How did Mahayan, Hinayan,Vajrayana come into Buddhism? How many types of sects like Mahayans, Hinayans,Vajrayana are there in Buddhism? How did they come into Buddhism? To my knowledge Buddha never talked about any sort of 'yans'.

Who created these 'Yans'? What was the necessity of creating these 'Yans'?

The Buddha lived 2500 or more years ago. That is relevant: humanity has had 2500 years to think about his teachings and disagree about them. Or more kindly put: in trying to live by his teachings, people have thought about them and come at different interpretations.

The main schools are - as you note:

Theravada - the only living 'hinayana' school. It preserved the Pali canon and as the only living representation of early Buddhism, many people consider it the most 'pure' school. However - it is still only one out of about two dozen schools that existed around the time of Christ.

  Mahayana is usually translated as'great vehicle', in opposition to Hinayana 'small vehicle'. This translation is obviously derogatory and offensive to the only early Buddhist school still in existence: Theravada Buddhism. Mahayana can actually also be translated as 'great path', that is: a path for every being. Hinayana would then mean: small path, or path only for monks actively striving to become arhats. source

Mahayana - everything else, including Vajrayana. Mahayana started in India around the time of Christ - not in China as one answer here suggests. It is true though that Chinese and Japanese Buddhism are dominated by the Mahayana approach.
It could be said that the Mahayana approach came about through the need for a more explicit compassion in Buddhist teaching and practice. The Bodhisattva ideal filled that hole.
The Bodhisattva ideal:

  May I attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.

Mahayana Buddhism includes Zen as well as Tibetan Buddhism.

Vajrayana is a form of Mahayana Buddhism, but it takes individual Buddhas as their main object of meditation. One theory about why it became popular is that it is a practice that helps a lot in times of uncertainty. It became the main form of Indian Buddhism in the centuries before Islam came to India - it was a time when Hinduism became prominent again and Buddhists were on the defensive.

Do note that it is difficult to be sure about the history of Vajrayana, because its practitioners are traditionally vowed to secrecy about their practice.

Vajrayana is prominent in Tibetan Buddhism, but it also survives in Japanese Buddhist ritual.


What is the difference between a cula sotapanna and 'faith follower' ? I have read in many places about Cula Sotapanna or 'Lesser Sotapanna' and 'Faith Follower'. Are they the same or different? Do both of them attain to Sotapatti phala in the same lifetime?

Definition of Faith follower and the timing of his attaining of stream-entry can be found in SN 25.1

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

About Cula-Sotapanna, Piya Tan's comment on SN 55.24

  The Buddha goes on to list six categories of persons who are assured of liberation, namely:

  (1) arhats,
  (2) non-returners,
  (3) once-returnres
  (4) stream-winners,
  (5) [truth-followers] those who accept the Dharma only after pondering over it with wisdom
  (dhammā paññāya mattaso nijjhānaṃ khamanti) who do not have quick and sharp wisdom
  and have not attained complete release, but who do possess the five faculties (pañc'indriyani)
  of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom [sutta §11]; and
  (6) [faith-followers] those who only possess the five faculties but who have mere faith (saddhā,matta) in and mere love (pema,matta) for the Buddha.

  The elder monks of old (poraṇaka thera) call such spiritually developed persons like (5) and (6) as "lesser
  stream-winners" (cūḷa,sotāpanna) or "maturing stream-winner" (bala,sotāpanna).


How does craving (taṇhā) relate to neutral feelings? How does craving (taṇhā) manifest with respect to neutral feelings?

In Dependent Origination (or dependent co-arising, however you'd like to call it), it is said that Craving (taṇhā) follows on the heels of Feeling (vedanā). Feeling, in general, is of 3 main types: pleasant, unpleasant, neutral.

I do see how craving/aversion manifests with respect to both pleasant and unpleasant feeling. But how does it relate to neutral feeling? How is it that I either lust after or try to avoid something that is truly neutral?

Taṇhā doesn't automatically have to relate to neutral feelings. Remember, the twelve links of dependent origination are talking about nessisary causation, not sufficient causation, so when the Buddha says

  [W]ith feeling as condition, craving [comes to be]

the meaning is that feeling is necessary for craving to arise, and without feeling, craving can never arise. But it does not mean that if there is feeling, craving will always arise.


Is it unethical to teach mindfulness for money? There are several consulting firms out there that teach mindfulness to corporations as a livelihood. Is it bad karma since they are essentially taking this from the Buddhist teachings, adding their own neuroscience research on top of it and selling it as a product for better productivity and emotional health. On the other hand, many mindfulness centres in the west offer retreats in exchange for "suggested" donations. Does this kind of transaction corrupt the dharma or is it propagating the dharma to a wider audience?

Is it unethical to teach mindfulness for money?

I guess that what's taught as "mindfulness" probably isn't Buddhist Dharma -- for example:

  Sharf further notes that this [i.e. Buddhist mindfulness] has little to do with "bare attention," the popular contemporary interpretation of sati [i.e. the mindfulness which is taught by and to corporations], "since it entails, among other things, the proper discrimination of the moral valence of phenomena as they arise."

I think there are reasons why it's traditionally wrong to teach dharma for money -- for example:

Monks shouldn't
Lay people might be typically less able to teach Buddhism than monks or nuns are, and should respect (not try to replace) one of the functions of the Sangha which is teaching

Buddhism isn't very specific about what "right livelihood" is for lay people; but IMO it includes giving good value for money, not making fraudulent claims about the product or service.

IMO because they're not teaching Dharma (#1 above) so the normal reasoning (#2) isn't applicable.

It might be (but isn't necessarily) unethical for #3, e.g. if they make fraudulent (untrue) claims about the benefits of what they're teaching, or if they don't deliver (competently teach) what they promised.

On the other hand, many mindfulness centres in the west offer retreats in exchange for "suggested" donations.

The little experience I have of that is of a group of people renting a room in which to meet -- where a small amount of money per person was volunteered,  a collection to pay to rent the meeting room.


Are ecological concerns supported explicitly in Buddhism? Many practising Buddhists that I know also have strong ecological concerns. Is this concern for 'green' issues part of Buddhism or do the two things just attract the same kind of people i.e. people that like Buddhism also like green issues. Specifically does concern for the environment have any basis in canonical texts or commentaries or is it a modern development?

AFAIK there aren't any explicit references in the scriptures to ecological concerns and sustainability. I guess that in the days of the Buddha, there weren't many problems in that area. The ideas behind sustainability aren't new, but it wasn't until the second half of the 20th century (the energy crises in the 70s) that they became more prominent and that the growth of the entire human population and increased resource consumption were seen as a potential major problem for mankind.

I think what makes environmentalism and sustainability so interesting for Buddhists (or the other way around?) is that several main ideas are rather similar, or at least in line with each other.
For example, the Buddha taught that everything, all life, is connected (dependent origination). Also there is no self, the self only exists in dependence upon causes and conditions (anatman). This means that if you damage the Earth then you indirectly are also damaging a part of yourself.

Buddhism also teaches us that we should take the middle way, lead a simple life, don't engage in addictive behavior or excessive consumption, be kind to others. These ideas are also prominent in sustainability. We shouldn't waste resources and should try to improve the living conditions for everyone, not just the rich people living in the Western world.

So to answer your question; I think Buddhism and environmentalism/sustainability just attract the same kind of people. People that really care for the well-being of others.

BTW, being a protem moderator of the Sustainable Living SE site, I can't resist making at least one reference to that site here. ;-)


Why Buddha didn't want him to be called 'friend' by the monks? Referring these lines from 'The Discourse to Prince Bodhi':

  As I approached, Prince, the group-of-five monks were unable to
  continue with their own agreement, and after coming out to meet me,
  some took my bowl and robe, some prepared the seat, some placed the
  water for washing the feet.

  Then they addressed me by name and with the word ‘friend’.

  When this was said, Prince, I said this to the group-of-five monks:
  “Do not address the Gracious One, monks, by name and by the word
  ‘friend’, the Realised One, monks, is a Worthy One, a Perfect
  Sambuddha. Lend an ear, monks,........"

Is it wise to get respect by compulsion?

Is it wise to claim "I am The Greatest/Perfect One" even if you're The Greatest/Perfect One ?

If that's OK, then why did he call his  teachers Ālāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta as 'friend' even before he started learning from them? How can this be justified?

When they first saw him they thought, "He is inferior to us (because he is given to luxury, forsaking the striving, etc.)."
When he approached them they no longer thought that, but still they called him "friend": which I understand to mean "my comrade, my equal".
The Buddha corrected them because he wanted them to learn the Dhamma from him, and it was important that they respect him as a teacher (because if they didn't respect him and didn't accept him as a teacher and listen to his teaching then that would be to their harm).
They were telling him that, as far as they knew, he had no attainment and no knowledge worth teaching:

For a third time, Prince, the group-of-five monks said this to me: “But you, friend Gotama, by that ascetic lifestyle, that practice, that difficult way of living, did not attain states beyond ordinary human beings, a distinction of what is truly noble knowledge and insight.
So how can you now, given to luxury, forsaking the striving, gone back to luxury, attain states beyond ordinary human beings, a distinction of what is truly noble knowledge and insight?”

He contradicted them:

When this was said, Prince, I said this to the group-of-five monks: “Are you aware, monks, of my having spoken to you like this before?”
“Certainly not, reverend Sir.”
“The Realised One, monks, is a Worthy One, a Perfect Sambuddha. Lend an ear, monks, I will instruct you about the attainment of the Deathless, I will teach the Dhamma, and following the path as it has been preached, after no long time in regard to that good for which young men of good family rightly go forth from the home to the homeless life, that unsurpassed conclusion to the spiritual life, you will dwell having known, experienced, and attained it yourselves in this very life,” and I was able, Prince, to persuade the group-of-five monks.

