Are some forms of employment less just to workers, according to Buddhism? I live in a pleasant apartment complex and work as an Instructor. My job is cushy, which is good because I have health issues (and teach adults with health issues). But I watch workers mow the lawn at the apartment complex, re-shingle the roofs, etc. Other examples are food service workers and auto repair people with oil and sweat on them. I have worked on an assembly line for a while and the biggest problem for me was the intolerable loneliness. (It didn't do much for my feet, hands and back either.) I have cooked, cleaned, repaired cars and appliances and so on, but all in some moderation. I wonder about jobs where people do the same drudge work day after day?

I know about the idea of Karma, but it has gone flat for me, because the idea of Reincarnation has also. Leaving those aside (except for people getting good or bad consequences of their recent choices) what does Buddhism say about whether various work situations are more or less Just / Fair to the workers? This is not about Right Livelihood, because I am addressing the circumstances that workers are put in - the external world - rather than them choosing their work - the personal realm. [Consider only legally allowed work: I am not trying to deal with crime here. Also, don't try to solve the problem, only explain the perspective on it, please.]

In the book "The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity" there was an interesting section on the Buddha's advice to employers on how to treat their employees. I will fill in with direct quotes a bit later. But the message to employers was to treat their employees well and to give them benefits including something akin to modern day medical benefits.

I found this very interesting but not surprising. The Buddha was a social champion in compassion and treating people fairly. Many employers today could learn a lot from his teachings.

Edit

From page 16 of "The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity":

  The Buddha's recommendations for the welfare of employees further clarify an honorable path to prosperity. Specifically he mentioned five ways in which employers should treat workers:

  Assign work and duties in accordance with their skills and abilities.

  Pay salaries befitting their work and service.

  Provide medical assistance.

  Make wholesome food availble.

  Allow for leave and vacations at appropriate times.

  These amazingly modern concepts confirm the Buddha's teaching that people are not entitled to wealth if they fail to follow ethical business practices.

The books original source for this information was listed as DN 31: Sigalovada Sutta, The Long Discourses of the Buddha: 461-469.

And indeed from Sigalovada Sutta:

  "In five ways should a master minister to his servants and employees as the Nadir:

  (i) by assigning them work according to their ability,

  (ii) by supplying them with food and with wages,

  (iii) by tending them in sickness,

  (iv) by sharing with them any delicacies,

  (v) by granting them leave at times.

As far as people doing routine work, that doesn't have to be a negative thing at all. Not being overly stimulated in your work can give you plenty of time for being meditative in daily life, being content with a simple life, and getting out of work on time as compared to executives who are married to their careers and stay occupied with them 24/7.


Why did Dr. BR Ambedkar convert to buddhism? Me text-book and dad(historian + buddhist) told me that the father of the indian constitution converted into buddhism towards the end of his life.

Can anyone please tell me why he did so?

Tnx for all the help

i think Wikipedia articles on the man and on the Dalit emancipation movement give some insight into his reasons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar#Conversion_to_Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement#B._R._Ambedkar

they appear to be primarily socio-political rather than existential and spiritual


What is the overall Buddhist taxonomy? Building from this question, I'd be really interested in seeing an overall view of the Buddhist taxonomical system. I don't mean the actual names "Therevada", "Mahayana" and so on, or "Soto", "Rinzai" etc. I mean, what is the overall system into which those names fit.

In other words, what is meant by words like: school, sect, lineage, vehicle, branch, tradition, and so on.

I doubt there will be anything as robust as you'd see here, but a rough guide would be nice.

We can only propose taxonomy. Plus there is many misuse of the terms. This is how I view things:

school (vada) - It's supposed to be school of thought, so school adherents should share common philosophical view. Probably in ancient times they was. But in modern practice, frequently, any group united by common root is called a school.

sect - sometimes people divide whole Religion into sects, but sometimes they call schools sects. Plus, term inherited from Christianity some negative connotations of heresy. Thus, sometimes word 'sect' is not liked at all.

branch - just general division which is not loaded term as a sect. For example, we can split whole Buddhism into branches (Tibetan, Chinese, etc), but also we can split some tradition into branches (Tibetan into Gelug, Kagyu, etc., or Kagyu into Karma Kagyu, Drikung Kagyu, etc.) It's general classification word like 'part', 'subdivision', etc.

tradition - what is survived (or evolved) to modern day from ancient ages. It's probably region based. But in practice interchangeable with sect or school too.

vehicle (yana) - some theoretical division of the Teaching, used by Buddha in some texts. It's more abstract division than real historical entity. Only historical we have about vehicles is attribution of some texts to vehicles and acceptance or not by some schools of these texts as canonical.

lineage - supposedly unbreaked personal inheritance of some teaching, or student-teacher relationships, from ancient to modern teacher (frequently lineage goes up to the Buddha himself).

vinaya lineage - historically is more important than adherence to philosophy, it's unbreaked succession of ordinance into Sangha by the rules for particular vinaya. Currently only three vinaya lineages are survived.

What else?


About the compatibility between meditation methods, guides, trainings and teachers, and other questions regarding Samadhi Being acquainted with Buddhism (although in a pretty shallow and intellectual fashion) since a few years now, I've just realized that I had almost no experience in meditation at all. It was only recently that I started training on and studying about Samadhi, and all this time without a teacher or proper guidance, mainly because in my country Buddhism is still "in diapers".

As I'm more inclined to Theravāda teachings, I'd like to have some advice from more experienced theravadin meditators (i.e. from people whose main source of information are the Pali Suttas).

A few questions (all coming from almost complete ignorance, so excuse me if I using some words in an incorrect manner):

1) What is the best way, according to the suttas, to cultivate the mind in right attention and right samadhi?

2) Should "noting" meditation be used when doing samatha or jhāna meditation?

3) (For those of you acquainted with the works of Upasaka Culadasa) Is the guide offered in The Mind Illuminated compatible with other Theravāda teachers' guides, such as those from Venerables Thanissaro, Brahm , Yuttadhammo, Mahasi Sayadaw, Ajahn Chah, Analayo and Goenka? I just bought this book and I like to know what to keep and what to ignore from it.

4) How do the methods from the above mentioned teachers differ from one another? And are these differences reconcilable?

I would appreciate any advice or knowledge from you. Even if only one question of these can be answered, I'd be grateful.

Thanks for your time and patience!

SO the summary is that you must not confuse the  noble 8 fold path with the humanism pushed by puthujjanas, you must not let the mind be afflicted by the body, you must not be blind to the danger of sensuality, you must judge your thoughts and sanna and vedana all day long, you must become sensitive to the sankharas in order to destroy them.
The hardest part is to be sensitive to the ''joy of renunciation'' and the samma smadhi will come by the usual formula:

  ''living thus heedfully, joy arises''

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.040.than.html

It is mano which has piti and the kaya has passambhati then sukhaṃ vediyati, and the citta has sukhha then samadhi.

Like any humanist, The puthujjana Upasaka Culadasa confuses being a humanist, having compassion, with the ''kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma''. That's a typical mistake created by puthujjanas who refuse the nekhamma part of samma sankappa, whereas not having nekhamma is just as detrimental as having ill-will.
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/05/an05-090.html

Those people  cling to sensuality and their typical behavior is that they feel sad when they see puthujjanas not having stuff, so they say that they are good people, because ''they have compassion'' and because they give'' stuff to destitute puthujjanas, because when the destitute puthujjanas has stuff, this puthujjana is no longer sad.
Of course, this behavior relies on craving, on kamma,  on sankharas and jayati so it never ever ends the dukkha of the puthujjana who gives stuff nor the dukkha of the destitute puthujjana.
This is explained here https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/an7.52

The good thing about the doctrine created by the puthujjana Upasaka Culadasa is that even though you get wrong concentration by following his directions,  you avoid one of the most moronic & toxic idea ever created by a puthujjana :  to wit, mixing the dhamma with ''the dark night'' created the christian puthujjanas who develop the ''dry insight'' doctrine in the west, [christian puthujjanas who talk about the dhamma cling to their christian vocabulary]. Those people completely fail to understand that any insight into dukkha does not generate more dukkha. THis is because those puthujjanas are eager to declare themselves as ''having insights'', as ''reaching first path'', as ''cycling through insights'' and plenty of other toxic words expressing their toxic ideas.

Instead of talking about the various wrong samadhi invented by various puthujjanas, it is way better to focus on right sammadhi, or even better on rigth liberation.
The difficulty with the right liberation is that The right liberation can be expressed by the vocabulary used for the wrong liberations.
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.41.007.wood.pts.htm#p1
but like the buddha says,  the best[=non-ambiguous] and unique way to speak of the right liberation is

  Truly that unshaken heart's release is void of lust, void of hate,
  void of illusion.

For instance, there are plenty of wrong liberations and then puthujjanas wonder what is the difference between those wrong liberations and the right liberation:

  "Housefather, this heart's release and this utterly unworldly[2]
  heart's release, and this heart's release that is by the void and that
  which is signless, - are these states diverse in spirit, diverse in
  letter, or are they the same both in spirit and in letter?"

  "There is one view of the question,[3] sir, according to which these
  states are diverse both in spirit and in letter.

  But there is another view, sir, according to which they are one and
  the same both in spirit and in letter.

Let's recall that the only goal of the dhamma is to end dukkha, and it turns out that ending dukkha is about viraga, nirodha, Paṭinissaggā and ''the letting go'' that puthujjanas misuse and plenty of other words like extinction.

  "Householder, through the destruction, fading away, cessation, giving
  up, and relinquishment of desire, lust, delight, craving, engagement
  and clinging, mental standpoints, adherences, and underlying
  tendencies towards the form element, the mind is said to be well
  liberated.

The buddha had plenty of wrong concentration before getting the right concentration, which are the jhanas, and then later on ''turning the citta'' to the famous 3 knowledges which are the insights into kamma, jayati and dukkha.

