What is the history and (current) location of the root text sources comprising the Pali Cannon? Seeking physical and online resources; books; articles; etc. concerning the history, public (and private) images and (current) location of the root text sources comprising the Pali Cannon

Please read the book "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" (hard copy can purchased here) by Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali.

The abstract states:

  This work articulates and defends a single thesis: that the Early
  Buddhist Texts originated in the lifetime of the Buddha or a little
  later, because they were, in the main, spoken by the Buddha and his
  contemporary disciples. This is the most simple, natural, and
  reasonable explanation for the evidence.

  Our argument covers two main areas:
  1. The grounds for distinguishing the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) from later Buddhist literature;
  2. The evidence that the EBTs stem from close to the Buddha’s lifetime, and that they were generally spoken by the historical
  Buddha.

  Most academic scholars of Early Buddhism cautiously affirm that it is
  possible that the EBTs contain some authentic sayings of the Buddha.
  We contend that this drastically understates the evidence. A
  sympathetic assessment of relevant evidence shows that it is very
  likely that the bulk of the sayings in the EBTs that are attributed to
  the Buddha were actually spoken by him. It is very unlikely that most
  of these sayings are inauthentic.

Also, "A History of Mindfulness" (and here) by Bhikkhu Sujato (as suggested by Andrei Volkov).

Another good source is "History of the Buddhist Canon" by Daniel Veidlinger, who teaches Comparative Religion at the California State University.

Also: "On the Very Idea of the Pali Canon" by Steven Collins.

This chapter maybe interesting to you: "Recent Discoveries of Early Buddhist Manuscripts: And Their Implications for the History of Buddhist Texts and Canons" by Richard Salomon.

For a scholarly paper on early manuscripts, see "The Senior Manuscripts: Another Collection of Gandharan Buddhist Scrolls" by Richard Salomon. But this paper discusses only one set of manuscripts that was discovered.

Perhaps, it should be made clear that the oral tradition of the Pali Canon is much more important than the written version. Please see "Pali Oral Literature" by L.S. Cousins. I quote below:

  Early Buddhist literature is an oral literature. Such a  literature is
  not without its own characteristic features. A widespread use of
  mnemonic formulae is one of the most typical of these. I would refer
  to the considerable body of research on the nature of oral epic
  poetry. In such poetry the formulae are used both as an aid to actual
  performance and to maintain the continuity and form of the epic
  tradition.

  Both these features are certainly present in the sutta literature. In
  the first place many suttas are clearly designed for chanting. We
  should assume that, then as now, their chanting would produce a great
  deal of religious emotion - the pamojja and piti-somanassa of the
  texts. The difference of course would be that the language of the
  suttas would still be directly comprehensible to the hearers. In these
  circumstances suttas would be chanted by individual monks both for
  edification and for enjoyment. We may compare the recitations
  attributed to Ananda and Upali in accounts of the First Council. In
  practice they would have to be tailored to the needs of the particular
  situation ~ shortened or lengthened as required. An experienced
  chanter would be able to string together many different traditional
  episodes and teachings so as to form a coherent, profound and moving
  composition.


Feeding meat to pets is it a good karma or bad? I switched my diet to complete vegetarian diet just out of compassion towards animals. However I am confused about feeding meat to my pet dogs. Feeding meat to one animal will directly or indirectly involve the killing of another animal. I feel like I am provoking the slaughtering of animals.

Is that a bad karma though it's good for another animal? What was Buddha's thoughts about this?

According to the Brahmanet Sutra you should not own any pets which typically eat meat, except dogs who guard your property. Part of the reason is that a bodhisattva should not be engaged in fostering the consumption of meat, which is not compassionate. However, I would also be concerned with the health of the animal on a vegetarian diet.


Internet and Mindfulness I am wondering a simple question: In what conditions can we surf the internet mindfully? For what purposes is this possible or impossible?

I think it is akin to going to town for alms for monks. One should be aware that by doing so one might come into contact with various perceptions which may be agreeable or disagreeable and are a danger to the training. One should resolve on guarding the senses and maintaining the perception of abandoning (not tolerating arisen thoughts associated with ill-will, greed, delusion) so that one does not regret it later.

One should also reflect on one's intentions before, during and after doing a deed with mind, body or speech. Thus one should remain mindful of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha in general, not only when using the internet.


Is the Ocean Samadhi a metaphor or an actual meditation? In Huayen related documents I see the phrase "ocean samadhi" a lot. (also ocean mirror samadhi, ocea seal samadhi) Here is one source:

  Huayan teaching features a range of holographic samadhi instructions
  drawn from the Flower Ornament Sutra. These practices help clear away
  limited preconceptions, foster fresh perspectives on reality, and
  expand mental capacities by expressing our deep interconnectedness.