This version of the story includes the following explanation:

ON seeing their old teacher approach, the five bhikkus agreed among themselves not to salute him, nor to address him as a master, but by his name only. "For," so they said, "he has broken his vow and has abandoned holiness. He is no bhikkhu, but Gotama, and Gotama has become a man who lives in abundance and indulges in the pleasures of worldliness." But when the Blessed One approached in a dignified manner, they involuntarily rose from their seats and greeted him in spite of their resolution. Still they called him by his name and addressed him as "friend Gotama."
When they had thus received the Blessed One, he said: "Do not call the Tathagata by his name nor address him as 'friend,' for he is the Buddha, the Holy One. The Buddha looks with a kind heart equally on all living beings, and they therefore call him 'Father.' To disrespect a father is wrong; to despise him, is wicked. The Tathagata, the Buddha continued, does not seek salvation in austerities, but neither does he for that reason indulge in worldly pleasures, nor live in abundance. The Tathagata has found the middle path.

This is from an 1894 version titled The Gospel of Buddha by Paul Carus -- I don't know which original text this is a translation of (or whether it's even translation instead of invention).
One place where the story appears is the Ariyapariyesana Sutta (MN 26) which matches the story in the OP. This one is addressed to monks rather than to "Prince Bodhi" so I suppose there are several versions of this story.


what the buddha said about his own karma? I have a strong believe in buddha but i am not much in karma logic. Had the buddha said anything of karma? If yes then what and if not then how? I am seeing some people getting back in a very amazing way whatever they had done in their respective past. Sometimes it is related to extreme past events, even. Like having a generation gap, too.

what the buddha said about his own karma?

The Buddha mentioned that there were 8 past Karma which were effective even after becoming Buddha. See: Why the Buddha Suffered - Apadāna 39.10

  but i am not much in karma logic.

Karma is one of the things that only a Buddha completely understands. We can only have a rough idea of its operation.

  I am seeing some people getting back in a very amazing way whatever they had done in their respective past.

Even outside Buddhism there is a saying your past catches up with you. In the Buddhist perspective this is termed Karma.

  Sometimes it is related to extreme past events, even.

There are 5 Niyamas or causal factors which define your experiences and also being in the wrong place the wrong time and the right place in the right time, i.e., random events. So past Karma or action does not dictate all results.

  Like having a generation gap

I do not think the generation gap has anything to do with Karma. This is more to do with social, technological and attitude changes.


Common denominator between forms of happiness included in dukkha What is the common denominator between the happiness derived from family life and the happiness derived from being a recluse?

The common denominator is the feeling of pleasure. Apart from that, the conditions giving rise to the two types of pleasure are different. The conditions giving rise to the pleasure of the household life is craving & affection where as the conditions giving rise to the pleasure of the recluse life is the abandoning of craving & affection.

Monks, there are two kinds of pleasantness. What two? Household pleasantness and the pleasantness of one gone forth. Of these two, the pleasantness of one gone forth is better.
AN 2.7


How do I practice Zen all alone? I live in a small town in India where there are no Zen or any other Buddhist temples. I don't have the money to travel to Japan or China. All I know about Zen is from google and youtube videos. I want to practice Zen not just know it intellectually.

What routine should I follow? How should I bring the teachings into practice? What are the sutras to chant?  How many times should I do Zazen?

Please help me learn the practice.

Zen is part of Buddhism. Both share an understanding of the Noble Eightfold Path, which starts with Right View:

  AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view.  What two? The words of another and proper attention. These are the two conditions for the arising of right view.”

Teachers give us "the words of another". Without a teacher nearby, you can study the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) that inform all of Buddhism, including Zen. The EBTs are "words of another", in other words, they are the words of the Buddha and his immediate disciples. The EBTs also provide practice instructions that apply to zazen:

  SN47.40:1.1: “Mendicants, I will teach you mindfulness meditation, the development of mindfulness meditation, and the practice that leads to the development of mindfulness meditation. Listen …

Zazen and Satipaṭṭhāna start with mindfulness of the body. When we sit, we observe our breath, not controlling it, simply observing it. A simple count suffices. I've been doing that for decades, and it still matters.

Zazen is traditionally done while sitting. However, one can meditate sitting, standing, walking or lying down, etc:

  AN11.12:5.16: When they’re joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, they feel bliss. And when they’re blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi.  You should develop this recollection of the deities while walking, standing, sitting, lying down, while working, and while at home with your children.”

As you study and practice, you will want to discuss with others. If a Sangha is not readily available, you can reach out to others online just as you have done. It is not ideal, but it is available. As our practice deepens, spiritual companions invariably cross paths with us. Talk with them. Befriend them.

Zen is known for its koans. Although effective, they are of most value with greater context. Without such context, koans can inaccessibly perplexing.  Many Zen texts provide great context, but I personally value the EBTs themselves as the authoritative context. In the light of the EBTs, one can really dig into the koans and understand the wonder of the Zen canon.

Zen and the EBTs have become the heart of my practice. May your own journey bring happiness to yourself and others.


Looking for a complete list of how the 37 factors are balanced The 37 Factors are sometimes paired as balancing factors. When they are out of balance there are some implications, and there is a controlling (or pivotal) factor which is instrumental in keeping the balance.

In many publications these are scattered throughout, so I am looking for:

balancing factors, or pair of factors which need to be balanced
the implications of any imbalance
associated Controlling (or Pivotal) Factors

... with references from the Canon where these appear.

This PDF could be a useful resource, specifically the following passages:

  faith and wisdom are to be balanced
  so as to avoid blind belief and mere intellectual cleverness;
  effort and concentration are to be balanced
  to avoid mental restlessness and sluggishness.

  Mindfulness is the key factor that keeps all the other
  factors in balance and harmony

and

  The three factors of investigation (dhamma,vicaya), effort (viriya) and zest (piti) counteract torpor.

  The three factors of tranquillity (passaddhi), concentration (samādhi) and equanimity (upekkhā)
  counteract mental agitation.

  Mindfulness (sati) keeps the two sets of factors in a harmonious balance.

Other than these areas I could find no references to balancing the 37 factors. Hopefully this is what you are looking for...


Is there a reason that monasticism is an afterthought? In the same way that Mahayana is an afterthought. Does it matter that something comes second not first does that make it less valid? Chicken or the egg?
Asking for a friend

Someone answered my question in a comment

Some trust that the foremost is the foremost, some find it out, some will always not recognice it right. A matter of faith and wisdom, assosiation with fools or wise. – Samana Johann


Did the Buddha die in absorption? I thought I'd just ask here: did the Buddha die in absorption / any of the dhaynas?

According to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

  And the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Rising from the first
  jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he
  entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the
  fourth jhana. And rising out of the fourth jhana, he entered the
  sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
  infinite space, he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness.
  Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he
  entered the sphere of nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the
  sphere of nothingness, he entered the sphere of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception. And rising out of the
  attainment of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he
  attained to the cessation of perception and feeling.

  And the Venerable Ananda spoke to the Venerable Anuruddha, saying: "Venerable Anuruddha, the Blessed One has passed away."

  "No, friend Ananda, the Blessed One has not passed away. He has
  entered the state of the cessation of perception and feeling."

  Then the Blessed One, rising from the cessation of perception and feeling, entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
  Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he entered the sphere of
  nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of nothingness,
  he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness. Rising from the
  attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he entered the
  sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
  infinite space, he entered the fourth jhana. Rising from the fourth
  jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he
  entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the
  first jhana.

  Rising from the first jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from
  the second jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third
  jhana, he entered the fourth jhana. And, rising from the fourth jhana,
  the Blessed One immediately passed away.

Piya Tan's commentary here states:

  Samanantarā. Samyutta Commentary: Here there are 2 kinds of
  samanantarā: immediately after dhyana and immediately after reviewing.
  In the former case, one emerges from the 4th dhyana, descends into the
  life - continuum (bhavanga) and attains parinirvana. In the latter
  case, one emerges from the 4th dhyana, reviews the dhyana-factors
  again, then descends into  the life-continuum and attains parinirvana,
  as in the case of the Buddha. But buddhas, pratyeka buddhas, noble
  disciples, and even ants and termites pass away by way of the noble
  truth that is suffering, with a karmically indeterminate bhavanga
  consciousness (SA 1:224)

Dhyana is jhana. The difference between jhana and bhavanga is explained in  this answer:

  Jhana is more than just the giving up of the five senses. Each of the
  jhanas is the result of very strong samadhi, and has specific factors
  that go along with it. For example, the first jhana has five factors:
  rapture, pleasure, initial application of mind, sustained application
  of mind, and oneness of mind. As one goes deeper into the second
  jhana, one leaves behind initial application and sustained application
  of mind, and so on.

  Bhavanga is very different than this however. Bhavanga is like a blank
  slate. All it has are the mental factors that are necessary for mind
  to be there and nothing else. It only occurs in the space between
  other kinds of mindstate. None of the jhana factors are present at
  all, and there isn't even any meaningful degree of awareness in it.

So, according to these commentaries, the Buddha did not actually pass away in the fourth jhana. Rather he passed away in bhavanga.


what is anatta during vipassana practice? During vipassana meditation mind experiences breathe automatically. no thoughts were coming. mind itself can be seen.is this anatta?