So like he said after remarking his failure to end dukkha, he started from scratch. For a puthujjana, starting from scratch means judging thoughts and sanna-vedana, because puthujjanas crave basing their life and actions on their thoughts and sanna-vedana. The biggest problem for puthujjanas is that they do not know what are meritorious thoughts and meritorious vedana-sanna, and the demeritorious thoughts and sanna-vedana.
SO starting from scratch means judging thoughts and sanna-vedana each hour of each day of each week of each month. That's really hard for most puthujjanas. THe citta who watches and judges  thoughts and sanna-vedana has the samadhi called the sati sampajaanna http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html

Even though he claimed that nekhamma and metta are good, he still failed to get the citta into samadhi, precisely because he still lusted towards the opposite of those  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.041.than.html
Failing to see the dangers of the aggregates is the way to never have the joy of the nekhamma, to have the mind afflicted by the aggregates, like the buddha explains to Nakulapita, in the Nakulapita Sutta

  "And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is
  the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has
  regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma;
  who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in
  their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as
  possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is
  not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is
  not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does
  not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its
  change & alteration.

  "He does not assume feeling to be the self...

  "He does not assume perception to be the self...

  "He does not assume fabrications to be the self...

  "He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as
  possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self
  as in consciousness. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am
  consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with
  these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, but he does not fall
  into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change &
  alteration.

  "This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body but unafflicted in
  mind."

It turns out that the good thoughts and sanna-devana are the thoughts of nekhamma and metta and the good sanna-vedana are whatever sanna-vedana there is in samma samadhi. When the citta is in samma samadhi, ''you make merit'', like puthujjanas say, and the ''contact'' generating the sanna-vedana are meritorious. [and then when there is a jayati, , it is in the higher realms and the contact is good].
 The other way to make merit outside samadhi is explained here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.057.than.html

Having right samadhi is good and since a puthujjana who trains to end dukkha has sati, this puthujjana has memorized that right samadhi is the way to slide towards nibanna,  viraga, nirodha , Patinissagga, the ending of the sankharas, of the asavas, of whatever stems from ignorance.
https://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.53.001-012.wood.pts.htm

This is what sotapannas  have to do to finish the path, because right samadhi means to see properly the dhammas [puthujjanas speculate on this by wondering whether dhammas here means ''phenomena or the teaching, but it is not important]
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.005.than.html

  The Blessed One said: "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated
  monk discerns in line with what has come into being. And what does he
  discern in line with what has come into being? The origination &
  disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling...
  perception... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of
  consciousness.

THe way for a sotapanna to reach anagamin is the first jhana

  even so in the Ariyan disciple arises the flawless, taintless eye of
  wisdom,[12] and along with this arising three fetters are abandoned,
  to wit:

  The view of the person-pack,[13] doubt-and-wavering and wrong handling
  of rite and ritual.

  Nay more, he departs from two things, coveting and malevolence.

  This disciple, aloof from sensual desires, aloof from unprofitable
  states, entering on the first musing, which is accompanied by thought
  directed and sustained, born of seclusion, zestful and easeful, dwells
  therein.

  [222] At such time, monks, if the Ariyan disciple should make an end,
  there is no fetter bound by which he would come back again to this
  world.'[14]

Once you are good at getting the citta in samadhi, you can try anapanasati, because The result of anapanasati is always nibanna.
In terms of sankharas, anapanasati means the destruction of sankharas, and reaching viraga and all that. Before destroying the sankharas, you need to tranquilize them and before tranquilizing the sankharas, you need to be sensitive to the sankharas. So it always goes like this
**

  be sensitive to sankharas --->calm the  sankharas--> destroy the
  sankharas

**


Does your lay Buddhist name follow you for life or does it change with different temples and masters? When you are laity and given a Buddhist name does it change with different masters and temples or do you carry it with you for life? While mostly pertaining to the Vietnamese tradition I'm very curious about all. Thank you.

Within the Triratna Buddhist Order, an order member is given a name upon ordination by his or her preceptor. This is part of the "private ordination" at which the practice of the ordinand is witnessed by the private preceptor as being effective. At the "public ordination", some time later, the name is made public and the ordinand is welcomed into the Order by a public preceptor (sometimes, but not always, a more senior order member than the private preceptor).

The name is both an aspiration and a recognition of something already present in the person, or one or the other (what may or may not be conveyed to the ordinand). The name may also hint at the individual path taken by the order member, as recognised by the private preceptor.

Some, but far from all, also change their legal name to the name given at ordination.

It happens that people leave the order for various reasons. I believe that some choose to keep their "Buddhist names". The name is, after all, actually not directly linked to them being member of the order, but to the recognition and witnessing of the effectiveness of their practice.

Regards,
Kusalananda


Is it moral to trade goods? If I for example buy cheap products from china and sell them with a higher price to other people in a different country in ebay - is this really wholesome?

This kind of career, isn't really helping society in anything, correct ?

Any other views on this subject is welcome.

If I for example buy cheap products from china and sell them with a higher price to other people in a different country in ebay - is this really wholesome?

It depends on the intention / volition motivating the action. If the action is based in one of the unwholesome root defilements, namely Greed, then yes it is unwholesome.

If it is based in the wholesome roots of Renunciation, Good-will and Harmlessness, then no, it is not unwholesome. An example could be, that one tries to earn more money in order to donate them to charity or help beings in need.

If one just wants to earn more money for oneself, then you are right, it is not helping either oneself, other beings or society.

Another key factor is the consequences of ones action. One should ask oneself, what would happen if I payed the seller in China a larger salary? It might be more beneficial to pay them more, than to earn more money for oneself. If the seller needs the money more than oneself, then one could help that being by paying more for the goods.

If people have more money to cover their basic needs, then they will also have more time for spiritual / religious practice.


Is there any canonical descriptions of the physical characteristics of the Buddha? Question is in the title.

Im aware of descriptions of the Buddha in which he is described as "god-like" or "supernatural".

Im looking for any canonical descriptions of the physical characteristics of the Buddha that are bit more down to earth.

Thank you for your time.

From DN 30 - Marks of the Superman:

  There are thirty-two special marks of the Super-man, brethren, and for the Superman possessing them two careers lie open, and none other. If he live the life of the House, he becomes Monarch, Turner of the Wheel, a righteous Lord of the Right, Ruler of the four quarters, Conqueror, Guardian of the people’s good, Owner of the Seven Treasures. His do those seven treasures become, to wit, the Wheel treasure, the Elephant treasure, the Horse treasure, the Gem treasure, the Woman treasure, the Housefather treasure, the Adviser treasure making the seventh. More than a thousand sons will be his, heroes, champions, vigorous of frame, crushers of the hosts of the enemy. He, when he has conquered this earth to its ocean bounds, is established not by the scourge, not by the sword, but by righteousness. But if such a boy go forth from the life of the House into the Homeless State, he becomes Arahant, a Buddha Supreme, rolling back the veil from the world.

Also from MN 91 - Brahmayu Sutta:

  At that time the Brahmin Brahmàyu had a pupil, a young man named Uttara who had learned the three Vedas, knew the rites and rituals as officiating priest, the phonology and etymology of words and the marks of a Great Man. The Brahmin Brahmàyu addressed his pupil and said. 'Dear Uttara, approach the recluse Gotama, son of the Sakyas, who is said to be perfect, ... re.... enlightened and blessed, and find out whether these qualities are really so, or not. You should examine good Gotama for me,' 'Sir, how should I know whether good Gotama is endowed with these qualities or not,' 'Uttara, the two and thirty marks of a Great Man have come down to us in the sayings. One endowed with these marks has two courses of action and not another. If he leads the household life, becomes the Universal Monarch, a stable, righteous king with power in the four directions, endowed with the seven jewels. They are the jewels of the, wheel, elephant, horse, gem, woman, householder, and the advisor. He has more than a thousand sons, with heroic figures, clever and able to subdue foreign armies. He rules over the country bounded by the ocean righteously, without stick or weapon. If he leaves the household and becomes hermit, he will be perfect and all knowing and would remove the veil of darkness. I have given you this knowledge and you know that.'


Diamond Sutra in Tibetan, Sanskrit, and/or Japanese Does anyone know where I can find a version of the Diamond Sutra that is in one of these three formats:

Classical Tibetan with Romanized Tibetan and English

Devangari with Romanized Sanskrit and English

Japanese with Romaji and English

एवं मया श्रुतम् evaṃ mayā śrutam

  एकस्मिन् समये भगवान् श्रावस्त्यां विहरति स्म जेतवनेऽनाथपिण्डदस्यारामे
  महता भिक्षुसंघेन सार्थं त्रयोदशभिर्भिक्षुशतैः संबहुलैश्च
  बोधिसत्त्वैर्महासत्त्वैः ekasmin samaye bhagavān śrāvastyāṃ viharati
  sma jetavane'nāthapiṇḍadasyārāme mahatā bhikṣusaṃghena sārthaṃ
  trayodaśabhirbhikṣuśataiḥ saṃbahulaiśca bodhisattvairmahāsattvaiḥ

  अथ खलु भगवान् पूर्वाह्णकालसमये निवास्य पात्रचीवरमादाय श्रावस्तीं
  महानगरीं पिण्डाय प्राविक्षत् atha khalu bhagavān pūrvāhṇakālasamaye
  nivāsya pātracīvaramādāya śrāvastīṃ mahānagarīṃ piṇḍāya prāvikṣat

  अथ खलु भगवान् श्रावस्तीं महानगरीं पिण्डाय चरित्वा कृतभक्तकृत्यः
  पश्चाद्भक्तपिण्डपातप्रतिक्रान्तः atha khalu bhagavān śrāvastīṃ
  mahānagarīṃ piṇḍāya caritvā kṛtabhaktakṛtyaḥ
  paścādbhaktapiṇḍapātapratikrāntaḥ

  पात्रचीवरं प्रतिशाम्य पादौ प्रक्षाल्य न्यषीदत्प्रज्ञप्त एवासने
  पर्यङ्कमाभुज्य ऋजुं कायं प्रणिधाय प्रतिमुखीं स्मृतिमुपस्थाप्य| अथ खलु
  संबहुला भिक्षवो येन भगवांस्तेनोपसंक्रामन् उपसंक्रम्य भगवतः पादौ
  शिरोभिरभिवन्द्य भगवन्तं त्रिष्प्रदक्षिणीकृत्य एकान्ते न्यषीदन्
  pātracīvaraṃ pratiśāmya pādau prakṣālya nyaṣīdatprajñapta evāsane
  paryaṅkamābhujya ṛjuṃ kāyaṃ praṇidhāya pratimukhīṃ smṛtimupasthāpya
  atha khalu saṃbahulā bhikṣavo yena bhagavāṃstenopasaṃkrāman
  upasaṃkramya bhagavataḥ pādau śirobhirabhivandya bhagavantaṃ
  triṣpradakṣiṇīkṛtya ekānte nyaṣīdan

