What's the relationship between effort and zazen? I'm currently reading Zen Mind Beginners Mind which I am enjoying. However when I read Zen books I'm always confused about the role of effort in zazen practice. Reading the book it makes it seem like there is no effort involved. In one sense I can subscribe to this. However if zazen was truly effortless then everyone would be doing zazen most of the time. That seems like a flawed conclusion to me. Can anyone help me with how effort relates to zazen please.

As someone who has practiced zazen (in the Rinzai tradition) for many years, I will second Michael's answer.  That very much describes how I meditate.  You have to lift and apply the mind in meditation otherwise, well, otherwise you tend to fall asleep.  ;-)  Too much effort (like forcefully eliminating thoughts and 'crushing' the mind on the meditation object) is also a bad idea.  The approach might be slightly different for the Soto lineage (and the language your book uses seems to suggest a Soto bent).  Still, I highly doubt there's that much difference in how the mind is engaged while sitting.

One thing to remember is that Zen is heavily influenced by Taoism.  You might want to tangentially exploring the concept of non-effort by reading up on the Taoist concept of wu wei.  Sometimes it helps to explore a similar idea from a different avenue.


Lay arahants mentioned in the Pali Canon Following are the instances of Lay Arahants that I'm aware of;

Uggasena the acrobat
Santati the King Pasenadi's Minister
King Suddodhana [Looking for reference]

 What are the other instances of lay arahants (excluding Paccekabuddhas)  in the  recorded history?

Ven Bahiya.  Buddha proclaimed him great disciple of fast learner of Dhamma.  He reached enlightenment while was a lay person, however, he was killed while looking for personal items to join the Sangha.  Buddha classified him as one of the 41 great Bhikku.


What effect does mindfulness have on dependent origination? What is the relationship between the three poisons of attachment, aversion, and delusion (Pali: lobha, dosa, moha) on one hand and the three links of ignorance, craving and clinging (Pali: avijja, taṇha, upadana) in the chain of dependent origination on the other hand? Does mindfulness have an effect on that?

The three poisons is what pollutes karma and turns it into asava. This polluted karma causes differentiation/hardening of the phenomenal world as well as of the inner world.

The three poisons are the first inkling of the "sentient being", accumulated in/as sankhara. Sankhara is what later develops into skandhas, from that grows bhava, which eventually culminates in "I am this guy".

The wrong mindfulness (in terms of "objects" and "I", opinions, side taking, self-interest, any kind of ego-centric thinking) - serves to keep the fire burning.

The right mindfulness (in terms of the four immeasurables and Bodhicitta, altruism, objective good, impersonal perspective) - leads to awakening and liberation.

Any action that is permeated with personal desire/attachment, personal aversion, any personal attitude - is polluted and leads to becoming.

Right mindfulness is cultivation of impersonal perspective. It leads to decrease of craving, obsessing, personal-goal-making, polluted action, reification, and identification.


Do insects feel less pain and humans more? Buddha has asked to refrain from killing. However if small insects do not feel any pain then what is the harm in killing them?

To simply put :  Do insects feel less pain and humans more ?

The purpose of the precept is to protect you and lift you up in terms of virtue (sila).

Undertaking the first precept of not killing is about changing YOUR state of mind.

It's so that YOU become compassionate, wishing for happiness of other beings, and not have violent and harmful tendencies.

Cultivation of virtues also has the effect of freedom from remorse, which leads to enlightenment. This is according to AN 11.1.

Also, please see this answer.


Polyamory in Buddhism What does Buddhism say about polyamory? By polyamory I mean a consensual romantic relationship that involves more than two adult people, which may or may not involve sexual contact.

Is it wholesome, unwholesome or neutral? Is it any different than a romantic relationship between two people? Do different branches or traditions have different views on this subject?

What does Buddhism say about polyamory?

Buddhism is not conserned with the title of the romantic relationship or the sexual orientation of the partners in it.

Buddhism goes much deeper than that, it looks instead at the defilements that are connected with romantic relationships, e.g. "lust, craving, desire, jealousy, hatred etc."

  Is it any different than a romantic relationship between two people?

It is not. The above mentioned defilements, are the same no matter what kind of romantic relationship we are talking about.

  Is it wholesome, unwholesome or neutral?

According to the Abhidhamma, there are 52 mental factors (cetasikas). 14 of these are unwholesome mental factors, among those are "hatred, jealousy, avarice, craving". They are of course also part of the 3 root defilements, i.e. greed, hatred and delusion.

If one or more of these mental factors are present, it becomes unwholesome.

  Do different branches or traditions have different views on this subject?

Good question. I do not have an answer to that. I would think that it's the same opinion, since we are dealing with the root defilements. I might be wrong about this though.


Buddhism and entrepreneurship Question

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the coordination of Buddhism and success in building business.

Context

Throughout my life, I have been provided guidance by Buddhist literature, sutras, and meditation. As an adult layperson, I felt I was doing myself a disservice and holding my spiritual development back by working on Buddhism alone in a vacuum. I realized I had no idea about 33% of the Three Jewels (the Sangha!), because I had never had a community or mentor.

It was the best decision I could have made. Although my local community didn't have any representation of the flavor of study which speaks to me most directly (madhyamika) -- "the teaching is the raft"! I got to think and talk about Buddhism with very smart and compassionate people. It gave me clarity and a sense of belonging to attend services and clean the temple. Additionally, to my surprise, some people really enjoyed the things I had to say.

Ok, so what?

Now things are different. I'm a man on a mission to success for my partners, my investors, and my team who all depend on me. This mission involves building lots of expensive technology that provides incredible value to people who need it.

I won't bore you with the details but for me it means means reams of legal liabilities, huge swings in uncertainty, building teams and providing tech leadership in extremely competitive markets.

I cannot imagine such a thing being possible without spiritual discipline. I have become better, more compassionate, a better communicator, and when practical and ethical issues arise, I feel like solutions exist that are derived from non-attachment that are real -- and they provide clarity and direction. I require that we treat our team members with compassion, refraining from false speech (teamwork, marketing and sales), and avoid taking what is not given (intellectual property, competition, finance).

Of course, it is irrelevant that this series of thoughtful steps conducive to everyone's happiness is called by me by some name. I certainly would hope that this isn't pushing my "religion" upon our organization, at least as it is understood in colloquial terms.

Realistically: this is the most effective, and in fact the only decision-making framework I am familiar with for producing a lifestyle suitable for a human being to live inside.

Finally

Well-meaning members of my sangha remind me that this path is incommensurate with the living practice of Buddhism. Somewhere in my heart, I feel like I've never been living it more than right now. How can I reconcile this understanding?

Thanks for your patience.

I require that we treat our team members with compassion, refraining
  from false speech (teamwork, marketing and sales), and avoid taking
  what is not given (intellectual property, competition, finance).

None of the above is uniquely Buddhist or even religious. Its just ordinary human ethics expected in any ethical workplace. There is no need to ever refer to "Buddhism".

  Well-meaning members of my sangha remind me that this path is
  incommensurate with the living practice of Buddhism. Somewhere in my
  heart, I feel like I've never been living it more than right now. How
  can I reconcile this understanding?

There is nothing to reconcile. Most Westerners don't understand Buddhism very well. They have never studied the Buddhist teachings for laypeople and believe Buddhism only teaches the hardcore teachings for monks & advanced yogis.

For a lay person, earning a living is part of Buddhism; which includes carrying on a business. As long as the business is ethical, the Buddha in the Pali scriptures praised laypeople who are successful in carrying on a business.

  Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

  Vanijja Sutta

  And what is the bliss of having? There is the case where the son of a good family has wealth earned through his efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of his arm, and piled up through the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained. When he thinks, 'I have wealth earned through my efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of my arm, and piled up through the sweat of my brow, righteous wealth righteously gained,' he experiences bliss, he experiences joy. This is called the bliss of having.

  Anana Sutta

  The wise and virtuous shine like a blazing fire. He who acquires his wealth in harmless ways like to a bee that honey gathers, riches mount
  up for him like ant hill's rapid growth.

  With wealth acquired this way, a layman fit for household life, in portions four divides his wealth: thus will he friendship win.

  One portion for his wants he uses, two portions on his business spends, the fourth for times of need he keeps.

  Sigalovada Sutta


Why did Marco Polo say the Buddhist religion originated in Sielan? Read page 295 here.

Also refer to the editorial note on p.289 “this is the well known island of Ceylon, both direction and distance are extremely correct”.

A Summary.

Until 1890 the world knew Buddha was from Sri Lanka. In addition to Marco Polo, Pre-1890 historical references from Robert Knox, a Bible commentary and Sir, Henry Charles are provided.  More here -> https://jambudipa.quora.com

How the history was allegedly distorted is mentioned here. Does this sound credible?

Probably because he was told so and never started to investigate the real origin of things? Even today there are many Sinhalese people claiming the origin in the country they live. One may find such similar thoughts in all other countries and one also may find Jesus with balck skin or Chinese eyes in other countries. That's the nature and requirement for all -isms and -ists: Strong Self-identification.

Dhamma and means for liberation should not be dig up be focus on objectification (pacanca) although it is usually refined identification what gives one rise toward interest and can be used of course also strategical wise "What, if I let go of it, would lead to my long term happiness?", thought of "who ever defines one self, limits and suffers with it", especially if not something leading to go beyond.

If Marco Polo ever had met the good Dhamma, real "Buddists", he would not have returned. So it's probably good to investigate travelers who found the way that leads to rest.