No. Anatta arises from seeing the arising and passing nature of conditioned phenomena wherever you look. You see that the whole body is like mass of bubbling particles. One set gets destroyed another arises. You also see that this process is not controllable and this process generates sensations which are essentially unsatisfactory. Unpleasant sensations are unsatisfactory, pleasant sensation are unsatisfactory when they end and neutral sensations are unsatisfactory as they are conditioned and pass away giving rise to unsatisfactory experiences.

In addition, craving towards any of the sensation gives rise to the notion or perception of a being. Such perceptions all end in unsatisfactoriness.

Whatever unsatisfactory is not worth identifying as self. This is Anatta.


Is Mindfulness a poor translation for Sati? Usually Sati is translated as Mindfulness, but according to the Wikipedia entry, Mindfulness is described as follows:

  Mindfulness is the psychological process of bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment, which can be developed through the practice of meditation and other training. The term "mindfulness" is a translation of the Pali term sati, which is a significant element of Buddhist traditions.

According to suttacentral's entry, Sati is defined as memory, recognition, consciousness, intentness of mind, wakefulness of mind etc.

My question is then, is it a mistake to call Sati Mindfulness, since Minsfulness means awareness. Now Sati is always used with his close companion sampajañña, which in turn makes the attention always directed to moral attitudes etc., whereas "mainstream mindfulness" just observes inner and outer phenomena with an open, curious and beginners mind.

Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness

https://suttacentral.net/search?query=sati

Wikipedia does not accord with the Pali suttas and the PTS Pali English Dictionary entry at Sutta Central is confusing, given it includes numerous different English terms.

Pali words can generally only be understood in their contextual meaning. A sutta that clearly contextually describes 'sati' is MN 117, as follows:

  One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.

  One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness.

  One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right speech: This is one's right mindfulness.

  One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness.

  One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness.

This contextual meaning accords with a later Abhidhamma commentary, as follows:

  What is sammasati? Sati means to bear in mind or bring to mind. Sati is the state of recollecting, the state of remembering, the state of
  non-fading, the state of non-forgetting. Sati means the sati that is a
  Spiritual Faculty, the sati that is a Spiritual Power, Sammasati, the
  Sati that is an Enlightenment Factor, that which is a Path Factor and
  that which is related to the Path. This is what is called sammasati."
  [Vbh.105, 286]

Ajahn Jayasaro properly explains 'sati' in his video called: Buddhist Meditation (4) Sati Sampajanna.

Similarly, Ajahn Buddhadasa properly explains 'sati' in his lecture called: The Scientific Cure of Spiritual Disease, as follows:

  Sati (mindfulness, reflective awareness, recollection) is the quick awareness and recall of the things which must be recalled. It must be
  as quick as an arrow. We also can describe sati as a vehicle or
  transport mechanism of the fastest kind. This most rapid transport
  doesn't carry material things, it carries wisdom and knowledge. Sati
  delivers paññä (wisdom) in time to meet our needs. Through the
  practice of mindfulness with breathing, sati is trained fully

  Sati realizes that something is happening and recalls the paññä relevant to that event. Sati immediately transports the necessary
  wisdom to that situation in time to deal with any possible problems.
  Mindfulness comes first. That wisdom applied to the experience is sampajanna. Delivered on time by sati, wisdom-in-action deals with the immediate situation. Then, in the very moment when sampajanna goes to work, the power and strength of samädhi gives force and energy to wisdom so that it can cut through the problem. To the degree that there is samädhi, to that degree wisdom-in-action will be able to solve the problem. Paññä acts as the warehouse of accumulated knowledge and insight which sati draws upon to deal with the sense experiences.

While the standard definition of 'samma sati' in the Noble Eightfold Path, the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta is not inherently wrong, it confuses students and scholars alike because the definition includes many different concepts. This definition is as follows:

  And what, monks, is right mindfulness? (i) There is the case where a monk is a contemplator / observer of the body in & of itself — ardent, clear-comprehending &
  mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the world.
  (ii) He is a contemplator / observer of  feelings in & of themselves — ardent,
  clear-comprehending & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the
  world. (iii) He is a contemplator / observer of the mind in & of itself — ardent,
  clear-comprehending & mindful — putting away greed & distress with reference to the
  world. (iv) He is a contemplator / observer of Dhammas in & of themselves
  — ardent, clear-comprehending & mindful — putting away greed & distress with
  reference to the world. This, monks, is called right mindfulness.

The word that gives rise to confusion is 'anupassī', which means to 'contemplate' or 'observe' or 'see'.  Students and scholars alike focus on this translation 'contemplate' and take it to be the meaning of 'sati'. However, if the definition of 'samma sati' is carefully examined, it is discerned the roles of 'sati' are:

Remembering to put away greed & distress with reference to the world.
Remembering to maintain the mind in the activity of 'contemplation'.

Therefore, to paraphrase the Wikipedia definition into a Buddhist context:

  Buddhist mindfulness is the psychological process of remembering & not forgetting to bring one's attention & wisdom
  to experiences so those experiences occur without covetousness, distress & other forms of craving & defilement; which can be developed
  through the practice of meditation and other training. The term
  "Right Mindfulness" is a translation of the Pali term 'Samma Sati', which is a
  significant element of the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path.


Why is 'do not be unfair' not a precept? And some related questions on precepts What's the rationale or logic behind the precepts?
Does fairness come into it?
Are the list of precepts ever expanded to accommodate changing contexts?

Being very unfair to someone who trusts one is pretty similar in emotional harm to cheating on a spouse or lying, especially when the unfairness is made possible because of an abuse of a position of power.

For example, employees of large corporations often feel lied to, even cheated when they are laid off by their employer because of new management policy. Yet, these are explicitly the terms of most employment contracts.

Similarly, a home owner can feel pretty awful when evicted by the bank or lender for failure to pay the mortgage, especially when the bank is usually writing all the rules ab-initio protecting itself from market risks. Yet, this too is an agreed upon constraint because one party operates from a position of power.

Modern life relies on governments, corporations and other faceless institutions to a large degree, and they do wield a great deal of power, so a lot of their transgressions fall afoul of the fairness test, though technically none of them are lies. This has to be a large source of misery in this world today.

Yet, going by the precepts, at least to me, such behaviour doesn't seem to be overtly criticised.

Does Buddhism have anything to say to such scenarios?

"Do not be unfair" is pretty vague. Do not lie and do not steal, those are easy recognize and not do. What is fair and unfair is subject to debate, well so are perhaps all precepts but I would say unfairness even more so.

Who says its unfair to sack an employee? The entire system is unfair if it forces a company to sack anybody. The problem isn't with the individual, not in the scenarios you mentioned anyway. Does an economic system accumulate good and bad karma? They're not sentient so they can't follow precepts.

Just because a home owner feels awful doesn't mean its unfair. Don't get into the game if you don't want to play, meaning don't make loans if you might not be able to pay them.

I don't know what Buddhism has to say, but escaping the hassle of financial injustice does seem to be one of the perks of becoming a monk. Maybe the Buddha felt great leaving royal life behind and not having to concern himself with taxes, but this is just speculation.


What does buddhism say about mind and heart? Some gurus like osho says that the heart should dominate mind but reverse is happening in real world.
Some like sadhguru from isha foundation says that heart is just a pumping device. It is driven by our mind.

What point of view does buddhism have on heart and mind. I mean in terms of differences, dominance, reality, etc.

In spiritual traditions, the heart is not the physical heart, but the intuition, the non-discursive or non-conceptual mind.

The conceptual mind gradually auto-emerges thanks to the mechanism known as Dependent Origination. As conceptual mind develops, it constructs an experience of a world, Samsara. Or we could say, the conceptual mind and Samsara are one and the same. All our griefs and worries exist inside the framework of conceptual mind. For example the concept of Death is like that, it's an abstract concept, in reality there is no death but endless transformation.

The non-conceptual mind aka heart does not operate in such terms, so it does not have the same issues. The Buddhism I was taught is pretty much in favor of re-discovering and utilizing one's "heart". In Early Buddhist texts the process of letting go of the concepts until only the non-conceptual remains is described as "animitta" or The Signless.

You can read more about it in this nice article:  http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Articles/Signless%20Meditations%20in%20Pali%20Buddhism_JIABS_Harvey_1986.pdf


Which Vinaya has the least number of rules? According to Wikipedia, “Extant vinaya texts include those of the Theravada (the only one in Pali), the Kāśyapīya, the Mahāsāṃghika, the Mahīśāsaka, the Dharmaguptaka, the Sarvāstivāda and the Mūlasarvāstivāda.” Does anyone know which of these Vinayas has the least number of rules?

According to Peter Harvey (Introduction to Buddhism, p. 290), the Theravadin Vinaya has 227 rules for male monastics, the Mula-Sarvastivadin has 258, and the Dharmaguptaka has 250, making the Theravadin the one with the least number of rules.

The Wikipedia article on Vinaya substantially agrees with this, but has 253 for the Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya. However, the Wikipedia articles for Mahasamghika and Sthavira (and elsewhere) also state that the Mahasamghika Vinaya has the least number of rules, citing Andrew Skilton, A Concise History of Buddhism, stating that the Mahasamghika Vinaya has 67 rules in the śaikṣa-dharma section, compared to 75 for the Theravadin (apparently referring to the 75 sekhiyavatta), which appears to contradict Harvey’s statement that the Theravadin Vinaya has the least number of rules.

Does anyone (1) have any insights concerning the relative number of rules in the Vinayas that can reconcile this apparent contradiction or (2) know where English translations of the non-Theravadin Vinayas may be found? I am still researching this question online so may end up answering my own question, but would like to hear any relevant information from others.