  तेन खलु पुनः समयेनायुष्मान् सुभुतिस्तस्यामेव पर्षदि
  संनिपतितोऽभूत्संनिषण्णः अथ खल्वायुष्मान्
  सुभूतिरुत्थायासनादेकांसमुत्तरासङ्गं कृत्वा दक्षिणं जानुमण्डलं
  पृथिव्यां प्रतिष्ठाप्य येन भगवांस्तेनाञ्जलिं प्रणम्य भगवन्तमेतदवोचत्
  आश्चर्यं भगवन्, परमाश्चर्यं सुगत, यावदेव तथागतेनार्हता सम्यक्संबुद्धेन
  बोधिसत्त्वा महासत्त्वा अनुपरिगृहीताः परमेणानुग्रहेण tena khalu punaḥ
  samayenāyuṣmān subhutistasyāmeva parṣadi saṃnipatito'bhūtsaṃniṣaṇṇaḥ
  atha khalvāyuṣmān subhūtirutthāyāsanādekāṃsamuttarāsaṅgaṃ kṛtvā
  dakṣiṇaṃ jānumaṇḍalaṃ pṛthivyāṃ pratiṣṭhāpya yena bhagavāṃstenāñjaliṃ
  praṇamya bhagavantametadavocatāścaryaṃ bhagavan, paramāścaryaṃ sugata,
  yāvadeva tathāgatenārhatā samyaksaṃbuddhena bodhisattvā mahāsattvā
  anuparigṛhītāḥ parameṇānugraheṇa

  आश्चर्यं भगवन् यावदेव तथागतेनार्हता सम्यक्संबुद्धेन बोधिसत्त्वा
  महासत्त्वाः परीन्दिताः परमया परीन्दनया| तत्कथं भगवन्
  बोधिसत्त्वयानसंप्रस्थितेन कुलपुत्रेण वा कुलदुहित्रा वा स्थातव्यं कथं
  प्रतिपत्तव्यं कथं चित्तं प्रग्रहीतव्यम् āścaryaṃ bhagavan yāvadeva
  tathāgatenārhatā samyaksaṃbuddhena bodhisattvā mahāsattvāḥ parīnditāḥ
  paramayā parīndanayā| tatkathaṃ bhagavan bodhisattvayānasaṃprasthitena
  kulaputreṇa vā kuladuhitrā vā sthātavyaṃ kathaṃ pratipattavyaṃ kathaṃ
  cittaṃ pragrahītavyam

  एवमुक्ते भगवानायुष्मन्तं सुभूतिमेतदवोचत्साधु साधु सुभूते,
  एवमेतत्सुभूते, एवमेतद्यथा वदसि अनुपरिगृहीतास्तथागतेन बोधिसत्त्वा
  महासत्त्वाः परमेणानुग्रहेण परीन्दितास्तथागतेन बोधिसत्त्वा महासत्त्वाः
  परमया परीन्दनया तेन हि सुभूते शृणु, साधु च सुष्ठु च मनसि कुरु,
  भाषिष्येऽहं तेयथा बोधिसत्त्वयानसंप्रस्थितेन स्थातव्यं यथा
  प्रतिपत्तव्यं यथा चित्तं प्रग्रहीतव्यम् एवं भगवन् इत्यायुष्यान्
  सुभूतिर्भगवतः प्रत्यश्रौषीत् evamukte bhagavānāyuṣmantaṃ
  subhūtimetadavocatsādhu sādhu subhūte, evametatsubhūte, evametadyathā
  vadasi anuparigṛhītāstathāgatena bodhisattvā mahāsattvāḥ
  parameṇānugraheṇa parīnditāstathāgatena bodhisattvā mahāsattvāḥ
  paramayā parīndanayā tena hi subhūte śṛṇu, sādhu ca suṣṭhu ca manasi
  kuru, bhāṣiṣyehaṃ te-yathā bodhisattvayānasaṃprasthitena sthātavyaṃ
  yathā pratipattavyaṃ yathā cittaṃ pragrahītavyam evaṃ bhagavan
  ityāyuṣyān subhūtirbhagavataḥ pratyaśrauṣīt

  भगवानस्यैतदवोचतिह सुभूते बोधिसत्त्वयानसंप्रस्थितेनैव
  चित्तमुत्पादयितव्यम्यावन्तः सुभूते सत्त्वाः सत्त्वधातौ सत्त्वसंग्रहेण
  संगृहीता अण्डजा वा जरायुजा वा संस्वेदजा वा औपपादुका वा रूपिणो वा
  अरूपिणो वा संज्ञिनो वा असंज्ञिनो वा नैवसंज्ञिनो नासंज्ञिनो वा, यावान्
  कश्चित्सत्त्वधातुः प्रज्ञप्यमानः प्रज्ञप्यते, ते च मया सर्वेऽनुपधिशेषे
  निर्वाणधातौ परिनिर्वापयितव्याः bhagavānasyaitadavocatiha subhūte
  bodhisattvayānasaṃprasthitenaiva cittamutpādayitavyam-yāvantaḥ subhūte
  sattvāḥ sattvadhātau sattvasaṃgraheṇa saṃgṛhītā aṇḍajā vā jarāyujā vā
  saṃsvedajā vā aupapādukā vā rūpiṇo vā arūpiṇo vā saṃjñino vā asaṃjñino
  vā naivasaṃjñino nāsaṃjñino vā, yāvān kaścitsattvadhātuḥ
  prajñapyamānaḥ prajñapyate, te ca mayā sarvenupadhiśeṣe nirvāṇadhātau
  parinirvāpayitavyāḥ

See the rest of the Sanskrit text here: http://ntireader.org/taisho/t0235.html (this source also has it in Chinese, in case you wanted it in that language).

Use this converted to generate Devanāgari script: Transliteration Tool -- ashtangayoga.info


Different state of mind during dhamma talk Has anyone experienced moments like being in a state of restlessness during a dhamma talk?
A sense of relief, moment of temporary escape but yet the mind is actively running wild, almost gone into a state where one feels like tearing.
I wonder if it could be due to the stress and sorrow the person going through, therefore the person entered into such state of mind.
I always thought during dhamma talk, one's mind is supposed to be calm and steady or somewhat shielded from any harmful agent from the outside world.
Anyone mind to share?
Thanks!

Has anyone experienced moments like being in a state of restlessness during a dhamma talk?

The 5 Hindrances can surface any time. It is not necessarily in meditation. It can happen during Dhamma Talks, while working, etc. So Restlessness-worry being one of it can arise any time.

  A sense of relieved, moment of temporary escape but yet the mind is actively running wild, almost gone into a state where one feels like tearing.

This is the nature of the mind. Do not analyse and this is what I expect of my mind, this is what do not expect of the mind, this is I do not care where by generating pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensations followed by craving, aversion and ignorance.

  I wonder could it be due to the stress and sorrow the person going through, therefore the person entered into such state of mind.

Stress and sorrow generally co exists with unwholesome mind state. This can lead to hindrances arising.

  I always thought during dhamma talk, one's mind supposed to be calm and steady or somewhat shielded from any harmful agent from the outside world. Anyone mind to share?

If you have wise attention (equanimous and seeing the 3 universal characteristics), then only then you get shielded from any harmful agent from the outside world.


Dwelling Upon Seeming Levels of Emptiness? Note: the term sunyata here is being used from the Mahayana context.
Not too long ago, I asked this question about concentration and openness where I suggested that concentration was a hindrance to my practice. I received an answer which informed my intuitive understanding by @Andrei Volkov, in which he recommended a book called The Relaxed Mind by Dza Kilung Rinpoche. This changed my practice and opened up a new discernment concerning space, time and consciousness - essentially the aggregates and their ever subtle perceptions. It also led me to the Tibetan master Chogyam Trungpa who also adopts this same openness method.
Thus, shifting my practice to openness (as opposed to strict focus on a single object) I've been noticing a different kind of "not-there-ness". To put this another way: the perception of body as it is normally known is no longer there, but I am still able to function perfectly fine - actually better in terms of how worldly things normally affect me.
It's most noticeable when sitting with people and when they are talking to me. There's a part of my mind that thinks, "who is this person talking to?" because, even though they are looking at me, it is like they are speaking into empty space, like they are in the room by themselves.
Please be clear: what I have described above is NOT the negation of suffering which should become clearer from the following.
I'm not able to reference the aggregates as they usually operate, but I discern that there is the perception of "not-there-ness" which presents as an extremely fine notion of space. However, that space-perception seems to have a definitive location situated where the body was previously and conventionally seen as solid matter giving rise to some sort of here-ness, and thus it's opposite: there-ness.
The form aggregate has taken another blow, but the feeling/perception aggregate has just dropped into a more refined level and thus is still able to create clinging to the idea of "space-body" because space-body has a very subtle pleasantness. In Theravada this might be known as arūpa-rāga: craving for immaterial existence thus perpetuating the consciousness aggregate in its entirety. It took me a while to see this, and I could only see it by opening my practice from where I was able to gain situational understanding or a bigger picture.
Here in these regions, it seems the motions of samsara cleverly uses indirect methods to sustain the samsaric body. I guess it can only operate at its current level of awareness, and if that level of awareness is largely formless then its movements should naturally reflect the subtleties of formlessness. Therefore, from a Mahayana perspective, I cannot see this as form is emptiness and emptiness is form. I cannot see this as sunyata. However, it may offer promise, but in ways that are now counter-intuitive.
My question is a little obscure, but I think it has some relevance:

Having studied sutta after sutta and read various works of the
masters, I'm making a reasoned observation that the enlightened mind
knows it is liberated, that it knows sunyata, but to what extent is that knowing not of the self such that one can know sunyata?
There always appears to be a claimant to the ever emerging subtleties
of emptiness rendering the idea of ending suffering a fallacy.