  “Is it possible, lord, by traveling, to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away or reappear?”

  “I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.” ...
  But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.” Rohitassa Sutta

{Note that this has not been given to keep one on wandering on by trade, exchange, stacks, or use it for such, but for liberation}

To answer a further argument, actually not leading to liberation at all:

"Well, Marco Polo visited India and China along the way too. If he found Buddha existed in India then he would have mentioned it that way instead."

Why should he have traveled around and possible ask everywhere the same question, everybody he meets? If one lives amoung people with a certain believe, then one might be missinformed, since not knowing. As the Dhamma is about seeing your self (to gain liberation), what is not possible of thing which have already decayed (history), it does not support the feed the attention on improper means but to come there where reality happens and why. Once again in other words:

  “Is it possible, lord, by researching, to know or see or reach the Buddha or Dhamma, where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away or reappear?”

  “I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by research to know or see or reach the Buddha or the Dhamma where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.” ...
  But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without researching after the Buddha and the Dhamma. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is The Buddha and the Dhamma, the the origination of The Buddha and the Dhamma, the cessation of the Buddha and the Dhamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of The Buddha and the Dhamma.”

In regard of places, as the Buddha told, there is no place to be found in the world which is not actually a cementery, and ther is not a singe moment in the world in which no aging, sickness and death takes place. So what does one cling on here? Be wise. Don't waste your time, what ever might have been does not matter on the fact, that a raw possibility to be born as human, possible not stupid (?) and meeting the Dhamma, might be wasted away!


How not to kill the mouse in my house? I live with my mother in her house. There have been a mouse for a few months, living in the ceiling of my bedroom, and since a few weeks, it has been a nuisance for it scratches something, day and night, to the point of preventing me to sleep, even when wearing ear plugs.

The mouse does not seem to understand that it is not alone in the house and that it causes distress. I remember that There were mice long before and the rat poison was successful, until another mouse set in. They always find their way in, and always end up breeding and making a noisy mess.

I cannot access the ''thermal material''  which is between the ceiling of my bedroom and the  attic, because the attic has been covered up by some thermal blanket to better protect the house  thermally.

I do not wish to kill the mouse with some  rat poison per se. but I  also fear that the mouse could chew some wires, electrical and telephonic, which pass above the ceiling and causing damage to the house. I also fear that the mouse breeds leading to even more mice, especially if I end up killing them.

There are cats in the neighbourhood, and it is not clear to whom they belong, but they clearly did not catch the mouse thus far. I cannot get a cat myself, since there is no place and no means to sustain having a cat. I do not know the path to the garden that the mouse takes to leave the house, because there are plants and small trees preventing me to watch the ground and weed.

Is there another solution than killing it in disposing some rat poison, in order to stop the noises and be assured that the house will not be damaged ?

"Without wisdom, effort, restraint of the senses, without giving up everything, I see no well-being for beings."

  -- The Buddha (SN 2.17)

You can't have your cake and eat it too, unfortunately. The truth is the truth whether it is convenient or not. In this case, there are some fairly important truths that you have to consider when trying to decide what to do.

First is the truth that being a nuisance is a far lesser evil than murder in cold-blood... the mouse has the moral higher ground over the mouse-trapper.

Second is the truth that you don't want to be murdered yourself; knowing this, how can you contemplate it for a fellow being?

  All tremble at violence; life is dear to all.
  Putting oneself in the place of another,
  one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

  -- The Buddha (Dhp. 130)

Third is the truth that killing makes you a killer; it changes the direction of your life in a significant way that will have potentially far-reaching consequences, far beyond feeling a little guilty for a little while. There are karmically significant mind-states involved in killing that may not be evident to you until you actually kill. Once you've begun to kill, you start to desensitize yourself to killing; it gets easier and easier, and your mind becomes further and further sullied.

Fourth is the truth that the reason you can't sleep has little to do with the mouse and much to do with your own state of mind. In fact, lack of sleep itself isn't really the problem either; if your mind is clear, you can stay awake all night and not suffer harmful consequences.

My advice is first, to come to terms with your mind's reaction to noise that keeps you from finding peace; reminding yourself "hearing, hearing" is a good way to keep yourself objective and alert.

  “In that case, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus:
  In what is seen there will be only what is seen,
  in what is heard there will be only what is heard,
  in what is sensed there will be only what is sensed,
  in what is cognized there will be only what is cognized.
  In this way, Bāhiya, you should train yourself.

  And since for you, Bāhiya, in what is seen there will be only what is seen,
  in what is heard there will be only what is heard,
  in what is sensed there will be only what is sensed,
  in what is cognized there will be only what is cognized,
  therefore, Bāhiya, you will not come to be because that;
  and since, Bāhiya, you will not come to be because that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be in regards to that;
  and since, Bāhiya, you will not be in regards to that, therefore, Bāhiya, you
  will not be here or hereafter or in between the two - just this is the end of suffering.”

  -- The Buddha (Ud. 10)

Second, consider whether it is your duty as a householder to take care of the mouse, or whether you can just as well leave it be. Unless it is destroying insulation or wiring, I don't think there is a compelling reason to remove a mouse; a rat, maybe... Either way, there are many ways of relocating a mouse humanly.

In regards to cats, if you in any way encourage a cat to catch and kill a mouse, well, it's not categorically different from killing it yourself...


Union with Brahma, or company of Brahma? The following phrase comes from DN 13:

  “ayameva ujumaggo, ayamañjasāyano niyyāniko niyyāti takkarassa
  brahmasahabyatāya, yvāyaṃ akkhāto brāhmaṇena pokkharasātinā”ti.

T.W. Rhys Davids translated here as:

  ‘This is the straight path, this the direct way which makes for
  salvation, and leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of
  union with Brahmā. I mean that which has been announced by the Brahman
  Pokkharasādi.’

Bhikkhu Sujato translated here as:

  “This is the only straight path, the direct route that leads someone
  who practices it to the company of Brahmā; namely, that explained by
  the brahmin Pokkharasāti.”

What does "brahmasahabyatāya" mean? What does "sahabyatāya" mean?

This translation could be meaningful. "Union with Brahman" sounds like the modern Hindu concept of Moksha which is a union with God or Ultimate Reality. On the other hand, "company of Brahma" sounds like rebirth into the Brahma realm. What's the correct interpretation?

In DN 13 the term is originally used by Brahmins talking with each other, and so between them it meant whatever (non-Buddhist doctrine) they each understood it to mean.

At the end of the sutta the Buddha teaches them the four brahmaviharas and defines or explains that these are the path to "companionship with Brahma" -- i.e. I think he thus redefines brahmasahabyatāya (whatever it used to mean) in Buddhist terms, in a way that can be understood and agreed by the Brahmins.


Combining meditation and bright light therapy I am using a (medical) bright light therapy lamp in the morning for 30 minutes during the darker months.

I have also been meditating for about 30 minutes a day.

I lately noticed myself almost reaching a meditative state during this activity anyway. So, I thought about combining the two.

The difference to meditation as I am used to would be that instead of sitting with my eyes closed, I would look at a really bright light (not harmful to the eyes), which usually blocks out everything else, visually speaking.

Has anyone tried this or can anybody offer thoughts on why or why not this is a good idea?

(The reason why I have not tried it yet was that I usually listen to a news broadcast programme of about 20 minutes during my bright light therapy.)

You can  get the citta into samadhi with what the buddha calls āloka·saññaṃ  which is sanna of light. The result of this samadhi is the knowledge of karma and before that, it energizes you.

  And what is the development of concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision? There is the
  case where a monk attends to the perception of light and is resolved
  on the perception of daytime [at any hour of the day]. Day [for him]
  is the same as night, night is the same as day. By means of an
  awareness open & unhampered, he develops a brightened mind. This is
  the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads
  to the attainment of knowledge & vision.

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html

Unfortunately, this samadhi is the least detailed of the 4 samadhis. Some puthujjanas claim it is just perceiving light, some say the light means the light of the jhanas (because they claim that the mind is luminous in jhanas), some say it is a kasina and some say it is light of wisdom...

Do not forget to perceive the origination, establishment and cessation in order to become an arhant.

For more info you can read

for the energy, section ''The 8 ways of overcoming drowsiness''
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/4.11-Pacala-S-a7.58-piya.pdf
for the karma
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/24.1-Samadhi-Bhavana-S-a4.41-piya.pdf


Where does Karma get stored? Sometimes we get an instant Karma. In other cases it takes time for Karmic fruits to ripen. I want to know in later case where does the Karma get stored or how is it remembered.

If you throw a rock at a window, there is the expectation of it hitting the window. Where is this expectation stored?
Likewise with all intention, intending one acts, throwing a rock is an action which begets results. Where are the expected results stored?
If you analyzed the properties of the rock mid flight along with all of the relevant circumstances in the entire world, you could for sure deduct it's trajectory and arrive at it eventually hitting the window.
So the information about the world [incl the result of actions] is the world and is in the world and nowhere else.
In the Dhamma that which perceives & conceives the world is called the world.
If you conceive & perceive someone throwing a rock at a window, you quickly deduct the consequences in as far as you understand the circumstances which the senses present and the more you know the more you can deduct about the outcomes.
If you knew everything about everything you could know everything that is going to happen as a result of a particular action but this is impossible because samsara is beginningless.


Breach of second precept Is copying a Dhamma book in hard copy and converting it into a pdf to read on my kindle a breach of the second precept? I am planning only to read it myself and not give it to anyone.