Of the extant Vinayas, the Mahasanghika has the least rules, if by "rules" you mean "patimokkha rules".

As per your post, the difference is almost entirely in the number of sekhiya rules, which are essentially table manners and the like. Indeed, in the early sources the number "150" rules is mentioned, and I believe this means that patimokkha in the time of the Buddha did not include the sekhiya rules. So if we were to count the rules as per the "original" patimokkha, there would be almost no difference between the Vinayas.

The patimokkha rules, however, are only a small, albeit important, collection of rules. Throughout the Vinaya there are many minor and incidental rules and procedures. Since these often occur by way of permutations of factors for other rules, it is difficult to count them exactly, and I don't believe anyone has done so.

The fact that the Mahasanghika has fewer sekhiya rules has been misinterpreted to imply that the Mahasanghikas were lax in Vinaya, and that their Vinaya text is early. In fact, from this we can't really draw any conclusions about the Vinaya practice of the Mahasanghikas (since the details that differ deal with tiny matters of etiquette), nor about the historical development of the Vinaya texts (since in other aspects the Mahasanghika Vinaya appears later than the Theravada).


A wall of energy slammed me back during meditation? What was this? 2 years ago, I was meditating for about 2 hours a day and was rapidly transitioning to a higher vibration when all of the sudden, I was slammed back by a force of energy back into my chair. Since then I havent been able to get as deep into meditation as I did before then. Im not sure what happened, but feel some kind of a block happened. Has anyone else experienced this or know what happened?

If your breathing, body & mind are currently functioning normally, I would forget about it because your question is an example of 'attachment', which Buddhism teaches to let go of.

Naturally, I can't say exactly what happened, whether the cause was purely mental (a cathartic emotion); or otherwise purely energetic due to some kind of (non-Buddhist) yogic energy manipulation? But obviously what you regarded as "deep" was merely something unnaturally forced & temporary. It sounds like you pushed to some kind of limit in your energetic-breathing-nervous-system due to non-Buddhist yogic practice.

You should ensure your breathing is currently normal because excessive yogic practises can bring harm to the body, breathing & nervous system.

Buddhist meditation has its foundation in letting-go & non-attachment rather than pushing or manipulating.

Below is an example of a yoga practice called 'pranayama', which is a deliberate controlling of breathing:


Buddhism and the middle path I am battling with understanding the concept of the middle path. Having read the many articles available, the concept escapes me especially with a view of self and no-self.

My understanding is that in Buddhism neither is where you want to be as it is an extreme. There must be balance.

If i work with an example, it leaves me nowhere. I do not see the middle path. If i have a weapon pointed to my head, i only see 2 outcomes. Death or survival. If i take the view of self, i would fear the outcome. If i take the view of no-self, i realize all is impermanent and have no fear.

Where is the middle path in this?

Secondly, what roles do intent and motivation play? For example, given the same example, if i am motivated to survive, is that not a play on self? If i have no intention of survival, is that not a play on no-self?

Again, where is the middle path in this?

The middle path is not that which is in between two paths, rather it is usually a different path that does not take extreme viewpoints.

One definition of the middle path comes in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of practice. Here, one takes neither the path of enjoying sensual pleasures in a nihilistic and hedonistic way, nor self-mortification through extreme asceticism. Instead, comes the Noble Eightfold Path, which really isn't about allowing or prohibiting sensual pleasures but covers much more.

Another definition of the middle path comes in the Acela Sutta  where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of philosophy. Here, one neither takes viewpoints of eternalism (there is an eternal self) nor annihilationism (there is no self at all and no existence), but rather takes a very different viewpoint, which is of dependent origination.

This idea is also similar to what is described as false dilemma in western philosophy, where you think that the solution must either be black or white, and nothing else. In reality, there could be more solutions than simply two extreme viewpoints. Wikipedia has the example of "either you are for, or against us". In reality, you could take other stands.

For e.g. in your example, you think you have two choices - either not defend yourself and take the bullet, or defend yourself and maybe even kill the attacker. But there could be a different solution, e.g. you could try to negotiate with the attacker and try to convince him that he could do better than to commit murder. In this way, you could actually help your attacker by providing him with the means to reform and improve himself.

And by the way, the Buddha doesn't teach that there is no self. A self definitely exists. It is just that the self is not permanent or absolute, and arises due to the inter-working of the senses, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. Anatta means "not self" (not "no self") as in "all phenomena is not self". This again lies in the middle path (of dependent origination), rather than taking the extreme views (there is an eternal self vs. there is absolutely no self and no existence). I discuss this also in another answer.

The mistaken view is that because there is no self, it is ok to allow the attacker to kill you without any other alternatives. This is based on the extreme view of annihilationism, which is mentioned above.


What are the "Five Daily Recollections" and their benefits? Question is in the title.

What are these daily recollections and how can they be used in ones practice?

The Five Daily Recollections can be found in the "Anguttara Nikaya - V.57 - Upajjhatthana Sutta: Subjects for Contemplation".

They are in brief:

  Five Daily Recollections

  I am of the nature to grow old; I cannot avoid aging.
  I am of the nature to become ill or injured; I cannot avoid illness or injury.
  I am of the nature to die; I cannot avoid death.
  All that is mine, dear and delightful, will change and vanish.
  I am the owner of my actions;
  I am born of my actions;
  I am related to my actions;
  I am supported by my actions;
  Any thoughts, words or deeds I do, good or evil, those I will inherit.

  The Buddha advised: "These are the five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained".

Rationale and contemplation

  "In this discourse, the Buddha explains that the rationale for contemplating (paccavekkhato) the first three facts is to weaken or overcome conceit (mada) in youth, in good health and in being alive; the fourth contemplation is to weaken or overcome lust (rāga); and, the fifth contemplation is weaken or overcome irresponsibility embodied in improper (duccarita) acts, speech and thoughts.

  Thus, by contemplating these facts, the Noble Eightfold Path (anchored in right understanding, conduct and effort) is cultivated and spiritual fetters are abandoned."


Do the same rules of Karma apply to animals? Animals are sentient beings and therefore are also bound to the cycle of rebirth.

However, animals are far less intelligent than humans, and are certainly not smart enough to follow a particular code of conduct, or take decisions which are against their nature.

Does Karma and rebirth work differently for animals? Or are animals pretty much doomed to remain animals (or worse) because their nature, for instance, causes them to kill?

Karma is a universal law. It works the same for all beings. Whether you are a god, human or an animal, what matters is the strength of craving, aversion and ignorance.

Yes, if you sink below the level of humans, it's pretty difficult to come back. That's why the hells are called the great houses of Sansara.


What is the starting of Samsara? Every Buddhism believe in Eternity or Samsara. So, how can I imagine of Samsara?. What is the starting of it ?
 Any suggestions would be really appreciated.

According to the suttas, samsara has no beginning. There are many references to this.


What is the most accurate translation of the First Noble Truth? If I search for the 4 noble truths of Buddha on Google I get the following different translations of the first noble truth:

Life is suffering.
There is suffering in life.
Life is unsatisfactory.

and from the Wikipedia

Dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence in the realm of samsara.

Which one is the most accurate translation?

officially the noble truths are in https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html
The first one in more details in https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.141.than.html

"Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful,
aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain,
distress, & despair are stressful; not getting what is wanted is
stressful.[2] In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent,
coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of
[sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings,
that is called birth.
"And what is aging? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying,
wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the
various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging.
"And what is death? Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up,
disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the
aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty
of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called
death.
"And what is sorrow? Whatever sorrow, sorrowing, sadness, inward
sorrow, inward sadness of anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by
a painful thing, that is called sorrow.
"And what is lamentation? Whatever crying, grieving, lamenting,
weeping, wailing, lamentation of anyone suffering from misfortune,
touched by a painful thing, that is called lamentation.
"And what is pain? Whatever is experienced as bodily pain, bodily
discomfort, pain or discomfort born of bodily contact, that is called
pain.
"And what is distress? Whatever is experienced as mental pain, mental
discomfort, pain or discomfort born of mental contact, that is called
distress.
"And what is despair? Whatever despair, despondency, desperation of
anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by a painful thing, that is
called despair.
"And what is the stress of not getting what is wanted? In beings
subject to birth, the wish arises, 'O, may we not be subject to birth,
and may birth not come to us.' But this is not to be achieved by
wanting. This is the stress of not getting what is wanted. In beings
subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain,
distress, & despair, the wish arises, 'O, may we not be subject to
aging... illness... death... sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &
despair, and may aging... illness... death... sorrow, lamentation,
pain, distress, & despair not come to us.' But this is not to be
achieved by wanting. This is the stress of not getting what is wanted.
"And what are the five clinging-aggregates that, in short, are
stressful? The clinging-aggregate of form, the clinging-aggregate of
feeling, the clinging-aggregate of perception, the clinging-aggregate
of fabrications, the clinging-aggregate of consciousness: These are
called the five clinging-aggregates that, in short, are stressful.
"This, friends, is called the noble truth of stress.


Has Buddha attained Nirvana after death? It is said that the Buddha attained Nirvana after his death. But how do we know that it is true?  Are there any physical signs to recognize?

There is no physical signs of that and we can not verify it. Probably only enlightened beings (such as other buddhas) can verify this, so until we are enlightened we can't.

Btw, he also attained Nirvana before his death too. So-called nirvana with remainder.


Have Buddhas escaped samsara? Have Buddhas escaped samsara? Obviously there is the mainly Chinese term "non-abiding in nirvana". I'm interested in an answer from any tradition at all, and for enlightened non-Buddhas, too.

To be specific, I would like to know if when a Buddha dies they then suffer death, or whether their death is somehow something over and above the suffering of samsara.