After nearly five years of intensive lay practice I'm getting quite tired of it all and find myself practising less and less. Although this is more helpful than a hindrance.
NOTE: I'm not sure if the term space-body is associated with any school. I've just used it spontaneously and completely impromptu. If it does have such an association, it may not share the same conceptual understanding with regard to the context of this question.

Impermanence is unsatisfactory. Chasing impermanence leads to suffering. What then should be known as known?
To this point, the Venerable Sariputta teaches:

DN34:1.3.23: What two things should be produced?
DN34:1.3.24: Two knowledges:
DN34:1.3.25: knowledge of ending, and knowledge of non-arising.
DN34:1.3.27: What two things should be directly known?
DN34:1.3.28: Two elements:
DN34:1.3.29: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.

The conditioned and unconditioned elements are known by their characteristics:

AN3.47:0.3: 47. Characteristics of the Conditioned
AN3.47:1.1: “Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics.
AN3.47:1.2: What three?
AN3.47:1.3: Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident.
AN3.47:1.4: These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.”
AN3.47:2.0: Characteristics of the Unconditioned
AN3.47:2.1: “Unconditioned phenomena have these three characteristics.
AN3.47:2.2: What three?
AN3.47:2.3: No arising is evident, no vanishing is evident, and no change while persisting is evident.
AN3.47:2.4: These are the three characteristics of unconditioned phenomena.”

These characteristics guide the knowing.
Knowing is informed by perception. Perceiving the form of a cup, one perceives simultaneously the emptiness within. They are one and the same. By relinquishing form, emptiness necessarily grows as described in MN121:

MN121:12.5: There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
MN121:12.6: And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present.
MN121:12.7: That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.
MN121:13.1: Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.


How should I watch sensations in Vipassana meditation? How should I watch sensations in Vipassana? Should I watch from head to toe and then toe to head? Please explain things step by step as I'm new to Vipassana. Thanks in advance!

Firstly one should know how to handle experiances. This is what Vipassana teaches you.

Judging or reacting to sensation can lead to negative latent tendencies:

  (1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;

  (2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;

  (3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings.

Pahāna Sutta

So the take away from this is one should not judge or react to sensations.

Whatever feeling on feels one should:

  If he feels a pleasant feeling,

  he understands that it is impermanent;
  he understands that it is not to be clung to;
  he understands that there is no delight in it.

  If he feels a painful feeling,

  he understands that it is impermanent;
  he understands that it is not to be clung to;
  he understands that there is no delight in it.

  If he feels a neutral feeling,

  he understands that it is impermanent;
  he understands that it is not to be clung to;
  he understands that there is no delight in it.

  If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

  If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

  If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

Similarly,

  “Nothing is worth clinging to”

  When this was said, the venerable Mahā Moggallāna said this to the Blessed One: “In what way, bhante, in brief, is a monk freed through the destruction of craving, that is, one who has reached total perfection, the total security from bondage, the total holy life, the total consummation, the highest amongst gods and humans?”

  “Here, Moggallāna, the monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to. And, Moggallāna, a monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things [he directly knows the nature of the all]. Having directly known the nature of all things, he fully understands all things.

  Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether

  pleasant,
  painful or
  neither painful nor pleasant.

  As regards to those feelings, [Section on Disillusionment and Revulsion (Nibbida) follows]

  he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;
  he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;
  he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;
  he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).

  When he dwells contemplating

  impermanence in them,
  contemplating dispassion in them,
  contemplating ending in them,
  contemplating letting go,

  he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.

Pacalā Sutta

Now knowing how sensations should be handled, systematically start scanning areas of your body from head to foot and foot to head without missing any areas for sensations.

There are subtle every ware in one's body. One should make oneself sensitive to the subtlest sensations. One should not miss any areas as this way one may not get sensitive to sensations in these areas.

One should stay in each and every area for some time until one feels sensations, but not too long as to get attached to the sensation. If one does not feel any sensation after while one just moves to the next area. One should not lose one's mental composure due to the sensations experienced or even the lack of sensations. If there is no sensations one should not feel disappointed as this is aversion.

One should systematically do the scanning so that:

one does not miss any areas
one stays the same time in one area

Being systematic in the scanning process ensures that at some point one is sensitive enough to feel sensations:

thought out the body
instantly when one's attention is moved to the area

When scanning when one feels sensations in an area one should look at them close to see:

intensification and reduction of sensation
components or make up of the sensations

One should look at the sensations:

dividing and dissecting sensations to see more clearly, if the sensations look like clumped up mass of pain or pleasure one should break the sensations into smaller areas to see if they are made of smaller components
one should penetrate a mass or clumped up clusters of sensation looking at how it cages and intensifies as one direction to another
one should look at the change of sensation from moment to moment

Looking at sensations dividingly, dissecting and penetratingly ensures one starts seeing arising and passing away phenomena as a 1st hand experience. Further systematic practice will lead to a situation wherever one's attention is focused one sees the arising and passing away of phenomena.

The sensations one experiences are:

pleasant
unpleasant
neutral

Whatever one feels this is unsatisfactory:

  pleasant feeling is pleasant when it persists, painful when it changes;
  painful feeling is painful when it persists, pleasant when it changes;
  neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge of it, painful when there is no knowledge of it.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

Each type of sensation corresponds to the 3 categories of dukkha:

Unpleasant feelings - Dukkha-dukkha, the duḥkha of painful experiences. This includes the physical and mental sufferings of birth, aging, illness, dying; distress from what is not desirable.
Pleasant feelings - Viparinama-dukkha, the duḥkha of pleasant or happy experiences changing to unpleasant when the causes and conditions that produced the pleasant experiences cease.
Neural or neither pleasant not unpleasant feelings - Sankhara-dukkha, the duḥkha of conditioned experience. This includes "a basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all existence, all forms of life, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance." On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards.

In Sammā Diṭṭhi Sutta 16 ways of liberations are discussed and one common thread in many of these ways is to abandon latent tendencies of lust, aversion and ignorance:

  he utterly abandons the latent tendency of lust,
  he removes the latent tendency of aversion,
  he abolishes the latent tendency of the view and conceit ‘I am,’

  and by abandoning ignorance and rousing true knowledge, he makes an end of suffering here and now.

  In that way, too, avuso, a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, attained to wise
  faith in the Dharma, one who has arrived at this true teaching.

In order to achieve that one should use

pleasant feelings to abandon lust,
unpleasant feelings to abandon aversion
neutral feelings to abandon ignorance

by being

equanimous to them and
seeing their impermanence:

  the latent tendency of lust should be abandoned in regard to pleasant feeling;
  the latent tendency of aversion should be abandoned in regard to painful feeling;
  the latent tendency of ignorance should be abandoned in regard to neutral feeling.

Pahāna Sutta

When one feels a sensation:

having equanimity one abandons attachment and aversion which intern leads to fabrications
seeing impermanence or arising and passing of 5 aggregates one abandons ignorance

Also, sensations lead to craving

  Avijjā,paccayā sankhārā With ignorance as condition, there are volitional
  formations;
  sankhāra,paccayā vinnānam with volitional formations
  as condition, there is consciousness;
  vinnāna,paccayā nāma,rupam with consciousness as condition, there is name-and-form;
  nāma,rupa,paccayā sal’āyatanam with name-and-form as condition, there are the six sense-bases;
  sal’āyatana,paccayā phasso with the six sense-bases as condition, there is contact;
  phassa,paccayā vedanā with contact as condition, there is feeling;
  vedanā,paccayā tanhā with feeling as condition, there is craving;
  tanhā,paccayā upādānam with craving as condition, there is clinging;
  upādāna,paccayā bhavo with clinging as condition, there is existence;
  bhava,paccayā jāti with existence as condition, there is birth;
  jāti,paccayā jarā,maranam with birth as condition, there arise decay and death,
  soka,parideva,dukkha,- sorrow, lamentation, physical pain,

  domanass’upāyasā sambhavanti mental pain and despair.

  evam-etassa kevalassa dukkha-k-
  khandhassa samudayo hoti — Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering

(Paṭicca,samuppada) Vibhanga Sutta

Also, sensation is an important station which leads to concept proliferation.

  “Bhikshu, as regards the source from which proliferation of conception and perception assails a person: if one were to find nothing there to delight in, nothing there to welcome, nothing to cling to—this is the end of

  the latent tendency of lust,
  the latent tendency of aversion,
  the latent tendency of views,
  the latent tendency of doubt,
  the latent tendency of conceit,
  the latent tendency of desire for existence, and
  the latent tendency of ignorance.

  This is the ending of the taking up of the rod and the sword, quarrels, disputes, mayhem [strife], slandering and lying —here these evil unwholesome states cease without remainder.”

  …

  Avuso, dependent on the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind] and [form | sound | smell | taste | touch | mind-object], [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind]-consciousness arises.

  The meeting of the three is contact.
  With contact as condition, there is feeling.
  What one feels, one perceives.
  What one perceives, one thinks about.
  What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates.

  From that as source, proliferation of conception and perception assails a person regarding past, future and present [forms | sounds | smells | tastes | touch | mind-objects] cognizable through the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind].

Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta

Both these train of events can be stopped by:

knowing there is a sensation
being equanimous whatever is felt
knowing it is impermanent

One should also contemplate causality in Vipassana:

  As such, bhikshus, the instructed noble disciple closely and wisely attends to dependent arising itself, thus:

  “When this is, that is;
  with the arising of this, that arises.
  When this is not, that is not;
  with the ending of this, that ends.”

  Bhikshus, dependent on pleasant contact, a pleasant feeling arises. With the ending of the pleasant contact, the pleasant feeling that arose in dependent on that pleasant contact, ceases, is stilled.
  Bhikshus, dependent on painful contact, a painful feeling arises. With the ending of the painful contact, the painful feeling that arose in dependent on that painful contact, ceases, is stilled.
  Bhikshus, dependent on neutral contact, a neutral feeling arises. With the ending of the neutral contact, the neutral feeling that arose in dependent on that neutral contact, ceases, is stilled.

Assutava Sutta 2

The arising and passing nature of the sensations result in unsatisfactoriness. Uncontrollable nature results in unsatisfactoriness. What causes sensations are also arising and passing which case the sensations to arise and pass. The cause of sensations is not controllable. Therefore, the whole sphere of experience is unsatisfactory.