I also thought that Dhamma material should be free. Why are people amongst them well known monks and nuns charging for dhamma material?

The second of the Five Precepts (pañca-sila) is  “Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami”… meaning…. I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given. Overall, the precepts offer a clear moral foundation which has benefits for how we interact with others and our own spiritual progress. When one develops a strong conviction that the sacrifices one might have to make in observing the precepts that are really worth making, that there are some things of greater value to be gained by letting go of those unskillful activities, such thought / doubts come up at times. But here in this instance I do not see anything wrong in what you did.

The question is how can I explain this to you, to one who have decided that you’re not going to kill under any circumstances, that you’re not going to steal under any circumstances from anyone at all, no illicit sex, no lying, no intoxicants ever at all. When you give such limitless protection to all beings in following the precepts to the letter, then you gain a share in that limitless protection as well.  Taking what is not given [stealing] is breaking a precept. A disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking what is not given. But when it comes to the True Teachings of the Buddha there is no such thing as stealing.  Also there is no such thing as plagiarism, or plagiarizing when it comes to dhamma. No one can take ownership of the teachings of the Buddha.

But there is a serious problem, and a grave danger to those who speak of and write about Dhamma. It is of the distortion of the Suddamma. Today many a writers make gross distortions and incorrect adaptation of the Teaching of the Buddha to 'explain' the Dhamma. Thus it is very difficult for you and I to learn the true Dhamma without any adulterations or distortions that are widespread in most of today’s preaching and in the written material found in book stores and libraries. So in going forward in this dhamma path you and I have to be a bit cautious.


Are the Skandhas reborn from moment-to-moment? Imagine a human being born in 1982 weighing a few pounds at birth and labeled 'Melinda' by her parents. This little human being grows up - as little human beings tend to do - and by 2020 we imagine her as an adult no longer called 'Melinda', but rather change her name to 'Abigail.' If we examine the bodies of Melinda and Abigail down to the atom and perform a thorough and exact accounting we find that Melinda and Abigail do not share even one atom in common. Their brains are composed of entirely different atoms.

Is the rupa skandha of Melinda and Abigail the same or different? Has it been reborn? What was the manner of its rebirth? How did it occur? How many times did it occur between 1982 to 2020? Is the same true of the other skandhas... have they been reborn? Are they reborn due to 'identification' with an 'I' or due to physical laws or some combination?

Did 'Melinda' die sometime between 1982 and 2020 and get utterly annihilated? Was Abigail born for the first time from scratch between 1982 and 2020 and just pop into existence from nothing?

How is it possible that beings are reborn from moment-to-moment? In what manner and to what extent? What did the Buddha teach?

Imagine a camp fire that started in 1982. The original fuel has burned down but new fuel is regularly added. The overall shape and configuration of the fire in 2020 is somewhat reminiscent of the original 1982 fire but of course none of the material is the same.

Now if we were to analytically separate the fire into several categories (skandhas) we would find wood, ash, heat, light, oxygen, and smoke - all playing their roles in the maintenance (upadana) of fire.

Is it the same fire staying or is the fire "reborn" moment to moment? It's neither and both, these are just concepts to explain the working of causal continuity.

One important mistake in the worldview underlying your original question:  it assumes that "the fire" starts when a new human is born. But this is not so. The fire has been continuously burning through generations. "The beginning point is not evident". A new human is just another tongue of flame.


Relying on the Laity, monastics I had questions regarding the laity, monastic relationship.

  1) How exactly (the step by step or explained) does the process work
  in which the monastics rely solely on the laity?

  2) How do monks publish works (such as books) and not deal with the
  money involved in their lives?

Metta!

At it's core it works out as if a person went to mountains to meditate, his friend then brings him food & clothing. Eventually the amount of people interested in supporting this project grows. Then for some reason the supporters build something and invite the meditator to stay there. At some point there might be willingness and resources for others to become full time meditators. The supporters may equip the monastery with starlink and invite monks to publish books or monks might do so on their own initiative.


How many Tibetan monks practiced meditation in "old Tibet"? One aspect of the notion of "Buddhist Modernism" is that in modern history (ancient times aside) even the Theravada monkhood, let alone the laity, did not generally meditate, until the Burmese/Thai revival due to Mahasi Sayadaw and a few others in the 19th and early 20th century. (http://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/theravada-reinvents-meditation/)

Yet, there is still the question of Tibetan monks, given the vigor of that tradition back to its introduction into Tibet. McMahan suggests (without any references!) that very few of them meditated:

  Tibetan forms of meditation have gone rather abruptly from being the
  province of a small number of specialist monks in Himalayan hermitages
  to being offered widely to the public in countries all over the globe.
  (McMahan, David L. (2008-10-17). The Making of Buddhist Modernism (p.
  187). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.)

But my impression is that in "old Tibet", that is pre-1950's, a fairly large fraction of the (very numerous) monkhood did practice meditation, via tantric sadhana and/or mahamudra.

Does anybody have actual references bearing on this? I realize there will be no quantified data, but how about biographies, reminiscences and other historical literature?

Only just pre-1950s, the current Dalai Lama was born in 1935.

Starting half-way through this page, At Home With the Dalai Lama, is an account of his learning to meditate (and probably of being forced to learn to meditate), at age 8.

  I also know that he wasn't a particularly good student when he was
  young. He had a mercurial temper and was impulsive. Monastic
  disciplines like meditation and scriptural study did not come
  naturally to him.

  "Around seven or eight," the Dalai Lama told me in an earlier meeting,
  a mischievous gleam in his eyes, "I had no interest in study. Only
  play. But one thing: my mind since young, quite sharp, can learn
  easily. This brings laziness. So my tutor always keep one whip, a
  yellow whip, by his side. When I saw the yellow whip, the holy whip
  for holy student the Dalai Lama, I studied. Out of fear. Even at that
  age I know, if I study, no holy pain."

  Despite his reluctance to study when he was a child, the Dalai Lama
  applied himself every morning. With perseverance and self-control, he
  learned to sit still for long periods. Gradually he was better able to
  control his errant impulses. Meditation and study came before play;
  delayed gratification became a matter of course.

Reading this gives me the impression that the curriculum which the Dalai Lama learned was passed down through successive generations/incarnations.

The Speech Delivered by His Holiness 14th Dalai Lama to the
Second Gelug Conference
(Dharamsala, June 12th 2000) says,

  Now it is about six hundred years since Lama Tsong Khapa lived in Tibet. About three hundred years
  earlier, Dipamkara Atisha founded the great Kadam tradition. It was this school that Lama Tsong Khapa
  used as his foundation. He started a tradition that emphasised tantric study that concentrated on practices
  of the three deities, Guhyasamaja, Heruka Chakrasamvara and Yamantaka.

    “May this tradition of the Conqueror, Losang Dragpa,
     That teaches the outward, calm and controlled demeanour of the hearer,
     And the internal poise associated with the two stages of the yogic practitioner,
     And adopts both Sutra and Tantra as mutually complementary paths flourish.”

  And as to what is achieved through the adoption of such a practice, we have the words:

    “May this tradition of the Conqueror, Losang Dragpa
     That takes the emptiness explained in the Causal Vehicle (sutra),
     And the great bliss that is achieved through the Resultant Means (tantra),
     Conjoined with the essence of the collection of eighty-four thousand teachings flourish.”4

  Having all of these features then, this doctrine is a consummate one. It incorporates study, contemplation
  and meditation in balanced, equal measure and this is what makes it so remarkable. When it comes to
  detailed study of the great texts, it is the Sakya and Gelug systems which are the most developed.


How do memories affect the path? If one has recollection of memories that were experiences of pain be it physical, mental, emotional, how do these affect the path?

Often memories are triggered involuntarily and more than often they surface when reflecting.

In terms of how they affect the path, obviously, these are holdbacks. The goal is to get free from them.

Here is the instruction I received from my teacher about this:

In meditation, when memory comes up, do not replay the event that caused the pain. Do not think about it, thoughts don't help. Instead, stay with the pain itself. Feel it in your body. Stay focused on it and get a full taste of the feeling, thoroughly. Then go inside the feeling. Accept it and feel its texture, thoroughly. Despite the pain, go all the way inside until you get out on the other side. Accept. Go through.


Why do we still don't know exact birth & date year of the Buddha? I just want to know:
1)Why do we still don't know exact birth & date year of the Buddha?
2)What are the factors that is limiting in knowing Buddha's birth & death year?
3)Why many people/countries/traditions contradict? Many countries following different traditions, follow different Buddhist calendar year i.e. years since Buddha left.
4)Even the recent Nat Geo Excavations reveal he might be born in 6th Century B.C. A 2013 news which still doesn't official claim nor does it leave a convincing conclusion till date, on whether their findings are indeed perfect or not. Nor their findings seems to be accepted if its true.
5)Does the pali text gives any reference to the same?

Knowing the precise date of the Buddha's birth is not very useful knowledge within the Buddha's teaching, as it is presented in the Pali Suttas. How will knowing this precise birthday help any student transcend their own suffering? Only the most worldly and materialistic forces within any tradition would care about such superficial things.

The Pali Suttas(and arguably the Sanskrit Sutras) are the closest to what the Buddha actually taught. All traditions derive their truth from the Suttas/Sutras and other truths that might or might not be so compatible with the Buddha's actual original teaching. These additions were made for reasons of culture, politics and practicality IMHO.

If one wants to know what was likely the truth that the Buddha taught then one might stick to the core teachings that the Buddha repeated over and over again in the Suttas/Sutras.