I'm asking just because I think that's how I'd like the near eternal rounds of rebirth to end, perhaps with a little regret.

Cheers.

Regret requires aversion and ignorance. It's ignorance that makes one think that there's anything worth in Samsara to miss. Enlightened beings(Arahaths and Buddhas) have uprooted all defilements. So it's technically impossible for them to feel regret or sadness.


How anger is developed? Most of the time I experience the situations that provoke  my anger.
I hate people. How  to overcome  this?how  to let go anger?

Generally speaking anger can be the result of any/all of the three root kleshas. They are:

not knowing the full reason for our anger (moha)
holding on too hard to something (raga)
lacking compassion for others (dvesha)

Mindfulness can help easing the first two kleshas, by investigating the cause for your anger, and to examine whether your anger is caused because someone/something is getting in the way of your attachment.

Mindfulness can also help you identify any hindrances to develop understanding or non-attachment.

Lastly, metta bhavana meditation can also help in easing your anger, by developing warmth towards others (the opposite of anger, essentially), and by  seeing the others side of things. It may be helpful to both you and your surrounding, and can contribute to a more objective or balanced outlook on things.


Are there communities of practicing secular Buddhists? Religious groups are typically comprised of communities of practitioners who visit the temple/church a couple of times a week and practice together.  Is this true of secular Buddhism?  If so, Where are the largest communities?

Secular Buddhism is expressing itself in ways beyond the imagination. There are people in the virtual world Second Life that are practicing Buddhism virtually.
Secular Buddhist Association -- Supportive Virtual Buddhist Communities

There is talk of secular Buddhism all over the world.
(search for communities of secular Buddhists)

What seems significant is that secular Buddhism is taking off. I would say that people hunger for the Buddhist experience and practice without the masks of religion that various sects require its monks to wear. This is not the end to Buddhism but a glorious new beginning that is sustainable in modern culture.


Is there a point to delaying detrimental behaviours? I noticed that for me, it is very difficult to cease certain behaviours, such as eating junk food for example. Does Buddhism suggest a benefit to delaying such behaviours to later in the day, as opposed to early on? Is there an inherent benefit in delay, or does it change nothing, given the behaviour will have occurred that day anyways?
Is delay a viable strategy for urges?

Delay is not a viable strategy.
Instead you should use a wholesome mental reflection, in the spirit of the following sutta quote:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’
AN 5.57

There is a sutta quote about moderation in eating:

“When a man is always mindful,
knowing moderation in eating,
his discomfort diminishes,
and he ages slowly, taking care of his life.”
SN 3.13

Perhaps your mental reflection can be along the lines of reflecting on what long term suffering will be brought on by consumption of junk food. You will be the owner and heir to the consequences of this action.


What are benefits of being bald? Monks are bald because as I read somewhere that when person is bald he looks unattractive and so no one else attract towards it. So what are other benefits to being bald either for monks or layman?

It helps to identify you socially as a monk (as does the uniform clothing), so that people know when they see you, "that person can be identified as a monk".

At the same time it helps to alter, remove or hide your personal identity, e.g. as a person with an individual appearance such as hair color and hair style.

I suppose another practical benefit is that it's also clean and cool (an opposite extreme, for some non-Buddhist sramanas, was to not touch or cut their hair at all, so that it became long and matted).

So far as I know the practice pre-dates Buddhism: MN 26 says,

  So, at a later time, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life — and while my parents, unwilling, were crying with tears streaming down their faces — I shaved off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robe and went forth from the home life into homelessness.


Satipathanna Sutta and contemplating mind externally? More specifically, Buddha informs the Kurus thus:

"Contemplating mind internally. Contemplating mind externally. Contemplating mind both internally and externally"

How is one to contemplate the mind externally?

Additionally, in chapter 1 of the Shurangama sutra, the Buddha skillfully guides Ananda into locating his own mind by searching not just within the body but outside of the body. This throws Ananda and the other monks into mental and emotional upheaval (quite fascinating actually).

So, from the perspective of satipathanna sutta, is one to contemplate mind beyond the boundaries of the body?

Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga Khandhavibhaṅga:

Therein what is internal consciousness? That consciousness which, for this or that being, is personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped (by craving and false view), (i.e.) eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness. This is called internal consciousness.
Therein what is external consciousness? That consciousness which, for this or that other being, for other persons is personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped, (i.e.) eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness. This is called external consciousness.


Is contemplation of death auto-suggestion? Is doing contemplation of death  auto-suggestion to meditate ? is it working on my subconsciousness ? maybe i should just do auto suggestion telling my self many times to meditate - maybe its more effective ?

can i do my own version of death contemplation or should i say exactly the words in the sutta ?  if i can what are the guidelines that i should follow when make my own version ?

If i dont fear death and dont care to die - is it still useful ?

can i do death contemplation about people i care about ?

you can only answer some questions i asked or add something i didnt ask about which is related and can be helpful

Contemplating death achieves certain objectives and contemplation should be worded to realise the said objective though the wording can be different:

being fearless at the moment of death such that your last mind moment can be conducive to a better rebirth - hence contemplate along the lines that everyone will die including me, death is common to all. Is this form you can use other people like famous people, great people, powerful people, etc. who have died to re enforce that achievements do not stop death. In addition you can perhaps use living loved ones so you reduce your attachment to them so you will be less saddened when they actually die if you are to die before hand you will be able to let go of loved ones.
get the notion that time is running out hence attend to what needs attention without delay - hence contemplate along the lines that life is un certain, death is certain, hence be quick. This might be like auto suggestion to meditate. But auto suggestion to meditate will not achieve the same effectiveness as it does not embed the notion that time is limited, this limit is unknown and it is running out fast and death takes your ability to beat or win over death to achieve deathlessness. This notion fuels urgency and spiritual restlessness to practice. As a result this helps with eliminating or reducing procrastination.
letting go of possession and loved ones - hence contemplate along the lines that when I die I will not take anything or anyone with me and no one has in the past.

In devising your own wording, keep it short, sweet / easy to mentally recite (rhyming / rhythmic), to the point, in a language you understand.

Also see: How do I do "contemplation of death" meditation? And is it dangerous?


Do some, all, or no Mahayanists claim that we are all "bodhisattvas"? Do some, all, or no Mahayanists claim that we are all "bodhisattvas"? Obviously, those influenced by the Lotus sutra claim that we are all -- at least potentially -- Buddhas. But I'm unclear about the word "bodhisattva", whether anyone at all can rightfully claim they are a bodhisattva.
For example, I think I'm aware of some ch'an Buddhists, which was deeply influenced by the 'one vehicle', saying that we progress through stages, only being bodhisattvas after abandoning the three vehicles. But perhaps this is skilful means, and not at all the case?

As i understand it they think that those who do a ceremonial ritual of taking the Bodhisatta vows become Bodhisattas. I may be wrong tho.


How to overcome guilt I am interested in knowing what the Buddha said about guilt. I think I know that it is an unwholesome mind state. Is there any specific teaching that can be gleaned from the suttas. Can anyone also recommend any meditation or contemplation practices to get over crippling guilt.

Within the Vinaya, a transgression (one that causes guilt or not) is overcome by declaring it to at least one monk.. The length of time it takes to overcome the transgression was set at the length of time the transgression was kept secret (keep some wrongdoing secret for a year, it is easy to imagine you won't just be able to consciously brush it off in one day!).

The quote on fools and wise people does this idea justice for me:

  "Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his
  transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully
  pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are
  fools.

  These two are wise people. Which two? The one who sees his
  transgression as a transgression, and the one who rightfully pardons
  another who has confessed his transgression. These two are wise
  people." AN 2.21

(also, has always worked for me on a personal level - admitting wrongdoing and guilt, preferably in a non-secretive, open setting to others is usually the best way of admitting this to your self, and therefore starting the process of changing yourself for the better)


What should we accept? What should we let go? What is it to let go in Buddhism?
What is it to accept in Buddhism?
What are the things we accept?
What are the things we let go?

Why?
How?

What do Buddhists scriptures have to say about it?

What is it to let go in Buddhism?
Is that the Noble Truths?
So

recognise suffering
associate that with (recognise that as arising with) craving and attaching
let go

It's also a past-tense, is it, i.e. -- "suffering having been known in the past, it was dropped".
What is it to accept in Buddhism?
I'm not sure it is -- does acceptance imply a specific view of a specific "thing" accepted (which may be contrary to the doctine of things being empty), also of a "me" doing the accepting?
Realistically, though, maybe monks accept what "necessary" (i.e. the "requisites").
There's also conventional wisdom (to be accepted) -- like from here:

And what is wrong view?

'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

This is wrong view...

So an excess of "nothing exists" is wrong too.
So I suppose that "accepting" in Buddhism is, at least, not rejecting being kind and so on.
What are the things we accept?
Should accept good advice, probably.
What are the things we let go?
Bad habits. And heedlessness.
Why?
How?
Liberation from suffering -- personal welfare and the welfare of others.


How to intentionally move to second jhana I have mastered the 1st and wish to move now to the second. But all the books and sources online confuse me. Some say it happen naturally other say it's something you can focus on to bring about the second jhana like thoughts on how unpleasant the 1st is. So how can i summon the second at will?

Ajahn Brahm gives a very nice explanation about how to get into higher Jhnanas. Imagine that you are in a long corridor with soap water on the floor and you play the game where you come running and slide on the slope water in order to get to another side of the corridor. In this case, the more energy you will slide within the beginning the farther you will get, and in all process, you have to Let-go. So as per my information, you have to further Let-go, to get there. You cannot summon it with the will, the will has to be dropped.