Stopping of:

unwholesome roots
latent tendencies
craving
concept proliferation
fabrications
etc. (complete list see: Sammā Diṭṭhi Sutta)

arising is what needs to be done in the course of meditation.


How should one look at buddhist mythologies and cosmologies from a scientific perspective Although it could well be that those words were not directly from Gautama himself, yet just in case, assuming Gautama probably wouldn't lie except for educational purposes, how can those rather surreal descriptions of the world, which again share (too) many similarities with the hinduist ones, reconcile with modern science? Should one just regard them as "white lies" so that Buddhism be more easily accepted? How self-consistent are those descriptions anyways?

Also, I read somewhere before that those "insights", including Karma could be partially gained/observed through meditation. How true is this statement in terms of canonical literature reference?

... reconcile with modern science? ...

Modern science is always changing with new theories and discoveries but Buddhism is presented as eternal or timeless which is valid in the past, present and future. Hence these two cannot be fully reconciled. Since is refinement of theories and models getting closer to the truth while Buddhism is based on publically released ultimate realities. As science advance many of the concepts are in harmony and while there are perhaps hardly any scientifically proven discoveries which contradict Buddhism.

  ... which again share (too) many similarities with the hinduist ones ...

If you compare Hindu cosmology with Buddhist cosmology (especially Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school) there are wast differences. In Hinduism there is a creator but in Buddhism the universe goes through expansionary and contractionary phases.

  ... reconcile with modern science? ...

You cannot. But Buddhism has a theory of cyclical phases of the universe like the big bounce theory, parallel universes (see Parallel universes by Piya Tan), evolution, etc.

Also see: Buddhism and science, Buddhism and Modern Science - by Dr. Granville Dharmawardena (especially the highlighted areas), Is Buddhism the Most Science-Friendly Religion?

  ... including Karma could be partially gained/observed through meditation. ...

Meditation (especially samatha) can lead to psychic powers / supernormal knowledge like clairvoyance (divine eye) which can be give insights to the working of Karma. E.g.

    Thus, by means of the divine eye, may I see beings passing away and reappearing, and how they fare according to their karma.’

Source: Nimitta Sutta similar passage in Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta, Samanna,phala Sutta, Maha Assa,pura Sutta, Kevaddha Sutta.


During body-scan ('sweeping') meditation, what does brain-imaging (e.g. fMRI) look like? I do not know how extensively body scans have been studied with brain-imaging techniques, e.g. fMRI.

Body scan is a meditation technique developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn. It was derived from a meditation practice ('sweeping') of the Burmese U Ba Khin tradition.

  "It involves systematically sweeping through the body with the mind,
  bringing an affectionate, openhearted, interested attention to its
  various regions, customarily starting from the toes of the left foot
  and then moving through the entirety of the foot [...] From there, the
  focus moves into, successively, and slowly, the entirety of the pelvic
  region, including the buttocks and the genitals [...] and finally, to
  the face and head."

  "We are systematically and intentionally moving our attention through
  the body, attending to the various sensations in the different
  regions. That we can attend to these body sensations at all is quite
  remarkable. That we can do it at will, either impulsively or in a more
  disciplined systematic way, is even more so."

  "We might describe what we are doing during a body scan as tuning in
  or opening to those sensations, allowing ourselves to become aware of
  what is already unfolding."

I found it quite easy to practice and had interesting and unusual experiences (mostly pleasant).

My question is: Would any brain and brain-imaging expert - given this description - dare to guess roughly how a body scan may look like in a "brain scanner", e.g. recorded with fMRI?

I am not such an expert, nevertheless I dare to guess.

Presumably, a body scan will - mainly but not solely - take place in the areas of the cortical homunculus in the primary motor and sensory cortices.

I would guess that it is here that most of body scan related neural activity will occur. But in which manner: how will activity evolve and literally move around, how will it look like in the "brain scanner"?

Five possibilities come to my mind:

Experts and laymen will see nothing but a generally increased, enigmatically billowing activity of the cortical homunculus.
An expert would see some significant patterns, but only vague and hard to communicate.
Even the layman could see something:

an overall increased activity of the cortical homunculus with somehow changing peaks of activity (highlights, representing the body region the attentional focus is currently on)
a mostly "dark" cortical homunculus with a wandering spotlight of activity
a mostly dark cortical homunculus with a fading-in/fading-out spotlight every now and then

Which of these possibilities do you - if you happen to be a brain and/or brain-imaging expert - consider the most probable one? Other possibilities are welcome!

And of course hints to studies where this question has been experimentally attacked.

(I found one study but didn't delve deeper into it: there are too few images in it.)

Disclaimer: I'm not a brain expert or brain-imaging expert or neuroscientist.

In this YouTube video at around 15 minutes, you can find Dr. Zindel Segal presenting fMRI scans on depression patients practising mindfulness-based meditation (most probably Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy or MBCT). But I'm not sure if it includes body scanning. MBCT was based on Kabat-Zinn's Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR).

There are more fMRI scans shown in this YouTube video by neuroscientists presenting at the 10th Global Conference on Buddhism in Toronto this year. Again, I'm not sure if it includes body scanning.

Probably, you can contact the four neuroscientists in these videos plus Kabat-Zinn, to seek the precise answer to your question. Who knows? Maybe you might give them a new idea for a study, if it has not been done already.

Also see this answer.


What type of Buddhist monks are only allowed to eat two meals per day and why? In this answer, user yuttadhammo described that monks are only permitted two meals per day during the morning hours, from dawn to noon.

What type of Buddhist monks are permitted only two meals per deal? Why are theseBuddhist monks only permitted two meals a day in this time period?

Those monks who follow the pātimokkha (Sk. Prātimokṣa), either Mahayana or Theravada, keep this rule (or, in certain cases, a rule to eat only one meal per day). The rule is simply:

  37. Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it is to be confessed.

The wrong time is generally understood to mean outside of the morning hours between dawn and noon. So, technically, one could eat ten meals during this time if one so desired. The Buddha himself enjoined a single meal, as stated in the Bhaddāli Sutta (MN 65):

  “Bhikkhus, I eat at a single session. By so doing, I am free from illness and affliction, and I enjoy lightness, strength, and a comfortable abiding. Come, bhikkhus, eat at a single session. By so doing, you too will be free from illness and affliction, and you will enjoy lightness, strength, and a comfortable abiding.”

  (Bodhi, trans.)

Later, the monks were concerned about eating rice soup in the morning, thinking (I assume) that it would be considered a second meal. The Buddha enjoined them to partake of it, citing physical benefits (can't find the source right now, will try to add it later). So, it is generally understood that one should eat a single meal before noon, but may partake of something light at first light of dawn as well.

Many monks these days stretch or even break these rules, drinking milk, soya milk, etc. or even eating in the evening, but those who follow the rules, in both Mahayana and Theravada, will generally stick to one or two meals per day.

Eating once per day is actually specified as an optional (dhutanga) practice, meaning one would forgo even rice soup in the morning.


Anapanasati - are the 16 considered progressive sequence of steps? Answers to this question suggest that the 16 are steps or stages of anapanasati, which implies that they are a progressive sequence of steps or stages. They are also related to the four foundations of mindfulness or the satipatthana.

On the other hand, the booklet "How To Meditate" (quoted below) by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, seems to suggest that one should not use it as progressive steps. Instead, it recommends that if feelings arise, stop what you were trying to do, and go with that. Or if thoughts arise, stop what you were trying to do, and go with that.

That does not sound like a progressive sequence of steps. That seems to be more "go with the flow" or feel free to move from any of the 16 to any other, depending on what arises.

So, which is right approach to anapanasati? Are the 16 progressive sequence of steps approach right? Or is the approach of the "How To Meditate" booklet right?

Or are they two different techniques?

From "Chapter Two: Sitting Meditation" of the booklet "How To Meditate":

  Regarding the body, watching the rising and the falling is sufficient
  for a beginner meditator. At times, one might wish to also acknowledge
  the position of the body as “sitting, sitting”, or “lying, lying” if
  it is more found to be more conducive for clear observation.

  In regards to feelings, when a sensation arises in the body, one
  should fix one’s attention on it, discarding the abdomen and focusing
  on the sensation. If a feeling of pain should arise, for example, one
  should take the pain itself as a meditation object.

  Any one of the four foundations may serve as a meditation object, as
  all four are aspects of reality. It isn’t necessary to stay with the
  rising and falling of the abdomen at all times. Instead, when pain
  arises, one should observe the new object, the pain, in order to
  clearly understand it for what it is, rather than judging or
  identifying with it. As explained earlier, the meditator should simply
  focus on the pain and create the clear thought, “pain, pain, pain,
  pain…” until it goes away. Instead of getting upset about the pain,
  one will see it for what it is and let it go.

  When happiness arises, one should create the clear thought, “happy.”
  When one feels peaceful or calm, one should create the clear thought,
  “peaceful,” or “calm” until that feeling goes away. Here, the object
  is to avoid clinging to the feeling, which would create a dependency
  on it. When one clings to positive feelings, one will be inevitably
  dissatisfied when they are gone.

  Once the sensation disappears, one should return to the rising and
  falling of the abdomen and continue observing it as “rising” and
  “falling”.

  In regards to the mind, if thoughts arise during meditation, one
  should acknowledge them as “thinking”. It doesn’t matter whether one
  is thinking about the past or future or whether one’s thoughts are
  good or bad; instead of letting the mind wander and lose track of
  reality, bring the mind back to the reality of the thought with,
  “thinking”. Then return to the rising and falling and continue
  practice as normal.

  In regards to dhammas, when the mind gives rise to liking, pleased by
  a certain experience, create the clear thought, “liking, liking”. When
  disliking arises – anger, boredom, frustration, etc. – create the
  clear thought, “disliking, disliking”, “angry, angry”, “bored, bored”,
  or “frustrated, frustrated”. When laziness or drowsiness comes up,
  create the clear thought, “lazy, lazy”, or “drowsy, drowsy”. When
  distraction or worry arise, “distracted, distracted” or “worried,
  worried”. When doubt or confusion arise, “doubting, doubting” or
  “confused, confused” and so on.