It seems to me that these core teachings fit within themselves with great precision. Their potential is so awe inspiring to me that I wonder what, in 2500 years, has been stopping so much of humanity from embracing the Buddha's teaching or any teaching like the Buddha's teaching.-Metta :)


Mindfulness question When practicing mindfulness and labelling for example if I'm making my bed can I note "making bed" or of I'm driving note "driving" or is it meant to be more specific? Because a lot of the time I can't think what it is I'm doing. Seems to be too many things at once so I end up thinking too hard about what I'm doing kind of thing.

I quote from "Chapter Six: Daily Life" of Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's online book "How to Meditate":

  Once one has put aside activities that interfere with clarity of mind,
  one can begin to incorporate meditative awareness into ordinary life.
  There are two ways in which one can meditate on ordinary experience,
  and they should be practiced together, as follows.

  The first method is to focus one’s attention on the body, since it is
  the most clearly evident aspect of experience. As in formal
  meditation, the body is always available for observation, and thus
  serves as a convenient means of creating clear awareness of reality in
  daily life. Since the body is generally in one of four postures –
  walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, one can simply become aware
  of one’s posture as a meditation object to bring about clarity of
  mind.

  When walking, for example, one can note either “walking, walking,
  walking, walking” or “left, right, left, right” as one moves each
  foot. When standing still, one can focus on the standing position and
  note “standing, standing”; when sitting, “sitting, sitting” and when
  lying down, “lying, lying”. In this way, one can develop clarity of
  mind at any time even when not practicing formal meditation.

  Further, one can apply the same technique to any small movement of the
  body – for instance when bending or stretching the limbs, one can note
  “bending” or “stretching”. When moving the limbs, “moving”. When
  turning, “turning”, and so on. Every activity can become a meditation
  practice in this way; when brushing one’s teeth, “brushing”; when
  chewing or swallowing food, “chewing, chewing”, “swallowing,
  swallowing” and so on.

  When cooking, cleaning, exercising, showering, changing clothes, even
  on the toilet, one can be mindful of the movements of the body
  involved, creating clear awareness of reality at all times. This is
  the first method by which one can and should incorporate the
  meditation practice directly into ordinary life.

  The second method is the acknowledgement of the senses – seeing,
  hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. Ordinary sensory experience
  tends to give rise to either liking or disliking; it therefore becomes
  a cause for addiction or aversion and ultimately suffering when it is
  not in line with one’s partialities. In order to keep the mind clear
  and impartial, one should always try to create clear awareness at the
  moment of sensory experience, rather than allowing the mind to judge
  the experience according to its habitual tendencies. When seeing,
  therefore, one should know it simply as seeing, reminding oneself
  “seeing, seeing”.

  When hearing a sound, one should likewise note “hearing, hearing”.
  When smelling pleasant or unpleasant odours, “smelling, smelling”.
  When tasting food or drink, instead of becoming addicted to or
  repulsed by the taste, one should note “tasting, tasting”. When
  feelings arise in the body, hot or cold, hard or soft, and so on, one
  should note “feeling, feeling” or “hot”, “cold”, and so on.

  Practicing in this way, one will be able to receive the full spectrum
  of experience without compartmentalizing reality into categories of
  “good”, “bad”, “me”, “mine”, “us”, “them”, and so on. As a result,
  true peace, happiness and freedom from suffering is possible at all
  times, in all situations. Once one understands the true nature of
  reality, the mind will cease to react to the objects of the sense as
  other than what they truly are and be free from all addiction and
  aversion, just as a flying bird is free from any need for a perch on
  which to cling.

  This then is a basic guide to practice meditation in daily life,
  incorporating the meditation practice directly into one’s life even
  when not formally meditating. Beyond these two methods, one can also
  apply any of the objects discussed in the first chapter – pain,
  thoughts, or the emotions. The techniques discussed in this chapter
  should be thought of as an additional means of making the meditation
  practice a continuous experience whereby one is learning about oneself
  and about reality at all times.


The five incurable actions "There are these five inhabitants of the states of deprivation, inhabitants of hell, who are in agony & incurable. Which five? One who has killed his/her mother, one who has killed his/her father, one who has killed an arahant, one who — with a corrupted mind — has caused the blood of a Tathagata to flow, and one who has caused a split in the Sangha. These are the five inhabitants of the states of deprivation, inhabitants of hell, who are in agony & incurable."
AN 5.129

If someone tries to kill an arahant, Buddha or their parents but they don’t get hurt even a little bit, do you still go to hell for “attempting” to kill them? Or is it only incurable if you have succeeded in killing them?

From SN 42.3:

When a warrior strives and struggles in battle, their mind is already
low, degraded, and misdirected as they think:
Yo so, gāmaṇi,
yodhājīvo saṅgāme ussahati vāyamati, tassa taṁ cittaṁ pubbe gahitaṁ
dukkaṭaṁ duppaṇihitaṁ:
‘May these sentient beings be killed, slaughtered, slain, destroyed,
or annihilated!’
His foes kill him and finish him off, and  when his
body breaks up, after death, he’s reborn in the hell called ‘The
Fallen’.

From the sutta quote above, we see that the warrior who strives (ussahati) and struggles or exerts himself (vāyamati) in battle, is already deep in the low, degraded and misdirected mindset of killing.
Similarly, just having the fleeting thought of hurting the Buddha, killing an arahant, killing one's mother, killing one's father or causing a schism in the Buddha's sangha, is not sufficient to be considered an incurable action.
It's an incurable action only when one strives (ussahati) and struggles or exerts himself (vāyamati) to commit those heinous acts, regardless of whether he has actually been successful or not, just as in the case of the warrior in battle.
So, yes, even an unsuccessful intentional and deliberate attempt to perform these wicked acts would be incurable.

The OP asked in the comments to the effect of: What about Angulimala who killed many humans and attempted to kill the Buddha, but eventually became an arahant?
When Angulimala attempted to kill the Buddha, he did not know that it was the Buddha or an arahant. He only saw a monk walking alone along the road.
So he did not have the intention to kill the Buddha. He only had the intention to kill a monk.
Please read the story of Chakkhupala in the commentary of Dhammapada 1 and also the quote:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect." - AN 6.63

Karma is based on intention in Buddhism. Karma is not a universal system of justice.


What is Right View, and how can it be applied in the contemporary world? I am looking specifically for an easily accessible summary of Right View, and how it can be applied in a contemporary setting. For instance, how might Right View be used (or not) to approach daily work and lifestyle frustrations?

In your daily life, as you go about things, just observe and analyse any negative thought arising in the mind without acting in response to them. One does not need a specific spot or time to do this. Whenever a negative thought arises in the mind, one has to observe and analyse it right away as a fire needs to be extinguished instantly. This way one is able to turn one’s “bad” days in to “good” days. One is able to spend the day with happiness.

One who goes on experiencing happiness through the observation and analysis of one’s thoughts realise one day that happiness and suffering are merely feelings emerging in the mind and it would be prudent to eliminate any feeling associated with happiness or unhappiness. Until one reaches this stage, one needs to continue with the approach of observing and analysing the thoughts with patience. This is Right View in practice, and is the only way for true happiness.

@UrsulRosu rightly pointed out that it is also Right Effort and Right Mindfulness. The ultimate meaning of samma dhitti (right view) is ascertaining the supramundane truth. What involves in the category of supramundane truth? It is the understanding that everything existing in the world is subject to anicca. One who comprehends the supramundane truth in everything based on anicca, dukkha and anatta could definitely attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana. His/her mind would no longer be in a state of burning – the  mind is totally relieved of burning and heat. We, now, realize the importance of leading a life based on the principles of sacca, dhamma, dhiti and caga in order to achieve mental peace at all times.

Then @SarathW noted that the right view cannot be practiced in isolation - that it has to be practiced in conjunction with whole Noble Eight-fold Path. This is true. Right view is the penetration of the truth of the teaching in one's own immediate experience.the Buddha calls right view the forerunner of the path (pubbangama), which gives direction and efficacy to the other seven path factors, yet it cannot be practiced in isolation.

The Awakened One described kaya’, ‘vedana’, ‘citta’, ‘dhamma’ individually for the sake of detailed analysis. Otherwise all four methods function in a single mind. As a thought arises in the mind, one of the following is prominently discernible: a) Actions of the mind; b) Feelings of the mind; c) The way how these feelings are grasped; d) Mental factors (dhammas = ) resulting from action / feelings of the mind.

Kayagata-Sati signifies the practice of watching the mind mindfully. We need to observe what is prominent in a given time. No matter what type of a process arises in the mind for us to observe, our objective should be to observe any process without greed (lobha) or aversion (dosa).

When one engages in the practice of watching the mind with mindfulness for some time, it becomes an involuntary habit. You can name this as “energy” (viriya) if you like. When one keeps watching the mind with mindfulness, mind distances itself from unhappy, uncomfortable feelings and reach the state known as “Samadhi” (concentration). Samadhi is a mental state associated with lucidity, serenity and unification of mind.

Samadhi is a mental state that every Buddhist should experience and could experience. When one observes the mind with mindfulness, one is able to distinguish between wholesome and unwholesome mental changes followed by happiness and unhappiness. This enables one to determine the wholesome thoughts that need to be cultivated and maintained at any cost. This particular knowledge resulting from the exercise of watching the mind is referred to as “wisdom” (paññā).