I will recommend you to read Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond by Ajahn Brahm -- that will answer the question in great detail.

And maybe this will help: The Basic Method of Meditation (by Ajahn Brahm)


Did Pudgalavada Buddhists claim the the "person" existed between lives and / or in one life? Did Pudgalavada Buddhists claim the the "person" existed between lives and / or in one life?

The Pudgalavadins were an old school of Buddhists who thought there was a person. I'm currently unclear whether that is ultimately, in the sense that Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists use the term 'ultimate'.

They debated about this with e.g. the Vibhajyavada sect, which I think later became Theravada Buddhism. You can read about the canonical dismissal of it in Theravada Buddhism in the 1st chapter of their Kathavatthu.

To clarify, one of my links say

  It is this self, they maintained, that dies and is reborn through
  successive lives in Samsara, continuing to exist until enlightenment
  is attained.

Is this the same person, each life?

I would not go as far as to call Pudgalavada "a school", as with most early Buddhism there were people who held certain position, that later received a name and was used for comparison with mainstream traditions.

If I remember correctly, Pudgalavadins claimed that person exists for all practical intents and purposes, so I think that means conventional existence, not ultimate. You should be able to find more details on Pudgalavada in Ch. 9 of Abhidharmakosa-Bhasya of Vasubandhu. See this for a quick summary - pp. 89-91:

  The Pudgalavadins introduce the notion that persons are conceived on the basis of the skandhas as fire is conceived in reliance upon fuel without being other than or the same in existence as fuel.
  Pudgalavadins assert that in addition to phenomena that are conditioned & unconditioned (samskrta/asamskrta),
  impermanent and permanent (anitya/nitya), the 12 ayatanas, the 18 dhatus, etc., there are, in addition, phenomena that are
  inexplicable (avakrtavya). For the Pudgalavadins, conventional realities may be substantially established (as they are for the
  Vaibhasikas) or inexplicable. Inexplicable entities are entities without separate identities – they are neither the same as, nor
  different from, the skandhas. The Pudgalavadins reject the logic that everything is either substantially real or substantially
  established. Inexplicable persons are conventional realities insofar as they are conceived in dependence upon the skandhas,
  but ultimately exist insofar as they exist apart from being conceived. Persons are single entities without separate identities, an
  inexplicable unity.
  The Pudgalavadins maintain that the person is perceived through an inexplicable
  perception incidental to a consciousness perceiving its proper object. It is an inexplicable perception because it is neither the
  same nor different from the perception of the object.
  The basic attitude of Vasubandhu, and others, toward
  the Pudgalavadins is that in their theory of persons, it can appear that the person is substantially real, despite attempts by the
  Pudgalavadins to refute this attribution.

Mahayana, in particular Tibetan Nyingma tradition, insists that to say that person conventionally exists still leaves the mind grasping after the person, so more for didactic than for analytical purposes they say that there is no person is the right view. See "Mipham's Beacon of Certainty" (Mipham uses the traditional rhetoric of "snake", "vase" etc. but what he means is person, or entity in the broad sense)

Also see Satyasiddhisastra of Harivarman pages 67-74 for various other views around Pudgala and their refutations. As of late I consider Satyasiddhisastra a key text providing the missing link between Early Buddhism and Mahayana, with Abhidharmakosa and Mulamadhyamakakarika correspondingly on one and the other sides of the divide (conceptually, not chronologically).


Do we have to believe that good people exists? Is thinking that there are no good people / followers of five precepts in this world a wrong view? I read this in some where but I forgotten it.
It is hard to see that kind of people other than Buddhist monks. This is a reason for some people to not to follow buddhism. Some times I feel the same way. Is this a wrong view? Do you meet real Buddhists in real life other than monks?
I always try to remember that the metaphor of lotus pond.
Kind regards.

If we may agree that good requires the skillful, then:

AN3.69:9.1: There are these three skillful roots.
What three?
Contentment, love, and understanding.

Contentment, love, and understanding are worth cultivating for their own sake without needing to assess others. Indeed, the Buddha says quite clearly that:

MN8:12.12: ‘Others will have wrong view, but here we will have right view.’

Good people acting out of contentment, love and understanding are to be found in all faiths. Good people inspire us all.


Does Pure Land Buddhism ever have a Buddha other than Amitābha as the object of devotion? Does Pure Land Buddhism ever have a Buddha other than Amitābha as the object of devotion? Or is Pure Land Buddhism by definition a devotion to Amitābha and an aspiration to be reborn in his pure land? I'm aware there are a lot of other Buddhas so I just wondered if they were ever the focus of this tradition.

Amitābha Buddha has two attendant bodhisattvas: Avalokiteśvara and  Mahāsthāmaprāpta and they all are present in meditations based on visualisation used in the Pure Land Buddhism (as well as in Vajrayana).


The "conventional" self - in what way can it be accepted? Buddhist writers, such as Joseph Goldstein and Thupten Jinpa, say that although the self is not intrinsically real, that we still accept the "conventional" idea of self. For example:

  If we arrive at the knowledge that the self at which we grasp is empty, we may imagine this means that we as individuals with personal identities do not exist.
  But of course this is not the case--our own personal experiences demonstrate that we as subjects and agents of our own lives, we certainly exist.
  So how then do we understand the content of this insight into absence of Self?
  What follows from this insight?
  We must be very clear that only the self that is being grasped as
  intrinsically real needs to be negated. The self as a conventional
  phenomenon is not rejected.
  This is a crucial aspect of the Buddha's teaching on emptiness.
  Without understanding this distinction, one cannot fully understand the meaning of no-self.

If we believe anatta, then how, specifically, can the "conventional" self be accepted? Do they mean we only pretend that the illusion of self is real in order to talk to people in everday language? Or is there some part of the concept of self that even Buddhism cannot reject?

The usage of the word 'self' in a conventional sense is the same as the usage of the word 'chair'. There's nothing intrinsic in the material it is made of that makes a chair a chair. But the usage of concepts are useful in day to day life for the purpose of identifying functions.


What is the role of relics in Buddhism? I recently learned about an episode of Chinese history when relics associated to the Buddha were relocated to China and Han Yu writes to the Chinese Emperor in a text titled "Memorial Discussing the Buddha's Bone" (PDF), expressing his disagreement with the Emperor's decision to pay his respects to the relics.

I don't quite understand the significance of this event, because I don't understand the role or significance of relics in Buddhism.

What was the role or significance of relics for 9th century Chinese Buddhists and what role do relics play in contemporary Buddhism?

After The Buddha's death, his ashes are said to have been divided into eight portions. Source:Wikipedia

The cause of arising of the Buddha’s relics was from the desire of our Lord Buddha before his Parinibbāna (the Great Decease of the Buddha).
Normally, the Buddha who lived a long life to settle the Buddhist Legend, had his own relics in a piece of natural golden bar, which could not be shared among the people in their Buddha period and could not be placed anywhere. Hence the construction of the Buddhist sanctuary was required to be done in one place only. Our present Lord Buddha (Sakyamuni Buddha) considered that his teaching period was only 45 years which he thought not too much compared with the previous Buddhas. He also thought that his instructions were not expanded enough and taught to those who were not yet born on time in his legend. Anyone who received his relics for respecting would get a lot of Puñña (the accumulation of good blessing, fortune or well-being) so he wished that his relics be scattered to all directions except 7 pieces (1 frontal bone, 4 teeth and 2 collarbones).
All of the above mentioned information was presented identically such as in the Sumaṅgalavilāsinī, Paṭhama Sambodhi Kathā by the Supreme Patriarch Kromphra Paramānujitajinorasa, Mulasāsanā Scripture, Jinakalamalipakaranam by Ven. Ratanapañña Thera and Phrachaolieplok Scripture.

Source:The history of the arising of Buddha’s relics
If you want to know more depth details, Please read Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha

Eight portions there were of the relics of him, The All-Seeing One, the greatest of men. Seven in Jambudipa are honored, and one In Ramagama, by kings of the Naga race. One tooth is honored in the Tavatimsa heaven, One in the realm of Kalinga, and one by the Naga kings. Through their brightness this bountiful earth With its most excellent gifts is endowed; For thus the relics of the All-Seeing One are best honored By those who are worthy of honor — by gods and Nagas And lords of men, yea, by the highest of mankind. Pay homage with clasped hands! For hard indeed it is Through hundreds of ages to meet with an All-Enlightened One!


Sensory Deprivation tank Have you heard of sensory deprivation tanks? This is a tank which is supposed to be soundproofed and dark, and which would hold a little water for a person to float in. The idea is for the conditions inside the tank to allow a person to enter a place where they can avoid all bodily sensation. Still not for creating aversion to the body/bodily sensations, is this type of experience valuable in the practice of meditation? Would you yourself consider trying this experience for yourself?

Sure. Meditation is a mental activity which means it can be done anywhere at anytime. It doesn't matter if you're on a bus, in your room, or in a deprivation tank.

So is a deprivation tank valuable? Sure! People today and in ancient times have always used sensory deprivation techniques to further their mind. Today, people still use ancient forms of sensory deprivation techniques such as retreats into caves, living in dark rooms, living underground to avoid sound and light, sitting in one place for a pro-long length of time, etc... The only downfall for deprivation tanks is that you can't live inside them. Otherwise, I could see it being beneficial. Though long-term sensory deprivation techniques should NOT be used by beginner practitioners. Your mind will begin to hallucinate after 2 - 3 days of continues deprivation. If you're not trained to handle the mind under these conditions it can be scary, strange, and confusing if you're not prepared to face it. The only kind of teachers I would trust in doing such an extreme meditation practice (myself being a zen practitioner) would be the  Buddhist Lama's living in Tibet. They are very intelligent, hard-core, and specialize in matters concerning the subconscious mind.