  Once the above hindrances subside, bring the mind back again to a
  clear awareness of the present moment by focusing on the rise and fall
  of the abdomen.

The 16 steps or stages of anapanasati:

Try not to overthink it. There is a clear path of progressive steps or progress, yes, but for each meditator it varies somewhat as they each have varied conditions. We don't control what arises, so we can't expect to watch it unfold like a textbook.

The stages or steps occur naturally, without us having to force or think about it, as long as you are doing the one basic thing correctly: observe with wise attention whatever arises, without judgement.

You'll notice each grouping of steps follows a pattern of prescriptive action - this pattern of treatment is the important thing. Apply this pattern to whatever arises, and the Path will unfold before you, eventually without "effort". At first we start with the coarse, and naturally go sublter and subtler as our minds get more still and concentrated. The next thing to contemplate will be waiting for you, and arise on its own. Don't try to seek out an expected experience. Just observe whatever it is as it arises, watch it as it disappears, relaxed, without clinging. Its shockingly simple when it finally clicks. No need to wonder if you're at stage 13 or should I now contemplate the next thing on the to-do list or anything like that, that will just stir your mind up.

The breath is simply our home base, something we can always return to if we wander. Sticking with the breath trains our focus, trains our concentration, trains our resistance, trains us to not cling or push away. It is important to remember that the training of these skills are the key, not what object you use.

Master the method, and the Royal Road to Nibbana will appear. Good luck. May we all become truly free.


Where can I read the oldest and purest texts of Buddhism? I happen to read this text from the Buddhist Catechism (which was written by Olcott, published 1881):

Q. What striking contrasts are there between Buddhism and what may be properly called "religions?"
A. Among others, these: It teaches the highest goodness without a creating God; a continuity of life without adhering to the superstitious and selfish doctrine of an eternal, metaphysical soul-substance that goes out of the body; a happiness without an objective heaven; a method of salvation without a vicarious Savior; redemption by oneself as the Redeemer, and without rites, prayers, penances, priests or intercessory saints; and a summun bonum, i.e., Nirvâṇa, attainable in this life and in this world by leading a pure, unselfish life of wisdom and compassion to all beings.

But any recent texts I read about Buddhism all make it appear as if Buddhism is no different from any other dogmatic religion. I understand that Buddhism also underwent a lot of changes due to local cultures and competition from other religions.
What I want to learn is the original core message of Buddhism before it was made into a religion. Where can I find texts for understand this message.

The original teachings are found in the Pali suttas, where the Refuge in the Dhamma (Teachings) is described as follows:

  The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in the here &
  now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that
  sensible people can know it for themselves.

  SN 16.3

You start with the 1st three sermons of the Buddha, which are:

Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path
Three Characteristics
Three Defilements

Then:

Dependent Origination
Emptiness

Also, where the Buddha declares what exactly he uniquely teaches:

Handful of Leaves
"Suffering and the cessation of suffering"
Emptiness
Six elements; six bases for contact; eighteen mental examinations; and four noble truths

To understand the original teachings, the following words are best understood:

(i) "jati" ("birth") or "jatiya", which means "self/social identity".

(ii) "marana" ("death"), which means "death of identity".

(iii) "kaya" (often translated as "body"), which means "group" or "collection" of aggregates.

(iv) "nirodha", which can mean "cessation" but often means the cessation of ignorance & craving.

(v) "beings" ("satta'), which on a spiritual level refers to thought created "idea" or "view".

(vi) "dukkha". in relation to the four noble truths, "dukkha" means "suffering" or "stress"; in relation to the Three Characteristics of the 2nd sermon, "dukkha" means "unsatisfactoriness", "ungratifying" or "unable to bring true happiness"; in relation to feeling, "dukkha" means "painful" or "unpleasant".

Once the above is understood, you will be able to negotiate your way through the teachings.

You can read these book to help you:

Two Kinds of Language
Buddha-Dhamma for Students
The Shape of Suffering up to & including page 6
Nibbana For Everyone
Kamma in Buddhism


Buddhist shaolin monks and their practice I once saw a television program about Buddhist shaolin monks. They were extremely skilled in martial arts and begin their training as young as 3-4 years old. Their day consists of martial arts training and Buddhist practice.

I was wondering about two things:

What Buddhist tradition do shaolin monks follow?
What kind of meditation do they practice?

Thank you for your time.

Lanka

Click on photos for full size

Shaolin Buddhism
"Action Meditation"
Basically Shaolin martial arts come from the idea of “action meditation” of Chan (dhyana – Sanskrit, Jhana – pali) Buddhism (Mahayana).
The first Shaolin temple was started by an Indian Theravada monk called Buddhabhadra and the next Abbot of the temple was the famous Indian Mahayana monk called Bodhidharma who brought Chan Buddhism to China.
Batuo and the Shaolin Temple

The Shaolin Temple was founded in 495 by the Indian monk Batuo, or Buddhabhadra. After traveling to China, he received permission from Emperor Xiaowen of the Northern Wei dynasty to build a temple at the foot of Shaoshi mountain in the Song mountain range in the Henan province. The word Lin means forest in Chinese, thus the temple was named Shaolin for the forest at the foot of Shaoshi mountain.
Batuo preached the orthodox teachings of Hinayana, or Nikaya Buddhism (Xiao Sheng in Chinese). In this type of Buddhism, which closely follows the teachings of Shakyamuni, there are 250 rules for monks and 500 rules for nuns. Batuo had two disciples named Sengchou and Huiguang, who were both martial artists before becoming monks. They were the first ones to bring martial arts to the temple.

Bodhidharma

Bodhidharma (PutiDamo or just Damo in Chinese) was another prince of a clan in what is now India. He also chose to leave the royal life to become a monk. When Bodhidharma came to the temple in 527, he brought the teachings of Chan Buddhism, part of the Mahayana (Da Cheng) school. This understanding had been passed down directly from Mahakasyapa to Bodhidharma's master Prajnatara, who was the 27th in the lineage. Bodhidharma was the 28th, and the first patriarch of Chan in China.
Bodhidharma created 4 integral parts of Shaolin Kungfu, also sutras. They were

2 qigong (Chi Kung) forms; the Yijin Jing (Muscle Tendon Changing Sutra) and the Xisui Jing (Bone Marrow Washing Sutra)
The Wuxing quan, the 5 original animal forms (Dragon, Tiger, Leopard, Crane, and Snake)
The Luohan Shiba Shou, The 18 Luohan Palms

Bodhidharma's disciple Huike was, like Sengchou and Huiguang, a military man before becoming a monk, and also brought martial arts knowledge to the temple. Huike became Damo's successor, and after him there were four more before the lineage ended. They were Sengcan, Daoxin, Hongren, and Huineng.

More on Shaolin Martial Arts


Is raping a male arahant or a non-arahant less immoral/less serious than raping a female arahant? I've read the following passage and I wonder if it really implies what it seems to imply.

  The  gravity  of  the  offence  is  determined  by  the degree  of  lust
  motivating the action and the qualities of the person against whom
  the  transgression  is  committed.
  When  the  lust  is  very  strong,  even  incest and rape can be committed, the most serious being the rape of a female Arahant.

http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/PDF_BuddhismCourse/11_%20Five%20Precepts.pdf

If it does, why is raping a non-arahant less serious? After all, the lust is equally harmful in both cases, but in the non-arahant scenario the rape is additionally harmful to the psyche of the victim, which wouldn't be the case for an arahant. So why the act that has more negative consequences is considered less serious? And why are men and women treated unequally in this regard?

The passage doesn't imply that at all. It's just that homosexual misbehavior or other abnormal ways of breaking the 3rd precept are not discussed here.

Gravity of the offence also depends on the purity of the being who's subjected to it. Not on how he/she deals with it. It's similar to how merits of giving dependent on the virtuousness of the recipient. Not on how much he/she craves for what is given.


All things exists in the past present and future , Is this according to the original teachings of the Buddha? I am interested to have correct view according to the original teachings of the Buddha. I asked myself is this according to the teachings of the Buddha and as I am a beginner I really don't know, so hopefully someone can answer my question.

So my question is the Sarvastivada says that dhammas exists in the past, present and future. Then they try to logically defend this position with their analysis.

It says, the name Sarvāstivāda literally means "all exists" (sarvām asti), referring to their doctrine that all dharmas, past, present and future, all exist. "If there were no past and future, then there would be no present period of time; if there were no present period of time, there would also be no conditioned factors (samskrta dharma). That is why there are the three periods of time (trikala)."

Is this according to the original teachings of the Buddha? They seem to give things their own enduring existence thereby seeming to say that impermanence is not true. Did the Buddha say that all things exists in the past, present and future the way the Sarvaistavada do? If not what did the Buddha say about it?

Take for instance my chair, now the time is 00:53, my chair was present here 00:51 in the past as well and will be here at 00:58 does this mean what they are saying is true it seems to be like that but I am confused and I would love to read your answers.

Thank you

As I understand, Sarvastivada explains that all things exist in continuity. Nothing comes from nowhere and disappears into nothing, but everything transforms. Therefore the past contains seeds or elements that become things found in the future. In this sense, everything exists at all times, just not in the same form. None of the forms are permanent, but everything that existed in the past, exists in the future, just not in the same way.

The original teaching of the Buddha said that the notions of existence and nonexistence are two extreme simplifications, and that the truth is in the middle. Things develop into other things, come together, and fall apart.


accepting what i have vs. making plans for better future - good or bad? i saw an answer here that i liked:

  ...
  Of course we have all these grand ideas about the great business we
  want to open, or the great way we could help people, or other visions
  of great success - but they are only projections of thought into the
  future. This projection creates a mismatch between "here" and "there".
  From this mismatch comes dukkha, the feeling of wrongness.

  Instead, for any success you will have achieved, there must be a
  pathway from where you are now, to there, with the first step being
  within reach. Therefore the only way to get there is to work with what
  you have right here and now. So do your best with what life gives you
  at every given moment ...

i have a job i don't like - it hurts my legs because of long standing time - and i was thinking about other career paths... of ways i can earn money and leave this job - like starting a private business - but in light of the above answer, is it a bad idea to think about this, from Buddhism perspective?

i would really like to know your thoughts on this: should i stop and just work without thinking about a better job / a private business?