  ... Another model is the
  "ocean mirror" or "ocean seal" samadhi. In this image, awareness is
  like the vast ocean surface, reflecting and confirming in detail all
  phenomena of the entire universe. Waves of phenomena may arise on the
  surface of the ocean, distorting its ability to mirror plainly. But
  when the waves subside as the water calms and clears, the ocean mirror
  again reflects all clearly. Our individual minds are like this, often
  disturbed by turbulence, but also capable of settling serenely to
  reflect clear awareness.

  Ref.

I searched Cleary's Avatamasaka translation and only found the word Ocean used as a metaphor or simile. (The kindle stops searching at 500 hits, well before the end of the book)

Anyhow, can't tell if this is a sort of visualization exercise, literally involving thinking about waves and the ocean, or if this is just a metaphor for the meditative states achieved in samyak-sam-bodhi.

The waves and the ocean metaphor are found in several places in the Lankavatara Sutra where the storehouse consciousness is said to be like the ocean and the waves are like the other seven consciousnesses, so I think the term Ocean Samadhi most likely refers to the state in which the other seven consciousnesses cease.


Receiving blessings for a baby at a temple My cousin just had a baby two months ago, a beautiful baby boy. The father is a catholic and my cousin, the mother, is a Buddhist. They have taken this two month old baby to a very sacred Buddhist temple to receive blessing from the relics of Buddha and to give alms.

One of the chief monks blasted them both, threatening them that they'll never be given permission to give alms or enter the premises: because the baby is only 2 months old and apparently should not have been brought to a sacred place.

Hearing this story made me so upset. On their way home they have visited a church where the reverend Father had welcomed them both and blessed the child.

I really want to do something about it but I just don't know what to do?

This should be fixed. This is not the way monks should behave in sacred places in the presence of the relics of Buddha.

The Supreme Buddha has said that each and everyone should be responsible for good and bad one does.  According to this we can imagine the plight of this monk (I should not be calling him a disciple of the Buddha).  Be it Monks or laymen, that kind of actions (because it is done in the name of Supreme Buddha’s dispensation) will amass enough demerit to suffer in hell.   This is his own making.  We can only have pity on him and hope that someone will try and show him the gravity of the mistake that he has already made and that he will correct himself, which is highly unlikely. That tells us that the robe or the shaved head do not make a monk, ie. By that I mean a disciple of the Supreme Buddha.


Power Struggles in a Buddhist Group A good friend emailed me about some troubles in a Buddhist meditation group she belongs to. It's a lay led group. The problems are some apparent power struggles about even routine matters and also an element of cliquishness. It seems to be just a small number of people out of the group that are creating the issues.

I don't really know how this sort of thing should be viewed from a Buddhist point of view. But if anyone has a solution or a correct way of looking at this I'd like to pass it along to her. She likes the group overall and she really didn't expect to find this type of behavior among meditators.

My specific question is "From a Buddhist point of view, how do we view bad behavior specifically in a Buddhist setting? Should we allow for these very unenlightened behaviors as we ourselves are unenlightened too? Or should be expect more and move on as this type of behavior may indicate that the meditation is this group is just not working somehow.?"

In other words, if meditation is sincere and regular, can these types of defilements simply continue with no improvement in an individual?

The initial instinct will be to assign blame, or to approach the issue from a victim perspective.

As meditators, we must know better and let go of these views.

Powerful emotions can be very good teachers if we know how to harness the energy.

The teachers in the Thich Nhat Hanh sangha have a detailed conflict resolution guide for exactly this situation that I suggest you review

http://orderofinterbeing.org/docs/Conflict-Guide.pdf

Background: http://www.orderofinterbeing.org/2013/11/conflict-resolution-guide/

We are often the victims and the attackers, if we can realize this, we can solve anything.

A poem by Thich Nhat Hanh

  Please Call Me by My True Names

  I have a poem for you. This poem is about three of us. The first is a
  twelve-year-old girl, one of the boat people crossing the Gulf of
  Siam. She was raped by a sea pirate, and after that she threw herself
  into the sea. The second person is the sea pirate, who was born in a
  remote village in Thailand. And the third person is me. I was very
  angry, of course. But I could not take sides against the sea pirate.
  If I could have, it would have been easier, but I couldn’t. I realized
  that if I had been born in his village and had lived a similar life
  - economic, educational, and so on – it is likely that I would now be that sea pirate. So it is not easy to take sides. Out of suffering, I
  wrote this poem. It is called “Please Call Me by My True Names,”
  because I have many names, and when you call me by any of them, I have
  to say, “Yes.”