Here is a video of a group of men and women Hallucinating after a few days of visual sensory deprivation.


Can we use Piti as a meditation subject? Can we use Piti as a meditation subject?
There are 40 meditation objects are given in Visuddhimagga as follows.
Ten recollections; ten foul objects; ten kasinas; four sublime abidings; four formless absorptions; one resolution into elements; and one perception of the filthiness of food.
My question is whether we can keep four form absorptions as a meditation objects, but specifically Piti as a meditation object.

Anything can be used as an object of meditation.  Hell, you could use a chocolate cake if it tickled your fancy.  But just because you can use anything, it doesn't mean that you should.  The best objects are those that are consistent, stable, repeatedly accessible, and don't give rise to additional mental formations.  The breath is most often used because it checks all of those boxes quite easily.  Piti can meet those same requirements, but until you hit the 1st jhana, it is entirely too unstable and inconsistent.  It can also give rise to clinging and attachment which would ultimately prevent you from moving past the 2nd jhana.


Going from a waking state into the dream state while being conscious I just listened to a audio dhamma talk by Ajahn Punnadhammo. Its called "Stop thinking" and can be found here.

In the last 5 minutes of the talk Ajahn Punnadhammo mentions some good exercises for learning about reality. He says that a good exercise is to try to be conscious while entering the dream state from waking state because the stages of falling asleep exactly mirror  the stages of dying! He says its like a sneak preview of what happens when one dies.

My question is; if one trains in this and succeeds in being aware and conscious throughout the death process and into the next life will one then be able to remember the previous (this) life?

Thank you for your time.

Lanka

If one is truly mindful during the process of death, then one of two possibilities exist; either one will pass away into complete liberation as an enlightened being or, if there is still some substratum of clinging, one will be reborn as a deva or brahma and be fully conscious of one's previous life.


Why is Kwan Yin riding a sea turtle? And maybe to save two related questions, why does Samantabhadra ride an elephant and Majursri ride a lion?

I was meditating with Kwan Yin statute and that was the main distraction, I had no idea why Kwan Yin is on a sea turtle.

Okay, I did my own research and here is what I've come up with so far. Interestingly, the artist is making a reference to this Pali suttra:

  "Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water,
  and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from
  the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east.
  A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would
  push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would
  come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you
  think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every
  one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?"
  "It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle,
  coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his
  neck into the yoke with a single hole."

  "It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state.
  It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly
  self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer coincidence
  that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the
  world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy &
  rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine &
  discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.

  "Therefore your duty is the contemplation: 'This is stress...This is
  the origination of stress...This is the cessation of stress...This is
  the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"

http://uwf.edu/wmikulas/webpage/leaves/website/canon/samyutta/sn56-48.html

Other Bodhisattvas and Buddhas are often described as riding a particular animal.

Samantabhadra is explicitly described as riding an elephant in his sutra. Samantabhadra's elephant appears to be another awe inspiring flourish. (At least from my reading of the excerpt of Samantabhadra Meditation Sūtra in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia says of Manjusri and his lion: "Mañjuśrī is often depicted as riding on a blue lion, or sitting on the skin of a lion. This represents the use of wisdom to tame the mind, which is compared to riding or subduing a ferocious lion." Wikipedia doesn't explain why the lions, but elsewhere it's suggested that lions were sort a family symbol of the Sakyas, or it's just a reference to the pali sutra about "The lions Roar", ref: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel390.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakyasimha


What is this electric feeling I have like an electric current passing through my body during meditation. It is like in the whole body or maybe not just in the body like in my sphere. It is a fine-tuned electric current that comes for a couple of seconds. It stops for a fraction of a second and there is nothing and then it starts again. It feels like it is changing direction.
It is not unpleasant it just is. What is this? What can I do with it?

It may be piti, an emotion that can be aroused during meditation.

It can also be a phenomenon accompanying meditation, since a lot of different unusual sensations can appear as a mere side effect.

...or it may be something else buddhism doesn't have a saying about. Meditation clears the path for a lot of things.


What is the difference between 'hard' and 'soft' Jhanas? I have on a few occasions come across the distinction between a 'hard' and 'soft' Jhana and would like to know what the experiential distinction between these two terms might be.

Here is a quote on the terms "Hard and Soft Jhana" from the book "Mastering The Core Teachings Of The Buddha" by Daniel M. Ingram, p. 136-137:

  "Many traditions use the breath as the primary object initially and then shift to the qualities of the states themselves as the object of meditation when they arise and the concentration is strong. The quality of a jhana can either be “soft” or “hard” depending on how solidly one is in the state. In soft jhana, the qualities of that particular state are definitely recognizable in a way that is different from the ordinary experience of those qualities to the degree that we are confident we are in the altered state defined by those qualities.
  ￼￼￼￼￼￼

  Concentration vs. Insight

  In really hard jhana, it feels as if our mind has been fused to those
  qualities and the object with super glue, as if we were nothing but a solid block or field of those qualities or that object, as if they and the object were the whole world with nothing else remaining. Getting into really “hard” jhana states dramatically increases the beneficial effects of the practice, though it takes greater strength of concentration and usually requires more favorable practice conditions to do so. Taking the beneficial factors of the jhana solely as the object of concentration is helpful for this, as can be using an easily identified external object such as a candle flame or colored disk."


Is Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spence ,a good book to study Buddhism? I have found hard to get stories and teachings of Buddha in the book Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spence.

Is Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spence, a good book to study Buddhism?

Though I'm not familiar with that book, it's clear that the best books from which to learn about Buddhism in English have all been written within the past 40 years. The Dharma has taken root in the West, and you can learn from Western Buddhist masters fluent in Western culture, which makes their words easier to understand.


Ideal Experience in Buddhism Sometimes, I tell myself that a moment wherein I'm devoid of craving, ignorance and aversion is a moment inherently good. I tell myself that if I remove the addictive (and aversive) states within myself , then the right choices within my experience will naturally be made.

So, with the example of social media -- which is addictive for me -- I cannot easily pay mindfulness while doing this activity. However, I view every other moment free of affliction as naturally and effortlessly conducive to mindfulness. While doing almost anything that is not afflicted in terms of mental state, mindfulness and curiosity towards experience leads to diverse virtuous results.

Oddly, however, I do not get attached to such virtuous experiences, but return to addictive and pleasurable states. It's like an irony: what is detrimental is naturally addictive and what is wise and virtuous more difficult.

QUESTION 1: Is this view of a 'normal' affliction-free state -- i.e. not a meditative absorption or compassion filled state -- as virtuous correct? Just normal awareness?

QUESTION 2: Wouldn't virtuous states, perhaps in time, become addictive in themselves? For now, they are more akin to equanimity, whereas I'm neither drawn or averse to them. Or, would they remain like equanimity?

Thank you.

Eggman,

One starts to get free of addiction simply by keeping Silas: abstain, if there is no real penetration to right view (stress, cause, cessation, path).

It is pointless to try again and again a "short-cut". And there is no such as gaining world and Nibbana together. All undertakings to build equanimity around the cause without removing it, lead to even bigger unpleasant results.

Do the work to be done! and keep precepts.

It has it's cause, it's reason, why one falls in bad realms, becomes a hungry ghost.

If caught there, in the realm of hungry ghost, in internet: Use the practice of Mindfulness practice and meditation in Googlyana, starting with Silas.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


samatha after vipassana Can one correctly practice anapanasati when one is very used to Mahasi vipassana?

How? Why?

  Can one correctly practice vipassana when one is very used to anapanasati or any other samatha practice?

How? Why?

  A person who is used to vipassana is supposed to turn off the habit of seeing things as they are? Can vipassana be useful during anapanasati or would it be more of a distraction to onepointed consentration?

How? Why?

OP: Simultaneous vipassana & samatha - in this version of the question

(Yuga,naddha) Paṭipadā Sutta mention there are 4 types of practitioners:

  (1) “insight preceded by calm” - samatha,pubb’angama vipassanā

  (2) “calm preceded by insight” - vipassana,pubb’angama samatha

  (3) “calm coupled with insight” - samatha,vipassana,yuga.naddha

  (4) “a mind seized by dharma-restlessness” - dhamm’uddhacca,viggahita manasa

Practising Samatha and Vipassana together is:

  (3) “calm coupled with insight” - samatha,vipassana,yuga.naddha

Regardless of which practice you start with, both Samatha and Vipassana is needed to reach the ultimate goal:

(Mūla) Samatha Vipassanā Sutta

Also, it is best one allocate time for both:

Catu Kāla Sutta 1

Also, vipassana practises (body contemplation - breath meditation, posture, movement, body parts, elements, corpse) leads to Samadhi as per Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta:

  As he dwells thus diligent, exertive, resolute, his memories and thoughts of the household life are
  abandoned. With their abandoning, his mind steadies itself internally, settles, becomes one, attains samadhi [becomes concentrated].

  In this way, bhikshus, a monk cultivates mindfulness regarding the body.

Which intern leads to the 6 super knowledges:

Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta

Edit:

  OP: samatha after vipassana

This is:

  (1) “insight preceded by calm” - samatha,pubb’angama vipassanā

.

  OP: Can one correctly practice anapanasati when one is very used to vipassana?

Anapanasati is also a form of vipassana which takes you to the highest goal of Nibbana.

Source: Anapanasati

  Can one correctly practice vipassana when one is very used to anapanasati or any other samatha practice?