Let me give a metaphor for this. Imagine you are standing at the foothill of a great mountain...

And you think, oh how nice would it be, to stand on top of this mountain. It would truly be a great sight, a majestic sight, a big achievement on my part - and what kinds of great friends would I make on the top! they would certainly be much more interesting people than ones I have down here. It would be so awesome to be up there! In comparison to that, how unfortunate I am to be  down here! -- And so forth and so on, this is what goes through your mind.

Now, Buddhism does not say you should stay at the bottom all the time. But just thinking about the top is useless. Moreover, the craving for the top, and comparison with your position at the bottom - creates that painful feeling of wrongness, dukkha.

Instead, if you say: the top is up there. Let me look under my feet. Which little step can I make now? Let me forget about the top for now, let me forget about the levels, let me focus on the steps under my feet. I don't know exactly where I'm going - I've never been there. I don't know the exact path - and I can't spend my whole life planning it or I will never get anywhere. Instead, as long as I have the overall direction right, and start making the steps - I will get there sooner or later, guaranteed.

What do I need to do right here to get over there? Starting right now I must make every step as an investment. I must stop roaming randomly like others who don't have the same goal. Every step I take can get me either 1 inch in the right direction, 12 inches in the right direction, 1 inch in the wrong direction, or 12 inches in the wrong direction. So I must develop this habit of making a better step if possible every time. Start small: I have 10 dollars - no need to figure out the perfect way to spend them, just minimize waste. Minimize going in the wrong direction. Then with time it will come by itself, the knowledge of the best possible step.

Another way to approach this is by imitating the qualities of people who got to the top. How does the owner of the private business behave? Your manager at work asks you to do something - do you act like you are the real business owner? (This is called "taking the goal as the path". Some say this is the more advanced way, the faster way. The two schools keep arguing which way is better ;)

So in short, speculative thinking about the abstract goal is "bad" - it does not get you anywhere, it only generates suffering. Instead, by not going in the wrong direction today, by not going randomly here and there today, by minimizing the waste today, and by imitating the qualities of the people who did it, - we can create the path connecting this place under our feet with the high goal.

I hope this is not too abstract for you. By "going in the wrong direction" I meant spending money on things that will suck your money in the future. By "going in the right direction" I meant spending money on things that will bring you some money in the future. By "going randomly here and there" I meant spending money on other goals and random entertainment. By "minimizing waste" I meant every time you spend your money try to make a small improvement. By "imitating qualities of people who got there" I meant try to imagine how they think and do what they would do. Hope this helps.

And since we are on Buddhism Q&A site, by "wrong direction" I also meant unwholesome thinking, by "right direction" I meant wholesome thinking, by "minimize waste" I meant to watch for and control the hangups manifesting in daily life, and by "imitating" the accomplished people I meant trying to imagine how the Buddha would have reacted to the same life challenges.


Is the path of enlightenment consists 7 levels? In this question The Seven Factors of Enlightenment shown, Tranquility, Concentration, Equanimity, Investigation of dhammas, Effort and Rapture as specific phases in the path of enlightenment (also in a linear progression), and how to apply them. Also here.

The seven levels of consciousness which make up the path of spiritual development, shown in TM as:

the state of waking consciousness;
deep sleep;
dreaming;
transcendental consciousness;
cosmic consciousness;
god consciousness;
unity consciousness.

Are these steps equally valued in the Buddhist path?

I want to point out the following:

TM and Buddhist path are not the same. TM aim at method for relaxation, stress reduction, and self-development while Buddhism aims at eliminating the Defilement and one's attachment to the 5 aggregates hence reduce the process of fabrication thus experiencing Nirvana.
The 7 factors of enlightenment are not linear. An interesting article which shows their interaction is in Bojjhangas– Another View. Also look at the table balancing the factors in the Wikipedia entry on Seven Factors of Enlightenment which gives when to emphasize each of the factors.


A Problem in Need of an Answer Through many of Yuttadhammo's videos and accesstoinsight, I have learned a vast amount of knowledge on the Buddha's teachings. But I feel like I am causing myself problems.

  1) I keep on questioning everything I learn in the Dhamma & expanding
  on my questions through my answers and so on, how can I stop this from
  happening? How can I limit my questions or is there anything taught by
  the Buddha or in Yuttadhammo's tradition to help me?

  2) As I have learned a lot (but definitely not all) from the Buddha's
  Dhamma, I keep on wanting to write down all that I learn but to keep
  it for myself on remembering the teaching, and I keep on writing long
  essays then rewriting and editing and adding and shrinking and adding
  and so on. I continue to do so and I feel like this is a problem, how
  can I cope with only knowing the teaching in my head than writing it
  all I learn down or is this not really a problem?

Please help!   Metta

You probably know, you have to practice.
  You haven't watched Bhante Yuttadhammo's videos on how to meditate? Bhante Yuttadhammo is always talking about how it takes moment by moment experiencial practice to understand the enefable Dhamma.
  We can't read about insights into our own personal habits and beliefs that are below the surface of consciousness,  we have to witness them.

  Here are some specific Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu videos concerning this issue:

  Intellectual Knowledge of  Insight Knowledge
  https://youtu.be/_qw0qRro2es

  Intelligence, Wisdom, and Stupidity
  https://youtu.be/gBTOOI1bk-o

  Overdosing on Study
  https://youtu.be/SfG1Dk6yUKE

  Study of the Dhamma Vs. Practice
  https://youtu.be/T2CodNAHzf0

  Conceptual Truth vs. Ultimate Truth
  https://youtu.be/jg48H8VtN9E

  Why Practice Meditation
  https://youtu.be/0rbspa_39EY

  Basics of Vipassana
  https://youtu.be/YmcE3TlCDYE

  One Who Lives By The Dhamma
  https://youtu.be/aVWCyaAmgSc

  How I Became a Buddhist Monk
  https://youtu.be/5PajaN34xK8


Why isn't the S(h)urangama sutra more popular? I've read that this sutra is one of the most direct routes to enlightenment and one of the most important, yet because future generations cannot handle this sutra, its disappearance  was foretold.

I can find only a few English versions of this on the web and they each vary considerably, as if to indicate the prophecy is coming true. Among Buddhist teachers of certain (esoteric?)  sects this is a favorite, but most teachers largely ignore it.

Can someone shed light on its relevance to the modern aspirant? What are its criticisms?

Why is it not more popular if its dire warnings are true? Are there reliable or canonical versions to follow? What is the history of this sutra?

  Within Buddhism, there are very many important sutras. However, the most important sutra is the Shurangama Sutra. If there are places which have the Shurangama Sutra, then the Proper Dharma dwells in the world. If there is no Shurangama Sutra, then the Dharma-ending Age appears. Therefore, we Buddhist disciples, each and every one, must use our strength and our blood, sweat, and toil to protect the Shurangama Sutra. In the Sutra of the Ultimate Extinction of the Dharma, it says very, very clearly that in the Dharma-ending Age, the Shurangama Sutra will be the first to disappear. The rest of the sutras will follow. As long as Shurangama Sutra does not disappear, then the Proper Dharma Age is present.

(Extract from introduction to Sutra)

In the introduction to her translation of the Ugraparipṛcchā Jan Nattier notes that texts are more likely to have been translated into English if they have two features: firstly if there is a extant Sanskrit text; and secondly if they have been influential in Japanese Buddhism. And thirdly if they:

  portray the Buddhist messages in terms congruent with certain core
  western values such as egalitarianism (e.g. the universal potential
  for Buddhahood according to the Lotus), lay-centred religion (e.g.,
  the ability of the lay Buddhist hero of the Vimalakīrti to confound
  highly educated clerics in debate), the simplicity and individuality
  of religious practice (e.g., the centrality of personal faith in
  Amitābha in the Sukhāvatīvyūha), and even anti-intellectualism (e.g.,
  the apparent rejection of the usefulness of rational thought in the
  Heart Sūtra, the Diamond Sūtra, and other Perfection of Wisdom texts).
  (Nattier. A Few good Men. 2003, p.6)

Many scholars consider the Śūraṅgama Sūtra to have been composed, or compiled from other sources, in China. That the Chinese did this kind of thing is quite common. The well known Heart Sutra is another prominent example. There is no Sanskrit "original". And on the whole the themes do not appeal to Westerners. So the text is unlikely to appeal to a Western Audience. Vast differences in English translations are common because of the range of ability of translators and the very great difficulties of rendering ancient Chinese into English.

The apocalyptic themes of the text are exaggerated versions of such predictions which occur throughout Buddhist literature. Like many millennial predictions of disaster they simply have not come true. The end of the world simply fails to happen, no matter who is predicting it, and there is always someone predicting it.

While the Śūraṅgama itself may be fading out as because it is irrelevant to modern Buddhist practice, there is resurgent interest in other Buddhist texts. Witness the massive project funded by the Numata Foundation to translation the entire Chinese tripiṭaka. Also the there is huge interest in doing comparative work on the Pāli Nikāyas and Chinese Āgamas. At the grass roots level Buddhism continues to be moderately popular in the West, but is being revived in China as restrictions on religious observance are relaxed.


Why is Buddhism less evangelical than Christianity? Currently when I walk to work I frequently pass Christians of various denominations passing out free books and talking to passers by. I have never heard of a Buddhist group doing the same. I think it is a common perception that Buddhism is not an evangelical religion and Christianity most definitely is. I think this one of the reasons is why people (in the UK) are generally fairly well disposed to Buddhists.

But are my perceptions correct? Is Buddhism really not an evangelical religion? It is a universal religion like Christianity and in both there are notions of personal salvation (liberation/nirvana) that surely everyone would benefit from. Is there something in the scriptures or teachings that make Buddhist less evangelical? Or is it just something cultural and in a different place and time things might look very different? Or am I just flat wrong and Buddhism wants to spread the word just as much as Christianity but I'm just not seeing it.

SGI is, or was, very evangelical, keen to prosthelytize. In the US, the various immigrant communities, by the fact that they provide service only in Thai or Vietnamese or what have you, might be prothelytizing, but it would be invisible to me since I don't speak Thai.

Ancient Buddhism was not content to wait for people to just magically show up and learn the Dharma,

  "The Sangha had grown to 60 in number ..
  and Buddha sent them out in all directions to travel
  alone and teach the Dharma. "
  ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarnath

There is a better quote for this, but I can't find it.