  Don’t say that I will depart tomorrow — even today I am still
  arriving.

  Look deeply: every second I am arriving to be a bud on a Spring
  branch, to be a tiny bird, with still-fragile wings, learning to sing
  in my new nest, to be a caterpillar in the heart of a flower, to be a
  jewel hiding itself in a stone.

  I still arrive, in order to laugh and to cry, to fear and to hope.

  The rhythm of my heart is the birth and death of all that is alive.

  I am the mayfly metamorphosing on the surface of the river. And I am
  the bird that swoops down to swallow the mayfly.

  I am the frog swimming happily in the clear water of a pond. And I am
  the grass-snake that silently feeds itself on the frog.

  I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones, my legs as thin as
  bamboo sticks. And I am the arms merchant, selling deadly weapons to
  Uganda.

  I am the twelve-year-old girl, refugee on a small boat, who throws
  herself into the ocean after being raped by a sea pirate. And I am the
  pirate, my heart not yet capable of seeing and loving.

  I am a member of the politburo, with plenty of power in my hands. And
  I am the man who has to pay his “debt of blood” to my people dying
  slowly in a forced-labor camp.

  My joy is like Spring, so warm it makes flowers bloom all over the
  Earth. My pain is like a river of tears, so vast it fills the four
  oceans.

  Please call me by my true names, so I can hear all my cries and my
  laughter at once, so I can see that my joy and pain are one.

  Please call me by my true names, so I can wake up, and so the door of
  my heart can be left open, the door of compassion.

  ~Thich Nhat Hanh


Mindfulness : relation between manasikāra and Citta What is the  correct use of manasikāra ( attention ) and Citta in the context of Mindfulness ?

Is there any difference in terms of spiritual  effect of keeping attention while I do daily works and keeping attention on breath with the mental recitation of "Buddho" ?

Manasikara is a cognitive and thinking function of the mind and related to volition or sankharas. Basically you bring your attention to an object, but this can be tainted by our perception, views and habitual tendencies. Yonisho-manashikara is wise habits of thinking where attention is directed to the source or cause of experience and events. It is a factor of stream-entry (Sotapanna) or first stage of enlightenment. Ayonisho-manasikara is unskillful habits of thinking (paying attention or fixating on unwholesome thoughts, feelings, perception and irrelevant issues)  that perpetuates suffering and entanglements.

Your attention should be on the awareness of the arising and passing within the framework of the 4 foundation of mindfullness, without clinging and craving towards any sense inputs / sensations (equanimous). This way your attention is right.

When reciting a word it creates verbal fabrications. When you have sloth and torpor then this is fine, to stir up energy. But in general practice may not be the best thing to do, unless you are aware of it's implications.

When doing daily work be mindful of the breathing, postures by scanning the outline of your body, sensations on your body, as they are generally easy to do.


Rejecting clinging to both pleasure and displeasure I recently listened to a talk by Ajahn Chah, in which he mentions (@ ~14:20-14:53) that wisdom is found when one clings to neither pleasure nor displeasure. This really created a dilemma in my head about why to practice. Clearly, it makes sense that one would not want to cling to displeasure. Indeed, it seems a Buddhist practitioner can get quite far one this idea alone.

It seems natural that the whole reason one begins the path is to learn to not cling to displeasure. Learning to let go of what is bothersome to you is easier, as Ajahn Chah says. I don't believe many people start on the path to also not cling to happiness. Even Ajahn Chah states that those who truly practice also learn to not cling to happiness. How this can be done in the layman's world?

I cannot quite understand why one would want to reject clinging to pleasurable feelings. It seems our very survival as humans is based around our brain giving us pleasurable feelings to reinforce behaviors that keep us surviving. I.e. eating sweet food gives dopamine because it correlates (not necessarily entails) with us sustaining our survival. If I decide to do something purely for pleasure, does that mean that I have clung to that pleasure? I.e. I took a bath tonight for the reason of enjoying it and I did enjoy it. Does that entail that I've clung to the pleasure since my purpose for taking the bath was for pleasure? How would I know if I've clung to it?

At least in my life, my whole idea of having my career is based on the fact that it makes me happy and it's what I want to do (I do it for the purpose of pleasure). Why would I reject this? And if so, how could I even do so without becoming a monk and dedicating my life only to the goal of rejection of both pleasure and displeasure while only caring for my basic needs of survival (food, clothing, shelter, sleep). In a paradoxical sense, it even seems plausible that one's reasoning for becoming a monk would be for the pleasure one derives in the idea of working toward enlightenment. If not for the pleasure resulting from a task (or subsequent result), why would one do it?