If you are skilled in Vipassana it is recommended to seek a Samatha teacher and practice Samatha:

Source: (Samatha Vipassanā) Samādhi Sutta 3

(Samādhi) Bala Sutta describes how one should develop skills in Samatha:

  OP: A person who is used to vipassana is supposed to turn off the habit of seeing things as they are?

No, not necessarily:

  Even this first dhyana is (mentally) constructed [mind-made], intentionally formed.

  What is
  constructed and intentionally formed is impermanent, subject to ending.

  If he is steady therein, he attains the destruction of the mental influxes.

Similarly in other Jhanas as given in Aṭṭhaka,nāgara Sutta

Here one sees the true nature of things while doing Samatha/Samadhi.

Also, Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta discusses the teachings in concise form, mentions the practice of mindfulness with Jhana ultimately resulting in full enlightenment:

  When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then you should train yourself thus:

  “I will dwell exertive, clearly aware, mindful,

  observing [contemplating] [body | feeling | mind | dhamma] the in the [body | feeling | mind | dhamma],

  removing covetousness and displeasure [discontent] in regard to the world.”

  Thus, bhikshu, you should train yourself.

  When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then, you, bhikshu,

  THE 1 ST DHYANA:

  should cultivate this samadhi with initial application, with sustained application;

  should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, with only sustained application;

  THE 2 ND DHYANA:

  should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, without sustained application;

  should cultivate this samadhi with zest;

  THE 3RD DHYANA:

  should cultivate this samadhi zest-free;

  should cultivate this samadhi attended by comfort;

  THE 4 TH DHYANA:

  should cultivate this samadhi attended by equanimity.

Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta

  OP: Can vipassana be useful during anapanasati or would it be more of a distraction to onepointed consentration?

Each triad corresponds to a Satipattana, which is Vipassana.

The last triad of Anapanasathis is explicitly to see things as they are which is vipassana:

Source: Ānâpāna,sati Sutta

Essentially one is doing Vipassana when one is doing Anapanasati.

The need of Samadhi in tandem is evident from the following Suttas.

Also, a meditation how can attain and also have a theoretical understanding of Samadhi is the foremost meditator:

Samādhi Samāpatti Sutta. Similar one who understands Samadhi can remain in Samadhi is the foremost:

Samādhi Mūlaka Ṭhiti Sutta

Similarly, one who understands and skilful in emerging from Samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Vuṭṭhāna Sutta

Similarly, one who understands samadhi and is fitfor Samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Kallita Sutta

Similarly, one who is understands samadhi and is skilled in the concentration object is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Ārammaṇa Sutta

Similarly, one who understands and resorts to samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Go,cara Sutta

Similarly, one who understands and has resolution in samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Abhinīhāra Sutta

Similarly, one who understands and care about samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Sakkacca,kārī Sutta

Similarly, one understands and is committed to samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Sātacca,kārī Sutta

Similarly, one who understands and is skilled in what is suitable regarding samadhi is the foremost meditator. - Samādhi Mūlaka Sappāya,kārī Sutta

Following skills:

Himavanta Sutta. Also Vasa Suttā which includes theoretical knowledge.

And the following masteries are useful:


Do Arahants have Vinnana and Namarupa? Do Arahants have Vinnana and Namarupa?
According to Dependent Origination, Namarupa is the result of Vinnana. It appears Vinnana is the contributory factor for six sense base which eventually leads to rebirth. Hence Arahant will not be re-born then the question come whether they have Vinnana and Namarupa.

First of all, it is incorrect to say "arhats have vijnana (etc)". The word "have" implies someone who has, but in case of an arhat there's no entity, no one to "have" vijnana. The right way to phrase this question is to say: In case of an arhat, are there vijnana and namarupa?"

Second, an arhat will not be reborn exactly because there is no entity to be reborn, and this realization is part of cessation of ignorance which normally keeps the Twelve Nidanas rolling.

Third, in this context vijnana and namarupa refer to nidanas, not to skandhas. The twelve nidanas describe the process of gradual taking shape and hardening of a certain subjective world and the person living in it. Vijnana and namarupa refer to early stages of this process. First, there develops a tendency to recognize and discriminate, and from that tendency appear various objects and entities. That's what vijnana and namarupa refer to in context of twelve nidanas. They refer to the naive, ignorant discrimination and to the illusory entities that it delineates.

In case of an arhat, the discernment is no longer ignorant and it therefore does not posit illusory entities. Buddha clearly said, with cessation of ignorance, there's cessation of tendencies, with cessation of tendencies there's cessation of vijnana etc. This refers to cessation of naive, ignorant automatic discrimination which contrives objects and then believes they are absolutely ontologically real.

So we are not saying that the skandhas disappear with attainment of arhathood, not at all. Arhathood is cessation of nidanas, the causal chain that leads to emergence and hardening of the illusory world and the illusory self.

And of course arhats are not mindless dummies. In case of an arhat there's a function of right discernment. This function is called prajna. The object of this discernment is yatabhuta, things as they truly are. This refers first and foremost to seeing samskaras as samskaras, instead of the fixed entities. Because samskaras are seen as samskaras, they are seen as Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta, and at Mahayana level, as Shunya.

So the short answer is, no, in case of an arhat there's no vijnana and namarupa - there's prajna and samskara/shunyata.


Why is there so little emphasis on "mundane" mindfulness? Mindfulness has been getting some bad press of late, seemingly fallout from a wave of people selling mindfulness products that make all kinds of claims.  Note that this is not the only article on this subject I've come across.

It bothers me that in these valid critiques (the clinical analysis on mindfulness is still in progress, so the conclusions promoted by profit-motivated hucksters is warranted,) I never see mention the mundane benefits of the basic practice of mindfulness.

Meditation and concentration on breathing are all well and good--I utilize them myself, and find them particularly helpful in times of stress or extremity--but my most common practices of mindfulness are not related to the present experience of suffering, but avoidance of suffering thought mindful interaction with in the mundane sphere:

I haven't lost my wallet or car keys in decades because I am always mindful not to put them on a table when I'm out, and always put them in the same place when I come home
I always check for traffic before crossing the street, particularly bike lanes, a mindfulness habit I've been cultivating since I was a small child, but especially since a close call with a hurtling bus
I am aware of where my body is in space and it's relationship to other bodies, on the sidewalk, in venues, etc., which allows me to navigate efficiently and reduces the probability of being attacked

What gives?  Are the practical, mundane benefits of mindfulness simply not emphasized, and if so, why?

What gives? Are the practical, mundane benefits of mindfulness simply not emphasized, and if so, why?

The Buddha's Teaching is about ending suffering completely, ie. to reach Nibbana. Sure there are mundane benefits but that is not really the goal of following the Noble Eightfold Path. Freeing oneself from the cycle of rebirth is.


Is there an anicca→anatta→dukkha description of the three marks? That is to say, I only remember of the pattern of  anicca→dukkha→anatta (that which is impermanent and unsatisfactory cannot be considered Self, to paraphrase) in the suttas. Is there an argument that progresses from anicca to anatta (and then to dukkha), directly?

No. The idea of anicca→anatta→dukkha is common on the internet, particularly on DW.

The characteristic of 'unsatisfactoriness' ('dukkha') is directly related to impermanence (anicca) given the Buddha asked in SN 22.59: "Can that which is impermanent bring (lasting) happiness?"

  Yaṃ panāniccaṃ, dukkhaṃ vā taṃ sukhaṃ vā'ti? SN 22.59

Also, the realisations of anicca & dukkha were used to support the realisation of anatta.

Also, the realisation of 'anatta' brings liberation rather than 'dukkha'.

Therefore, the idea of anicca→anatta→dukkha has no basis in the teachings.

To be free from doubt here, the following suttas which mentioned dukkha with anicca, alone:

  If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
  form is impermanent; what is impermanent is dukkha (unsatisfactory); what is
  dukkha has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
  Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
  impermanent is dukkha; what is dukkha has ceased and passed
  away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”

  “Good, good, friend Yamaka!

  SN 22.85

  Yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ; yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā

  What is impermanent is dukkhaṃ. What is dukkhaṃ is nonself.

  SN 22.45 & 46

  Soṇa, when any ascetics and brahmins, on the basis of form—which is
  impermanent, suffering, and subject to change—regard themselves
  thus....

  SN 22.49

  Bhikkhus, attend carefully to form. Recognize the impermanence of form
  as it really is. When a bhikkhu attends carefully to form and
  recognizes the impermanence of form as it really is, he experiences
  revulsion towards form...

  SN 22.52

  He does not understand as it really is impermanent form as
  ‘impermanent form’ … impermanent feeling as ‘impermanent feeling’ …
  impermanent perception as ‘impermanent perception’ … impermanent
  volitional formations as ‘impermanent volitional formations’ …
  impermanent consciousness as ‘impermanent consciousness.’

  Dukkhaṃ rūpaṃ ‘dukkhaṃ rūpan’ti yathābhūtaṃ nappajānāti, dukkhaṃ
  vedanaṃ … dukkhaṃ saññaṃ … dukkhe saṅkhāre … dukkhaṃ viññāṇaṃ ‘dukkhaṃ
  viññāṇan’ti yathābhūtaṃ nappajānāti.

  He does not understand as it really is painful form as ‘painful form’
  … painful feeling as ‘painful feeling’ … painful perception as
  ‘painful perception’ … painful volitional formations as ‘painful
  volitional formations’ … painful consciousness as ‘painful
  consciousness.’

  SN 22.55

  “Bhikkhu, you should abandon desire for whatever is dukkhaṃ.” … SN
  22.67