When the Mind is analytically observed to understand the existence of raga (greed), dosa(hatred), moha (delusion), mana (conceit), and ditthi (wrong view), mental suffering begins to subside gradually. Saddha (faith), sati (mindfulness), viriya (energy), Samadhi (concentration) and paññā (wisdom) begin to arise in the mind instead. Happiness begins to take a firm hold on the mind. Anyone has the potential to establish a happiness-based mind in this manner and engage in day to day affairs.


What did the Buddha say about motivation? What did the Buddha say about wholesome types of motivation?

Is there a difference in the Pali language between "intention" (as in Right Intention) and "motivation"?

From what I understand Right Intention is renunciation, good-will and harmlessness. I can understand how good-will and maybe renunciation can be a sort of motivation, but harmlessness seems to be more passive and therefore maybe not a motivation in the same way

Basically what I'm looking for are the things that motivate us (as in "drives us") to do things, which are considered wholesome in Buddhism

(Maybe there is also a connection to Right Effort here)

Grateful for help with understanding this better!

Right effort(sammā-vāyāma) in terms of mindfulness is not a forceful , grit your teeth kind of effort. It's a moment by moment, continuous, good cyclical habit kind of effort.
Cetanā is Pali for
1- intention
2- volition
3- directionality of mind
4- attraction
5- urge
Intention(cetanā) can be defined as a mental factor that moves or urges the mind in a particular direction, toward a specific object or goal. Intention(cetanā) is the most significant mental factor involved in the creation of karma.
Sammā-vāyāma and cetanā are two different concepts. In practice, one concept(or the actual experience the concept points towards) might happen right after the other though. Then there is right intention (samma sankappa) that isn't really like sammā-vāyāma. Imho at least.
Samvega, the sense of shock and empty alienation that comes with realizing the futility and meaninglessness of living in the sleeping world, is what motivated the Buddha and others onto the wholesome eightfold path. Some are motivated by other things like faith(saddhā) in the  Buddha's teaching.
Right effort and right view are the two most important factors for an insight meditator to understand, it seems to me.
Right effort can be something like, effort to continue striving to remember to focus awareness on whatever experience arises in awareness and to strive in a broader sense to transcend all assumptions even the ones we don't yet see.
The Four Supreme Efforts
(cattārimāni sammappadhānāni)
1-Restraint Not to let an unwholesome thought arise which has not yet arisen(anuppādāya)
2-Abandonment Not to let an unwholesome thought continue which has already arisen.(pahānāya)
3-Cultivation To make a wholesome thought arise which has not yet arisen.(uppādāya)
4-Preservation To make a wholesome thought continue which has already arisen.(ṭhitiyā)
Effort can come easier with interest but then the path is to eventually develop a certain disinterest.


Did the Buddha work with teachers from other spiritual traditions? Within the Pali canon the Buddha often vigorously debates with Brahmin priests. However in the Buddha's time there were a lot of other spiritual traditions too. Did the Buddha have more cordial relationships with teachers of other faiths too? Are there examples of him working together with spiritual teachers of other traditions? I'm specifically asking about his teaching after he became enlightened. I know he studied with several teachers before that point.

Jatila brothers who had thousand disciples had some relationship with Lord Buddha. But they had evil intentions inside. But Lord Buddha knew their evil intentions. But they soon realized Lord Buddha was superior. Jatila brothers along with their thousand disciples became arhats after listening to Aditta Pariyaya Sutta. You can read the story here. I am unable to recall some other instances where other teachers had good relationships with Lord Buddha, but there must have been.


Meditation posture and language as a monk in Thailand I am not able to sit in the lotus position. I'm only 24 years old but quite tall (189 cm). Usually I sit in this position:

(I googled the picture, it's from EMPFOHLENE MEDITATIONS-POSITIONEN UND SITZHALTUNGEN)

If I want to enter a monastery in Thailand and become a monk, is it a problem if I can't sit in the lotus position for meditation but in the position I posted above? I'm asking this, because I have never seen a monk meditating in a position different from the lotus position.
I suffer from back problems and need to workout regularly in order to reduce the pain in my back. My back muscles need regular workout because they are weak. Is it possible to perform basic exercises in my own room or is it against the vinaya?
While being in a monastery in Thailand, is it possible to improve my skills in english in order to understand the instructions perfectly? I understand english pretty well but I have difficulties in speaking sometimes. I have learned english at school for 3 years only (I've had some help when writing these questions). So my skills are pretty basic. Or is it possible to learn thai?

Thanks in advance for taking your time to answer my questions.

Answering from the Ajahn Tong (Mahasi-like) vipassana lineage I am somewhat familiar with:

Sitting posture is not a problem. Most people in Thailad, as far as I have seen, practice in the "burmese" posture, having legs flat on the floor (one in front of the other one), but some were sitting in the chair (without leaning) for health reasons.
You will be likely a lay practitioner (on 8 precepts) for some time, before you ordain, but the practice is the same anyway. The most important is that you practice and learn to deal with the situation you have, including back pain, skillfully. That might include some exercise, but also facing the pain in meditation. In fact many people think they have back pain because they have weak muscles (exactly as you say), but it is in fact meditation pain, which is very useful (which does not mean you like it) training for you; it goes away after some time. Your teacher will guide you through that territory while on retreat.
Out of the thousands temples in Thailand, only a minority does meditation, and only a few of them has English-speaking sections (I can recommend, from this lineage, the Chom Tong temple, http://www.northernvipassana.org/about.html; the other ones I know of are Wat Rampoeng and Wat Doi Suthep). You don't need extreme language skills to do Vipassana, just enough to understand the instruction; if you learn Thai in long-term, good, but I would not see it as something to start with. In some centers, there might be yogis speaking your language (French?) which could translate for you.

Before being too far in your plans about becoming a monk, you could do retreats (starting with the 2-3 week "basic course") without long travels to Asia for the start, and then see if the practice is suitable for you; I posted some of the centers from this tradition in Europe in this answer; in France, there is a group organizing retreats regularly which may also help you find a suitable place.


Permanent brain damage can cause someone to loose their Arihathness? Brain is directory connected to mind. Examining the differences of wave patterns that emit from brain when someone is mad or meditating explains there is a direct connection. What if someone achieved nirvana or a lower state of the path to nirvana, and met in an accident and lost all his memories or had permanent brain damage due to a disease .  As an example in alzheimer’s disease brain shrinks and it losses its memories and abilities to think . So in a situation like this , can someone loose his state in the path to nirvana ?

Brain damage might reduce mental capacity.

An Arahat is free from the unwholesome roots, i.e., they have stopped reacting to sensual stimuli. Brain damage or not unwholesome roots do not arise again.

So they do not lose their attainment.


fundamental level of existence in Buddhism After long time and back to BSE. My question is; according to science all the existence are sequenced as matter made of alchemy (chemistry) , molecules , atoms, sub particles then energy. I think base of science is depend on this sequencing and it is considered as a reality. However science possesses its own controversies as unable to provide proper explanations as result of limitations of five senses and their extensions.(e.g...eye and hi tech microscopes)
i think science stuck at "energy" in sequencing the subtle level of existence. but it is so clear what have found up this level of scientific finding.science came across massive breakthroughs such as finding of atom, artificial memory, artificial intelligence , MRI etc...and science based on proofs. at the subtle level science manipulate energy at best level becomes it can do everything as "energy is everything" including our mind. Think I've made concise explanation of what science can do if i am not mistaken.
Now we turn towards the Buddhism as a great philosophy. Can Buddhism provide concrete explanations on above questions?
what is the absolute, final, subtle level of existence?
how is energy defined in Buddhism?
Is there anything beyond energy?
If there are, what is the proof?

Well, lets try to see how much suffering there's to get this mental view "molecules, atoms, sub particles then energy.", how much suffering it costs to keep it, how much far you can go with it, how you can prove it to yourself the usefulness of it, what's the life span is (i.e., when this view dies). The only reason for this answer is to reduce suffering. Every word I write has this goal in mind. For this it is important to pay attention and analyze the issue. A few useful concepts pop out, interestingly enough the same stuff what Buddha was telling us. Does it make him a sort of a God who knows, and us sort of ghosts injured and hurt wondering around without a goal? I’d say yes. But let’s the question is not about ghosts, so lets focus on the question.
Having molecules, atoms (sub particles to some extend) are useful. On a practical level this creates all kinds of machines from agriculture to iphones. Those machines increase efficiency substantially, one can gather and preprocess more food, transport and reach more people, allowed more and more people be less and less concerned how to fill their stomachs with food. Do we have less suffering in the world? Definitely. Our problems got a lot more complicated though. Now you’ve got at least 4 hours a day (typically we work 8 hours per day compared to 12 hours a century ago) for anything we want. What do we do with it? Take drugs, alcohol, do sports to shut up all the annoying voices in our heads and hide our misery.
Getting this (wrong) view is essential to keep improving our technology and make even better agricultural machines as well as iphones. The way our society does it is through suffering as well: if one learns it at school then this is through force, repetitive memorization, and addictive presentation of the content in discovery, natural geographic channels. How long did you celebrate your high school diploma? How long did you celebrate your college/university degree? Once you got your diploma did you have an inner happiness for a day or two, or did it involve drinking lots of alcohol to “forget” the stress of “fundamentals” you’ve received, that allegedly will help you repay your depts and give some financial stability?
Buddha talks about light in many sutras, e.g. sn56.11 (https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/bodhi). I have a feeling however that this is something different to your concept of “energy”. I have a feeling that what you mean by energy is the famous equation from Einstein E=mc2. If you’ll talk to scientists thought, they’ll tell you that they see this “theory” more like a material that evolves over time, with some ideas taking a birth, enjoying some sort of development (maturing, bringing us to additional knowledge) and eventually dying out. Those scientists will also tell that with every “fundamental knowledge” they introduce “fundamental problems” as well. Examples are indefinability of key mathematical objects like sets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox) and what we can compute and we cannot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem) We tried to patch those theories the way we tried to this all the time. This created even more complex theories and problems that require even more suffering to understand and learn.
Advances in other sciences are not helping much to reduce suffering as well. Looking at medical sciences, we have no clue why taking any bitter pill (placebo) is better than well designed drug. Even in covid-19 test studies we give 50% of test people a placebo pill, i.e., a pill that should have no effect whatsoever. Impressive enough, this has quite an impressive effect.
The fundamental level of existence is that there’s suffering, there’s an origin of suffering, there’s the cessation of suffering, and there’s a path leading towards cessation of suffering.