Tangentially, it seems the quickest way to end both pleasure and displeasure would be suicide. I'm not suicidal myself, but I just ask in a theoretical sense. Why would one not just do this? I presume the answer is related in some way to rebirth, but I am not sure.

Not clinging to pleasure does not mean there is no pleasure. It is the opposite. The more there is non-clinging, there more there is pleasure. For example, the suttas say the pleasure of 'jhana' ('meditative absorption') is reached by making 'non-clinging' the meditation object (SN 48.10). Or the suttas say Nibbana is the supreme pleasure (Dhammapada 204).

When Ajahn Chah refers to the word 'like', this is not synonymous with the words 'pleasure' & 'happiness'. 'Pleasure' is a 'feeling'. Where as 'like' is a 'view' or 'opinion'.


How is a Buddha interacting if he doesn’t have perception? In Mahayana literature,it is said that a Buddha has no sense perception and thus no consciousness.how can he interact with the world and create pure lands then?

It is difficult to understand but we can try to... Perception is Anatta... it is not me,mine or myself. That which is not yours ,will you cling to it? Will you crave for it ? No . Therefore by not clinging to Perception Buddha achieved cessation of perception. It does not mean perception looses its property of impermanence...Perception arises, changes and vanishes but there is no clinging to it.


Emptiness in mind and in reality Recent exchange here got me thinking. Nagarjuna's karika, 1.3 (Batchelor)

  Na hi svabhāvo bhāvānāṃ pratyayādiṣu vidyate

  Avidyamāne svabhāve parabhāvo na vidyate

  The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on.

  If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist.

There is a venerable tradition of different interpretations of Nagarjuna, based on "the two truths".

Can that phrase be read to mean emptiness does not exist in non-emptiness: if and only if an own thing does not exist in non-emptiness then an other thing does not exist in emptiness

So the first phrase says that emptiness is empty in the sense that the absence of svabhava does not exist in things. After that, that whenever a self caused thing cannot be found, then there is no other empty thing.

I don't think it's a normal interpretation?

For the purposes of my philosophical question elsewhere (a neat argument for karma and rebirth) I have rendered 'empty' to mean 'analytic' and 'non-empty' to mean empirical.

  Definition of analytic. Of or relating to analysis or analytics
  especially : separating something into component parts or constituent
  elements.

  Definition of empirical. Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Subtleties... The concept of emptiness is a mental object that is predicated on other things. We only get to the concept of emptiness by seeing through and negating the fullness (meaningfulness) of other concepts.
The experience of emptiness in not predicated on the concept of it. To experience emptiness is to see that 'emptiness' is no more real than 'fullness'.
If one holds the concept of a thing-in-its-own-right (an 'own thing'), one must hold the concept of its negation (that which is 'not-such'). If one holds the concept of a negation, one must hold a concept of that which has been negated (a thing-in-its-own-right). So what lies beneath those concepts?


Plato's Parmenides, Samsara and Nirvana Plato's Parmenides contains the following eight deductions:

  (D1) If the G is, then the G is not F and not con-F in relation to itself.

  (D2) If the G is, then the G is F and con-F in relation to the others.

  (D3) If the G is, then the others are F and con-F in relation to the G.

  (D4) If the G is, then the others are not F and not con-F in relation to themselves.

  (D5) If the G is not, then the G is F and con-F in relation to the others.

  (D6) If the G is not, then the G is not F and not con-F in relation to itself.

  (D7) If the G is not, then the others are F and con-F in relation to the G.

  (D8) If the G is not, then the others are not F and not con-F in relation to themselves.

  (where ‘con-F’ refers to the property contrary to the property of being F):

Do the eight deductions within the dialogue offer a convoluted view of the two truths?

Deductions 1, 4, 6, 8 have conclusions only stated in the negative.

Deductions 2, 3, 5, 7 have conclusions only stated in the positive.

If the classical concept of Form (that from which Essence is acquired) is kept, then:

D1 through D4, which assume "the one is" demonstrate that "the one is not".

D5 through D8, which assume "the one is not" demonstrate that "the one is".

Is this not dissimilar to the duality that the Buddha stated, where "being" and "non-being" 'reinforce' each other - are dependently originated? Are the eight deductions a kind of logical (binary) glimpse of Samsara?

The 'two truths' in Pali Buddhism are different to the 'two truths' in Mahayana Buddhism. Possibly, the 'two truths' of Mahayana Buddhism are more relevant to Plato's Parmenides.