In China, Thailand, India for a while, Japan, it was a state supported religion. As such, it has a massive advantage in getting adherents. In fact, in Japan, the government would just assign you to the county Buddhist temple.

And finally, when people talk about growing membership, all they can think about are Jehovah Witnesses at the door with Watchtower trying to do essentially door to door personal sales in a world where nothing is sold that way anymore. Marketing is done with online media, writing books and getting them on book store shelves, getting the military to recognize your religion so it can participate in the chaplain program. All of that is  a million times more effective at getting more members than tacky, pushy person to person sales.

In the Brahma Net Sutra, there are several precepts obliging precept takers to teach the dharma and to teach it well, which as a side effect may result in more self-identifying Buddhists.

So Buddhist doesn't lack in prothylthizing, what it lacks (other than the example of SGI) is a marketing campaign involving tacking person to person sales. Just about everyone else is working on "growing membership" but by other means.

(This contrasts to what a lot of atheist think-- that no one should teach anyone, not even children, anything about any religion unless that person spontaneously and enthusiastically asks for it)


How does 'Om Mani Padme Hum' protect us from danger? 'Om Mani Padme Hum' (translation: 'Hail the jewel in the lotus') is a six syllable invocation (mantra) of Avlokitesvara, one who is invoked as the Protector from danger.
Does it mean protecting from danger as purifying :

Om (Pride / Ego)
Ma (Jealousy / Lust for entertainment)
Ni (Passion / desire),
Pad (Ignorance / prejudice)
Me (Greed / possessiveness),
Hum (Aggression / hatred)

I'm going to try to answer your question by equating "danger" with Mara (devils).
Buddha used Mara both literally and figuratively, such as gods in heavens who hold wrong views, 5 skanda, attachment to sensual pleasures etc.  He said meditation from 1 first Jhanna is a safe place to hide from those dangers.

However, if danger in a sense of things happen to you like car accident, danger from natural disaster, sickness, aging, and causes of death, nothing can help for those are the way it is and from Karma.


How would an animal ever accumulate enough merit to warrant rebirth as a human? i have only a basic knowledge of Buddhist thought but have hit a problem that i have not been able to locate an answer to. so any pointers would be appreciated...

everything i read suggests that to be born as a human being is very propitious as it allows the degree of reflection/mindfulness required to be able to understand the teachings and make progression towards enlightenment.

but if these fortunate circumstances are wasted and actions in your current life result in rebirth in a lower form, there seems no way that i can see to progress even to another human birth, let alone anything else, if progress is predicated on awareness/mindfulness/ability to understand the teachings etc

how would something such as, for example, a dog ever be able to accumulate enough merit to warrant rebirth as a human? i have a dog and all he wants is food and walks, he never seems that reflective.

seems like a game of snakes and ladders in which - other than when playing as a human - its going to be all snakes.

thanks for reading.

In the Jataka tales (Similar to Aseop's Fables ) there are many stories about the Buddha's various past lives. These are tales for children and normally come with a moral.

There are a ton of them, and they normally end with the animal the Buddha is reborn as helping out in someway that is aligned with the teachings.

You can see a few of them summarized quickly without the entire back plot of a fable here.

It is absolutely correct that in the Buddhist worldview a human rebirth is of great advantage. Animal existence is not what most of us would consider fun. As one teacher once reminded me, you might be a pet, or you might be reborn a deer in a forest of wolves. An animal life is mainly fear and instinct. The characteristic of their realm is that of Ignorance.

As you yourself pointed out, your dog (Who is lucky and has food, shelter, and someone looking out for them) is not often reflective.

Anger the characteristic of the hell realms is more damaging, and can lead to a large snake on the game of chutes and ladders.

Your dog though, in your ownership, is likely not accumulating massive amounts of negative karma.

I hope this helped to answer your question.


How to complete the first Jhana? I have read once you have reached the bliss stage you should take your focus off the object and on the blissful sensations and hold it. Then in time you will be in Jhana. But i also read in other sources you should just stay with the object and one pointed focus will rise that way. Which is it? This confuse me. I've reached bliss i kept focusing on my earth kasina but before i could fully enter the first jhana i felt my breath fading and it scared me out of my mediation. So i don't know if focusing on my object would have allowed me to reach jhana.

In my understanding of the instructions I received, for the first Jhana, you should switch your focus on the bliss and "say" to yourself: "wow, this is awesome, this is sublime, this is so peaceful, I don't need anything else, this is so much better than any worldly achievement, finally, I can rest in this state, so good! I did it!" etc. The idea is to create a self-sustaining emotional loop, when your own awe & praise of this state feeds back and creates more joy and bliss - and then maintain it for as long as you can, "to thoroughly penetrate and wash your mind". It is important to NOT  let oneself feel that this deliberate generation is silly and contrived - because it is essential!

Then at some point the very act of making an effort to feed it starts feeling  too coarse and counterproductive - and then you stop feeding it, but the feeling of overall "rightness" remains -- and that's how you drop into the second Jhana. According to my instructions, this must not be rushed though, it's best to hang in the first Jhana for as long as you can, and only go into second Jhana when it happens naturally by itself.

Don't worry about breath etc. - the body is a survival machine that works great on autopilot. You don't need to tell the body how to beat the heart or to breathe etc. - it will take care of all that while you focus on meditation.

EDIT

What's unique about Buddha's approach to meditation is how it makes use of the Third Noble Truth to achieve concentration via suchness and suchness via happiness. You let go of coarse and then progressively finer cravings for "something else", until you reach coarse suchness which is euphoria, then fine suchness which is equanimity, and then pure suchness which is spontaneity. On each level of "letting go", you focus on the experience of relief and happiness associated with letting go. First Jhana is when this "experience of relief" takes a coarse form of comparing it with the drama of worldly life ("oh this is so good" etc) to create emotional loop of joy as I said above. Then, you let go of that comparison and keep joy, then you let go of joy.

P.S. I generally disagree with Ajahn Brahm's interpretation of Jhanas (and reification of them in general), but even he recognizes the importance of cultivating bliss:

  Understanding this, one needs to put more value on developing delight when one is watching the breath, and cultivating that delight into a strong sense of beauty. [...] Whatever skillful means one employs, by paying careful attention to the beauty alongside the breath, the beauty will blossom.

  Do not be afraid of delight in meditation. Too many meditators dismiss happiness thinking it unimportant or, even worse, thinking that they don’t deserve such delight. Happiness in meditation is important!


Seeing things for what they are I'd like to ask a few questions, if I may. I am having some trouble seeing meanings or attributes being assigned to some things in Buddhism.

  The yellow robe worn by monks is an emblem and reminder of the Triple Gem, as is the Buddha Statue. Therefore one is really bowing to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, not to some person or statue.

I've also heard that one bows to show respect for the monk/nun/Buddha image. What is the actual meaning of bowing? I don't think that it makes the respect I already have for people any different. I can't seem to understand if it is right to assign a meaning to such simple act. Shouldn't we be seeing this just for what it is? (Bending the body, moving)
Another example that I could use is the general idea of beauty. I know it results from the personal interpretation of the things that surround us, and we should set ourselves free from any kind of personal point of view. Yet, i've seen people (monks) talking about the beauty of the nature, and at the same time I disagree with such thing, I can only see nature as a beautiful thing. How do I deal with that?
Different people find different things pleasant. Therefore, pleasure is something personal and results from our personal interpretation of reality (an example of this is humor). The buddhist teachings tell us that there's no problem on feeling pleasant sensations, yet one can't cling to them. But if we should see things for what they truly are, finding something pleasant is not right, is it?

Thank you in advance,
Nicolas

First off, you can't "see things for what they are", because "things" not "are" in any single way. The way things are is always context dependent. As much as we may want to see things from  superhuman objective perspective, we can't escape a point of view. Now, if we understand that there is no truly objective point of view then we may get close to seeing things as they are, which means accepting our necessary limited perspective as part of "how things are" -- but not being fooled by it!

IMO, your assuming that you currently see things as they are is conceit and delusion.

Now, individual points:

The symbolism of bowing is making yourself vulnerable to the person you're bowing to. This is like handshake in which you show you have no weapon, but taken to the next level. Basically, by bowing you're saying "my life is in your hands". It would seem like it makes no difference if you already have respect for the person, but you have no idea how deep the egoistic resistance runs its roots. Try laughing authentically in front of a group of people you don't know and you will see what I mean. Similarly, bowing sincerely requires breaking through our false pride. And if you don't have pride anymore, bowing becomes expression of your understanding of the significance of Dharma and how it is manifested by Sangha, along with your gratitude to the Buddha. Again, it's like you are saying: "Thank you Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha -- I'm glad to have you be the force that guides my life, and I would like to keep this connection alive"

Regarding beauty and pleasure, Buddha taught us to train to see pleasant in non-pleasant and non-pleasant in pleasant. Only then can we be free from the dictate of "things as they are". You will not hear monks finding beauty in what most people consider beautiful. Back in the day when nature was prevalent, and people praised castles and statues, monks praised a bird flying off a branch. This was expression of their ability to find beauty anywhere. These days the beauty of nature has been romanticized and became popular, which is why it seems like monks were simply indulging, but they were not.

To summarize, it is not about seeing things as they are, it's seeing things in a useful way.


Did Buddha forbid paying respect to deities of contemporary traditions? Buddhism shares many deities with Brahmanism(Hinduism) and Jainism for example, Indra, Yama, etc. (Though the story associated with them might differ between the traditions, the central persona is the same).

There are also many other deities which Brahmanism and Jainism do not share with Buddhism. Did Buddha forbid paying respects to such deities?

Buddhism shares many deities with Brahmanism(Hinduism) and Jainism for example, Indra, Yama, etc. (Though the story associated with them might differ between the traditions, the central persona is the same).

Buddhism does acknowledge existence of deities but in a different context than Brahmanism / Hinduism. See: God in Buddhism, Deva

  There are also many other deities which Brahmanism and Jainism do not share with Buddhism. Did Buddha forbid paying respects to such deities?

There is not forbidding of paying respect to deities or Devas. This can be used as a subject of meditation.