Was anapanasati and other meditations ever taught to lay followers? This question springs forth as I haven't found yet any sutta showing this premise, has the Buddha ever taught anapanasati to lay followers ?
And if not, what could be the reason ?
May you be well.

This question springs forth as I haven't found yet any sutta showing this premise, has the Buddha ever taught anapanasati to lay followers ?

And if not, what could be the reason ?

While the audience in MN 118 happened to be monks, there's no rules in the suttas that forbid lay folks from practicing Anapanasati. Also notice that monastic/lay is all relative. How would one define a monastic if s/he's only wears the orange robe with shaven head, but breaks all the prescribed precepts? And vice versa, how would one define a lay person, if s/he's still wearing civilian clothing but follows all the precepts whole-heartedly??


Should we correct Buddhist wrong believes or respect it? Allow me to give the exemple of meat eating for this question: In the suttas we can clearly see (many times) that eating meat is accepted in Buddhism under a few conditions. We cannot kill, ask someone to kill or hear/see the animak being killed.

In addition some meats should not me eaten (human flesh, elephants etc...), but most of the meat we eat today is clearly accepted in the suttas, still there are people that look down on you if you eat meat, mixing personal views with Buddhism.

There is a sort of "main stream" Buddhism with things clearly not coming from the suttas, in this case, should we correct them? Or should we respect other peoples view?

Those rules you have mentioned are only for monks. They do not apply to lay people. Lay people can consume any type of meat even if the animal is killed for them, as long as they don't break the 1st precept.

Yes, you can try to explain to people who look down on you, saying that being vegetarian is merely a food preference in Theravada Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism seem to recommend a vegetarian diet by default. But that is not an excuse to look down on someone. You might also come across some confused Theravada Buddhists who follow vegetarianism like a religion, even putting it above what's said in the Suttas. Such practices usually fall under Silabbata-paramsa. One gives up on that when one becomes Sotapanna. Trying to correct them might push them away from the Dhamma. You can always practice Upekkha alongside Metta in such cases.


What is morality according to Buddhism? What is good and bad according to Buddhism? Is there good and bad? What is it's cause? What defines good and bad? Why some people think "this same X is bad" and others think "this same X is good"? What's the cause of this difference in thinking "this same X is bad" and "this same X is good"? Are there any suttas talking about all this?

The respective key words for "good" and "bad" in the suttas are "wholesome" (kusala) and "unwholesome" (akusala):

kusala (adj.) [cp. Sk. kuśala] 1. (adj.) clever, skilful, expert; good, right, meritorious.
akusala : (nt.) demerit; sin; bad action. (adj.), unskilful.

"Wholesome" and "unwholesome" here are qualifications for action/kamma. Keeping in mind that, to the Buddha, volition is kamma (see AN 6.63) manifested by body, speech and mind.

“And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome.
“And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.
“And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is wholesome; abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is wholesome; abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention from malicious speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is wholesome; abstention from gossip is wholesome; uncovetousness is wholesome; non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This is called the wholesome.
“And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome.
-- Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta, MN 9

(the causes are also repeated and further explained in the Nidana sutta (AN 3.33)).
The above definitions are more general, based on the 3 defilements (greed/lobha, hate/dosa, delusion/moha) but the list of mental states can expand to more specific ones. For example, any of the five hindrances are also understood as unwholesome. In Theravada tradition, the Abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga lists 10  defilements.
In another exposition, the Buddha further distinguishes between four kinds of kamma (see AN 4.235):

"Monks, these four types of kamma have been directly realized, verified, & made known by me. Which four? There is kamma that is dark with dark result. There is kamma that is bright with bright result. There is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result. There is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.

Thus, generally speaking, it is said that wholesome actions are those that lead to a favorable rebirth and lead to nibbāna, whereas unwholesome actions are those that lead to suffering, perdition, hell.

For an interesting read in this subject, see The Roots of Good and Evil by Nyanaponika Thera.


Does Buddhism kill creativity? My decrease in creativity does most likely not have anything to do with my feeble meditation attempts, because it is natural to have ups and downs, even when it comes to creativity.

But still, meditation deals with ridding oneself of attachments by observing mind states objectively and I think that following through an idea and turning it into a finished piece of work requires quite a lot of attachment and devotion to the project.

I suppose my real question is: is it possible to balance being a practicing Buddhist and a creative artist?

Many working artists are also Buddhists. A number of high profile creative people such as Leonard Cohen, Herbie Hancock and Steve Jobs are Buddhists. See Wikipedia's long list of celebrity Buddhists, many of whom work in creative industries.

Most people report that creativity increased after taking up meditation. At least one scientific study reported that meditation enhances creativity. The Huffington Post has reported much the same news.

Buddhist practice requires not just moment to moment awareness, but also considerable continuity of purpose. If one emphasises only the former then one is unlikely to make much progress. It's a bit like walking downstairs and forgetting why you went down there.

So there seems to be no reason to think that being a practising Buddhist would "kill creativity". And no reason to think you cannot balance being a practising Buddhist and a creative artist. I personally know at least a dozen people who do just this.


Escaping "certain death" in the Mahayana tradition: does it occur in India? I was struck, when reading on the history of Buddhism in China, by the stories of brave monks escaping certain death, often many times in one life.

I was curious is this was something Indian Buddhists also wrote about, or if it was something peculiar to China. Do these stories also appear in earlier reports, in the Buddha's life, etc.?

In the Indian suttas (attributed to the Buddha), monks generally prepared their minds to accept death by violence, as described in SN 35.88 & MN 21.

In the Indian suttas & commentaries, there are also stories of the Buddha & his disciples using love & psychic powers to avoid death, such as Angulimala Sutta, the assassination attempts by Devadatta and Maha Moggallana using his psychic powers to escape assassination.


Is their any reference in buddhism about time travell and parallel universe travell? As i've seen in hindhism their are lot of written things in hindu scriptures that a person or gods used to travel in different universes and time. But is their any mention of such powers in buddhism also? Where it is mentioned that a meditator has traveled time and to different worlds?
Is this possible to do this two things physically or its just mentally possible?

One Sutta which such reference occur is Rohitassa Sutta.

  Rohitassa’s astral journey

  Once in the past, venerable sir, I was a seer named Rohitassa Bhoja,putta [son of Bhoja], possessed
  of spiritual power, able to travel through the sky [space].  My speed was such, venerable sir, that I
  could move just as fast as an archer with a strong bow,
  trained, skillful, well-practised, experienced,
  could easily shoot past the shadow of a palmyra tree with a light arrow.

  My stride was such, venerable sir, that it spanned the eastern ocean and the western ocean.
  Then, venerable sir, the wish arose in me, ‘I will reach the end of the world by going.’

  Possessing such speed and such a stride, and having a lifespan of a hundred years, without pausing
  except to eat, drink, take meals and snacks, to void and pee, to sleep and dispel tiredness. Yet I died
  along the way without reaching the end of the world.

  It is wonderful, venerable sir! It is amazing, venerable sir! How well this was stated by the
  Blessed One: ‘As to that end of the world, friend, where one is not born, does not age, does not die, does
  not pass away, does not arise—it cannot be known, seen or reached by going, I say.’”

Moral story of this is that space travel is not a way to find a way out of unsatisfactoriness and you would be dead before you real such goal through space exploration.

Also such references are found in the Abhidhamma. More on this see this answer and others.


What does pari-mukha mean in 16 APS anapana sati? https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/07/what-does-pari-mukha-mean-exactly-in-16.html

excerpt:
Translation (from pali)
I've chosen the literal translation of near-the-mouth. In Theravada Pali Vinaya, pari-mukha is used in the context of facial hair or chest hair being in front of you.

But what does it actually mean?
To have 'sati' established 'near the mouth', or 'in front of you'?

Three logical possibilities
1) spatial coordinates only  (in front of you, near mouth, face, chest)
2) figurative only, not a literal interpretation of spatial coordinates, like "focusing on task at hand"
3) both one and two (it's possible the Buddha meant both, just like if you're using a cel phone, you're literally and figuratively focusing on the task in your hand)

There's an article discussing the use of that word here -- parimukhaṃ -- which interprets it literally, as you did, by referring to its being used literally in other texts like the Vinaya, the Abhidhamma, the Khuddaka Nikāya, and a Commentary.

