy sitting!


What is the doctrinal justification for Shaolin martial arts? It is known that Shaolin monks practice a form of Chan Buddhism. It is also known that they practice their own form of martial arts.

What is the doctrinal justification for their practice of martial arts?

Additionally/alternatively, within the Shaolin view of Buddhism, are martial arts purported to have soteriological effect?

Lastly, as a bonus, are there any academic studies exploring the Shaolin doctrines?

I found an answer regarding their practices in general, but not about the doctrinal basis.
Thanks.

SN35.88:13.1: “But if they do stab you with a knife, what will you think of them then?”
SN35.88:14.1: “If they stab me with a knife, I’ll think:
SN35.88:14.2: ‘These people of Sunāparanta are gracious, truly gracious, since they don’t take my life with a sharp knife.’
SN35.88:14.3: That’s what I’ll think, Blessed One.

I studied Rinzai Zen under Tanouye Roshi. Although not Shaolin, the Chozen-Ji temple is aligned with Zen/Chan and the martial arts. As Tanouye Roshi explained, Zen improved a warrior's skill with its equanimity in the face of death. A doctrinal quote for that equanimity is given above.
Paradoxically, a warrior's livelihood is about killing, which is definitely NOT Buddhist doctrine:

MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’

So why then did I study Zen and the martial arts?
I studied Zen and the martial arts to understand how NOT to kill. Musashi, that great warrior, became a farmer. Like Musashi, Tanouye Roshi was a master of the sword and his doctrine was to give the world fearlessness as his greatest gift. Tanouye Roshi was also one of the gentlest, kindest persons I have ever met. He taught me how to put down the sword.

MN86:5.9: “I’ve stopped, Aṅgulimāla—now you stop.”

And finally:

SN1.71:2.3: What’s the one thing, Gotama, whose killing you approve?”

I'll let you look that up...


What is The eighth jhana and how can i practice it? I am new to meditation. If i understand correctly there are two types of meditations, Two forms of meditation eight jhanas and vipassana (insight).

One thing that capture me and made me want to start meditating was the ability to focus my mind on anything i wish to deeply focus on. To have a understanding with my mind and work with it. I feel like eight jhanas is the best method but i dont understand how to begin. I looked it up but lost. Any ideas?

@ DeusIIXII,  what you are referring to is the last of the four formless meditations that exist. The eight attainments (atthasmapatti) in meditation (attaining Adhicitta) broadly has two parts - namely, the first four rupa jhanas and the four arupa jhanas. These last four are higher stages of mental concentration – the formless states - enable one to gain supernormal powers.

Eventhough we see the mind as normally inter-dependent with body, there are levels of existence where only mental phenomena exist, with nothing whatever of rupa.  The four 'formless' (arupa) meditative states are attainable from the fourth jhana onwards. They are:

The sphere of infinite space (Akasanañcayatana);
This is attained by transcending any cognition of rupa, by abandoning the metal image that was previously the object of concentration, and seeing that space is infinite.

The sphere of infinite consciousness (Viññaaañcayatana);
In this second state, the focus is on the consciousness that had been aware of infinite space.

The sphere of nothingness (Akiñcaññayatana);
In the third, this object (Viññaaañcayatana) is dropped, and the focus is on the apparent nothingness remaining.

The sphere of neither-cognition-nor-non-cognition (Nevasaññanâsaññayatana).
In the fourth, this object (Akiñcaññayatana) is dropped and the mind is in an attenuated state where it is hardly functioning.

If you want to know these stages in more detail please read the following Suttas:

  SD 24.11 _ Pathama Jhana Pañha Sutta or (Savitakka) Pathama Jhana Sutta. Progressing in the 1st dhyana.
  SD24.12a _ Dutiya Jhana Pañha Sutta or (Avitakka) Dutiya Jhana Sutta. Progressing in 2nd dhyana.
  SD 24.13 _ Tatiya Jhana Pañha Sutta or (Sukhena) Tatiya Jhana Sutta. Progressing in the 3rd dhyana.
  SD 24.14 _ Catuttha Jhana Pañha Sutta or (Upekkhaka) Catuttha Jhana Sutta. How to progress in the 4th dhyana.
  SD 24.15 _ Akasanañcayatana Pañha Sutta. Progressing in the sphere of infinite space.
  SD 24.16 _ Viññaaañcayatana Pañha Sutta. Progressing in the sphere of infinite consciousness.
  SD 24.17 _ Akiñcaññayatana Pañha Sutta. Progressing in the sphere of nothingness.
  SD 24.18 _ Nevasaññanâsaññayatana Pañha Sutta. Progressing in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.