Piya Tan disagrees, in his introduction to MN 118 he writes,

  2.4 PARIMUKHA
  2.4.1 Abhidhamma interpretation.
  Unlike in Hatha Yoga, in breath meditation the breath is not
  deliberately regulated, but a sustained effort is made to fix one’s awareness on the breath as it moves in and
  out in its natural rhythm. Those who follow the Abhidhamma and Commentarial traditions, teach that mindfulness should be focused at the nostril or the upper lip, wherever the contact of the breath is felt most distinctly. This tradition is mainly based on the Patisambhida,magga and Vibhanga interpretation of parimukham as being “at the tip of the nose or at the centre of the upper lip.”

  Parimukha literally means
  “around (pari) the entrance (mukha),” here always used idiomatically and as an adverb, meaning “in front.”
  This is the interpretation followed by U Thittila, Maurice Walshe, Soma Thera, and Ñānamoli & Bodhi.

... and he includes a half a dozen footnotes as references for that last sentence.

He also wrote,

  In this connection, the Tiantai master, Zhìyǐ 智顗 (538-597), in his Tóngméng zhǐguān 童蒙止觀
  (Samatha and Vipasyana for Beginners), gives this advice for dealing with two kinds of distractions:

    What is a sinking mind? If during the meditation the mind is dull, confused or unrecordable,
    while the head drops, this shows a sinking mind. In such a case, it should be fixed on the tip of the
    nose to nail it there and to prevent it from wandering elsewhere. This is the way to regulate a sinking
    mind.

    What is a floating mind? If during the meditation, it drifts about and is uneasy, while thoughts
    follow externals, this shows a floating mind. In such a case, it should be pushed down and fixed on
    the navel to prevent thoughts from rising; thus the mind will be stabilized and will be easily quieted.

    Therefore, the absence of the sinking or floating state shows a regulated mind.
    (Zhìyǐ, Tóngmén Zhǐguān 童蒙止觀 in Lu K’uan Yü, 1964:126;41)

That latter reminds me of the little I was taught about Daoist meditation, incidentally.


Buddhist logic and Nagarjuna In this article http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/logic-of-buddhist-philosophy/

Philosopher/Logician Graham Priest talks about some of the differences that Western logic has with Buddhist logic.

Quickly said: Western/Aristotelian logic doesn't tolerate contradictions (principle of non-contradiction) and everything has to be either true or false (principle of the excluded middle), but Buddhist logic follows a system called the catuskoti which implies that statements can be true, false, true and false, or neither true nor false. Tibetan philosopher Gorampa even included the 'ineffable'.

My question is this:
In buddhist logic, where does "hey man, that's illogical!" fit in? I mean, it pretty much seems everything can be valid in Buddhist logic, and there's just no place for the illogical, which pretty much points to the inefficacy of that system.

Originally the Catuṣkoṭi or Tetralemma was just an indication of all possible combinations of two predicates, and obviously, if these two predicates don't contradict, there is no problem.

Now, the Buddha himself does make seemingly contradictory statements, like when he refuses to answer the questions of Vacchagotta in SN 44.10, who asks first whether there is a self, then whether there is no self. Questioned by Ananda as to why he did not answer, the Buddha effectively claims, that both answers would have been wrong.

In this case, since there is only one predicate (and its contradiction), there do arise logical problems. The only attempt, to solve these kinds of problems I am aware of is in the article

  Klaus Butzenberger: Einige Aspekte zur catuskoti unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Nagarjunas, in: Synthesis Philosophica 1990, 567–580.

If you know German, then go read it. If not, let me summarize that it attempts to solve these problems in three ways: by classical logic, non-classical logic and thirdly by admitting its insolubility, but Butzenberger admits, that each of these attempts at solution does remain unconvincing to fruitless.

This might - now here comes my 50 cents - be due to the case, that the Tetralemma is used by a great number of authors in Indian logic and they do not handle it the same way. In the case of the Buddha's refusal to answer, it might be conjectured, that the Buddha is talking in two different levels of truth: a conventional truth and an absolute truth. So in order to remain truthful on the absolute level, we may have to accept contradictions on the conventional level, if - what the Buddha sometimes blames questioners for - the question is posed in a wrong way.


Buddhism and bacteria Buddhist teachings tell that all intentional killing is negative karma. So, what about bacteria? Are bacteria considered to be sentient beings? Is using antibiotics negative karma?

Is it possible to reborn as a bacterium?

As I pointed out in my answer to "are earthworms our mothers?"  these kind of questions often assume incorrect frame of reference, different from the one Buddhism operates in. The point of teachings is to produce a certain state of mind, that will affect your behavior in certain way, that will eventually lead to better results, up to and including Enlightenment for you and the rest of the sentient beings.

The Five Precepts (no killing, stealing, speaking nonfactually, letting sensual pleasure control you, getting intoxicated) are an entry-level practice that is designed to help practitioner master basic discipline of self-reflection and self-control. Abstaining from killing, stealing etc. implies basic ability to watch one's mind for harmful thoughts and emotions, and to prevent them from getting acted out.

In light of the above, the no-killing rule should not be understood literally, as an absolute law, but as a guideline for training the mind. It is not acceptable to hurt or harm any creature (big or small) out of antipathy, obsessive desire, or ignorance. This is what Five Precepts are mostly about, countering the Three Poisons.

For reference, the Three Poisons are three basic moods afflicting the mind, impairing one's judgement and goal-making abilities:

Anger/Hate/Irritation/Aversion/Antipathy/Negativity
Lust/Desire/Attraction/Obsession
Ignorance/Confusion/Sloth/Torpor


Did the Buddha himself say anything about 'greater good'? The phrase comes up -- especially when discussing 'militarism' -- in the secondary literature; e.g.

  that “one must sacrifice the lesser good for the greater good”; so too
  must “our heroes sacrifice their lives in order to preserve the naition...

Buddhism and Politics in Thailand, p154

Did the Buhddha say anything like this? The closest I know of is "be a lamp unto yourself", but in effect that could legitimize all sorts of errors.

Specifically I mean examples analogous to serving in the military: when some wrong doing is permitted due to "the greater good".

If this is the lesser good:

  AN4.95:2.2: The person who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others is like this, I say.

Then this is the greater good:

  AN4.95:3.1: The person who practices to benefit others, but not themselves, is better than that.

If this is the lesser good:

  AN4.95:3.2: The person who practices to benefit themselves, but not others, is better than both of those.

Then this is the greater good:

  AN4.95:3.3: But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

Notice in particular that "heroes sacrificing themselves for the nation" is only third best. There are two practices better than that. Indeed, one reads that practicing to benefit oneself is better than being a hero. But to understand this fully, one must also know that practicing to benefit oneself requires one to make progress on the Noble Eightfold Path. The first step of the Noble Eightfold Path is Right View. And that Right View includes the direction to perform good deeds.

  MN117:6.1: And what is right view?  Right view is twofold, I say. There is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.  And there is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.

The greatest good, however, is to practice to benefit both ourselves and others. And how do we practice to benefit others? We teach them 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.”


What is Mastery In Reviewing? The books and videos all describe it as,

Looking at jhana and its factors in retrospective knowledge

What does this mean exactly? Is it going over the events that happened during the jhana?  there anything specific you suppose to do?

I think you go over the meditation, what you did, how, compare with other meditation sessions to find out how to easily get jhana.

I did this and this and I got that result and the other time I did that and that and got another result.

So in time you get better at recognizing the factors and how to get in jhana.


How can i use meditation to concentrate! I want to use meditation as a way to deeply concentrate, I always feel as if im in my head and it stops me from doing what I want to do and stops me from getting work done. I want to use meditation. I have been doing  meditation, and I understand it a bit. But how can I achieve one pointed focus to help me stop being in my head and focus?

Deusllxll, You ask, "I want to use meditation as a way to deeply concentrate." In the beginning, I used a "mantra" meditation to develop a rather laser-like concentration, although it was not associated with Buddhism.

First, have in mind what you are trying to accomplish. Is it a spiritual goal? Are you searching for the meaning of life, and to have a relative understanding about your existence here? Then you can begin with a mantra meditation. It will spill over beneficially to other areas of your life if you go this route, also. You will be able to concentrate the mind and hold it on one thing for extended periods, or concentrate the mind on nothing if you practice Buddhist meditation. All your meditation efforts will end up in the same place.

I started my meditation with a "devotional" slant, related to Bhakti yoga, with a 17 syllable mantra that was in spoken in the Sanskrit language.  I was instructed to do at least one hour (2 1/2 hours preferably) of meditation everyday.  The meditation was with a focus on love for the Divine, which took a while to cultivate. The love is important because it will bind you to the meditation through thick and thin, through the good times and the despair. Whenever I found myself drifting off into thoughts, I was to start over with the mantra.  A person is to keep his mind focused on the "third eye" while meditating, which some believe is where the individual is located spiritually. I did this for five years.

I eventually gravitated to Buddhism where the mantra is the incoming and out-going of the breath, and the feelings of love are compassion for all.

Any type of meditation you do will be a precursor to something deeper and more meaningful.  Those who meditate are on the path of expansion, just like a plant grows from a little seed.  The sign that you have developed an interest in meditation, and are reaching out for instruction means your path will be fuller and richer for you from now on.


Are there any alternative formulations of the five skandas? Considering the 5 skandas of

Form
Feeling
Perception
Volition
Consciousness

I was told during a study group once that this was only one of many possible formulations of the skandas and other groupings and numbers of skandas were possible and used. However I have never come across any variation in this scheme. Is anyone aware of any alternative formulations of the five skandas?

Here is a fairly comprehensive list of alternatives:

Onefold: saṅkhāra

formations; everything that arises and ceases
all five aggregates fit in this category.

Twofold: nāmarūpa

name and form (body and mind); divided into material (rūpa) and immaterial (arūpa)
the first aggregate is rūpa, the rest are nāma.

Threefold: paramattha-dhamma

ultimate reality; divided into citta, cetasika and rūpa (excluding nibbāna, which is khandha-vimutti - liberated from the khandas)
the first aggregate is rūpa, the fifth is citta, the other three are cetasika.

Fourfold: satipaṭṭhāna

objects of the establishing of remembrance; body, feelings, mind, dhammas
body is first aggregate, feelings is second, mind is fifth, dhammas is all five.

Fourfold: ariyasacca

noble truths
all five fall under the first noble truth, besides tanha (under the fourth aggregate), which constitutes the second noble truth.

Twelvefold: āyatana

bases; the six internal (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) and six external (sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, thoughts)
all five aggregates arise based on the contact between each of the first five internal bases with their external counterpart. As for the sixth, rūpa is excluded (but still present as hadayavatthu) since thoughts are not physical, nor is the mind.

Twelvefold: paticcasamupāda

dependent origination; ignorance, mental formations, consciousness, body and mind, six sense bases, contact, feeling, craving, clinging, becoming, birth, suffering.
ignorance and mental formations are part of the fourth aggregate; consciousness is the fifth; body and mind are all five; six sense bases as above; contact is fourth; feeling is second; craving, clinging, and becoming are fourth; birth is probably fifth?; suffering is all five except tanha.

Eighteenfold: dhatu

elements; as with the āyatana, adding the six viññāṇa
as with āyatana, but described as contact between the three.

Twentytwofold: indriya

faculties; the six sense faculties, the two genders and the life faculty, the five feeling faculties, the five mental faculties, and three enlightenment faculties (see here for details)
the first group involves all five aggregates, the second is part of the first aggregate,, the third is equivalent to the second aggregate, the fourth falls under the fourth aggregate, and the fifth may be khandha-vimutti, but I'm not sure.


Has Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance got anything to do with Zen? I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig a few years ago and really enjoyed it. However I'm not convinced it's got anything to do with Zen. From what I remember the protagonist spends a lot of time fixing his motorbike and contemplating the notion of quality. But does the text link into Buddhism generally and Zen specifically? If not, why has it got Zen in the title?

The main idea is pretty Zen yes. The premise of the book is that Western philosophy made a wrong turn at Aristotle, who placed (conceptual) Truth at the top of the hierarchy of all knowable, thereby subsuming the Good (aka Quality aka Beauty) as a byproduct of Truth. Through this sleight of hands the conceptual has falsely acquired status of universal, while the experiential from being the mother of conceptual became its slave and hostage. Instead, argues the author, the (preconceptual) Good exists in the sphere of direct experience, and can be known directly. According to author, true understanding of Quality, Beauty and Ethics is possible only through such direct nonconceptual contact with the principle of Good. At which point Good is reinstated to the throne of knowable and Truth becomes merely one of alternative ways of attaining Good.

This very much parallels Zen Buddhism's interpretation of Buddha-Dharma, according to which Self-Existing Enlightenment is not to be understood through analytical reasoning, but is awakened to through direct experience. Meditation, koan work, interviews with Zen Master, calligraphy, tea ceremony etc. are all means of getting in touch with this direct experience, which in Zen Buddhism is emphasized over analytical study of texts.

In my opinion it would not be too much of a stretch to equate book author's direct insight into Good/Quality with Enlightenment as it is understood in Zen Buddhism. Although technically, Zen Buddhism goes further in that it gets one into direct contact not just with Good, but also with the very Emptiness itself. So strictly speaking the author falls short of full-scale Enlightenment, but still does a good job illuminating the trap of strict rationality and the primacy of direct experience.


Does breeding dogs fall under right livelihood? Does breeding and selling dogs fit into right livelihood provided that you make a concerted effort to make sure the animals find homes with responsible owners?

Edit:

Thanks for the answers so far. I am especially interested in answers that are rooted in the Pali Canon.

There are two relevant suttas that I found:

The Vanijja Sutta
The Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta

However, it seems like there is dispute about how to translate and understand the relevant passages. Any answers that specifically address these issues would be appreciated.

Depends on which system your in. In the Mahayana system, the precepts have an animal liberation theme, i.e. not using animals for anything.

In the Upasaka precepts.

  (15) If an upāsaka who has accepted this precept raises cats or
  foxes, he has committed the sin of negligence. ...
     (16) If an upāsaka who has accepted this precept raises animals,
  such as elephants, horses, cows, goats, camels, or donkeys, and
  refuses to give them away to someone who has not received the
  [upāsaka] precepts, he has committed the sin of negligence. Without
  rising above this impure act, which is conducive to continuing his
  cyclic existence, ... he cannot avoid going down an evil
  life-path.

ref: http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra33c.html

And in the Brahma Net Sutra precepts

  On Harming Sentient Beings

  A disciple of the Buddha must not sell knives, clubs, bows, arrows, other life-taking devices, nor keep altered scales or
  measuring devices.  He should not abuse his governmental position to
  confiscate people's possessions, nor should he, with malice at heart,
  restrain or imprison others or sabotage their success.  (82) In
  addition, he should not raise cats, dogs, foxes, pigs, and other such
  animals.  (83) If he intentionally does such things, he commits a
  secondary offense.

ref: http://www.buddhasutra.com/files/brahmanet.htm

I'm a vegetarian myself, and sympathetic to animal right issues-- the pet trade, zoos, and circuses do involve a certain amount of unneeded suffering and death on the animals parts, but for some people, their dog or cat is the only reason they have any sympathy at all for non-humans. So pets are a sort of unvolunteered diplomats for their species and animals in general.

Anyhow, here is one asian, dog charity I follow- https://www.facebook.com/pages/Duo-Duo-Animal-Welfare-Project-%E5%A4%9A%E5%A4%9A/380841222033262


How do ethics work in Shin Buddhism? "Even the good person attains birth in the Pure Land, how much more so the evil person."

I think I understand the reasoning here-- if practice isn't effective, then the evil person, who doesn't practice or I suppose, do anything good, isn't planning on getting to the Pure Land by his own means, he's going to have to rely on someone else to get him there.

So, after this, if one's goal is to get to the pure land, what is the rationalization for ethical behavior?

(Let me emphasize I'm not trying to imply a suitable reason for being ethical isn't there, I just haven't gone in depth far enough into Shin Buddhism to know what the answer is, and I find it bemusing)

The founder of Shin Buddhism, Shinran, assumed that a person of shinjin (grounded faith) would naturally be inclined to refrain from harmful actions. These quotes are all from various letters that Shinran wrote:

...When people come to have faith in the Buddha deep in their heart, they genuinely renounce this life, they lament their transmigration in Samsara, they have deep faith in Amida's Vow, and they delight in saying Amida Buddha. If these people truly desire not to commit the evil deeds that they may be inclined to do, it is an indication of their renunciation of this world...
...thinking of the Buddha's benevolence, devote himself to the Nembutsu in order to respond with gratitude for that benevolence, and should hope for peace in the world...
...Do not take a liking to poison just because there is an antidote.

It's not really a rationalization, since ethical behavior in Shin Buddhism isn't done to gain something, even though it generally results in a more peaceful, happy life. It is more like a result of the transformative power of shinjin.
Reference: Living in Amida's Universal Vow, "Ethics in American Jodo-Shinshu: Trans-ethical Responsibility", pg. 201


Is suspending judgement a way to avoid wrong view? I came to this question from a comment made on an answer to a question about belief in rebirth. The comment read:

"A view that rebirth does not exist is a wrong view. You cannot realize Nibbana with this wrong view."

Now I wanted to reply that suspending judgement is a form of avoiding wrong view, but then I realized I'm not really sure; which bothered me. I suspend judgement about a lot of things even to the point of whether Buddhist enlightenment is real. So is suspending judgement proper, or does one on the Buddhist path eventually have to make choice?

Vicicicca(doubt) is one of five mental factors that hinders progress in meditation.
Reserving judgment might sound like a neat trick. But Vicicicca is already there and your mind is already corrupted to start with. So the natural tendency of the mind is to lean towards doubt. Because most of your thoughts are tainted with ignorance. Accepting Nibbana with faith shuts off one major avenue for Vicicicca.

It would be hard to keep to any path without faith, unless you know by direct experience that the path is right and it leads to the intended destination. It's the same with Nibbana. If you have no faith in the path or the destination, you wouldn't even bother to follow it. Even if you do, the slightest setback can make you give up on it. But if you have faith, you'd be more inclined to look at your own shortcomings instead of doubting the path.

How many times we put our faith in regular people on a daily basis? When a doctor gives you medicine, even when your life's dependant on it, you don't do any in depth analysis of the drug before using it. When you buy food, you don't lab test it 1st to see if it's completely safe. You just go by the reputation and put your faith on the quality assurance certifications. You don't know any of those by direct knowledge. When you fly, you put your life in the hands of the pilot and the airliner. Will you still take the flight, if you can't make up your mind about the safety of the plane? :)

Compared to all that, having faith in Nibbana shouldn't be a hard thing to do. And it is also the wise thing to do since it keeps doubt at bay and prevents you from getting discouraged easily. It is the same case with believing in rebirth. For those who have trouble believing in that, the natural tendency of the mind is to lean towards nihilism. That is harmful for the progress in the path.