In Pali Buddhism, the 'two truths' refers to the difference between how enlightened & unenlightened people interpret certain (mundane/moral) teachings of the Buddha, as follows:

  The Awakened One, best of speakers,  Spoke two kinds of truths:  The conventional and the ultimate.  A third truth does not obtain.

  Therein:  The speech wherewith the world converses is true, on account of its being agreed upon by the world.  The speech which
  describes what is ultimate is also true,  through characterizing
  dhammas as they really are.

  Therefore, being skilled in common usage,  false speech does not arise in the Teacher,  who is Lord of the World,  when he speaks
  according to conventions.

  Commentary by Buddhaghosa

In Pali Buddhism, the translations "being" ('bhava') and "non-being" ('vibhava') refer to two kinds of dependently originated 'becoming' ('bhava') based on two kinds of dependently originated craving (as defined in the 2nd noble truth in SN 56.11), namely, 'bhavatanha' (craving to be) and 'vibhavatanha' (craving not to be). Both kinds of craving & becoming involve 'self-view'.

In other words, 'non-being' is not synonymous with the enlightened or unconditioned state of selflessness/emptiness (sunnata).

Some relevant texts that show how the translations 'being' & 'non-being' are used are below:

  Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhasamudayaṃ ariyasaccaṃ—yāyaṃ taṇhā ponobbhavikā nandirāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī,
  seyyathidaṃ—kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā, vibhavataṇhā

  Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence/becoming (bhava), accompanied by
  delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for
  sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for
  extermination.  SN 56.11

~~

  So neva taṃ abhisaṅkharoti, na abhisañcetayati bhavāya vā vibhavāya vā. So anabhisaṅkharonto anabhisañcetayantoanabhisañcetayanto: ? bhavāya vā
  vibhavāya vā na kiñci loke upādiyati, anupādiyaṃ na paritassati, aparitassaṃ paccattaṃyeva parinibbāyati. ‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṃ
  brahmacariyaṃ, kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ, nāparaṃ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti.

  He does not form any condition or generate any volition tending towards either being or non-being. Since he does not form any
  condition or generate any volition tending towards either being or
  non-being, he does not cling to anything in this world. When he does
  not cling, he is not agitated. When he is not agitated, he personally
  attains Nibbāna. He understands thus: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy
  life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no
  more coming to any state of being.’ MN 140

~~~

  sato vā pana sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññapenti

  Those who describe the...extermination of an existing being (satta)...Just as a dog, tied by a
  leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around
  that very post or stake, through fear of identity and disgust with identity keep
  running & circling around that same identity... MN 102

'Samsara' is defined as the state of the mind circling & running around in ignorance & craving:

  From an inconstruable beginning comes samsara. A beginning point is not evident, although beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by
  craving are running around & wandering on....Just as a dog, tied by a
  leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around
  that very post or stake; in the same way, an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person...keeps running around and circling around that
  very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very
  fabrications... that very consciousness. He is not set loose from
  form, not set loose from feeling... from perception... from
  fabrications... not set loose from consciousness...

  SN 22.99

Therefore, dependently originated "being" and "non-being", namely, wanting to be this & not wanting to be that,  are certainly  characteristics of 'samsara' & probably reinforce each other.

However, whether they relate to Plato's Parmenides is another matter.


Is life not blessing or mystery but suffering in Buddhism? Just like the title my question is as simple as it gets.
Please give your thought as short as possible. I just wanna confirm my idea.

OP: Is life not a blessing or mystery but suffering in Buddhism?

All three are correct in Buddhism in my opinion. Past is mystery, present is suffering and future is blessing. Let me explain.

Life in the past is a mystery. Life in the present moment for an unenlightened being, is suffering. Life in the future is an opportunity for blessing.

Why is life in the past a mystery?

From the Tears Sutta:

  From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration (samsara). A beginning
  point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered
  by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus
  experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the
  cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things,
  enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

In this question, we find that when effluents arise, ignorance arises, and when ignorance arises, effluents arise. So, a beginning point of samsara is not evident.

In any case, according to the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow, it is not useful to try to discover the origin of all this suffering. And according to the Unconjecturables Sutta, that might drive you crazy.

Why is life in the present moment for an unenlightened being, suffering?

In MN 75:

  "Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.

Analyzing this more closely in the Fire Sermon Sutta:

  "Monks, the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame.
  Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the
  eye is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on
  contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what?
  Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of
  delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows,
  lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.

  "The ear is aflame. Sounds are aflame...

  "The nose is aflame. Aromas are aflame...

  "The tongue is aflame. Flavors are aflame...

  "The body is aflame. Tactile sensations are aflame...

  "The intellect is aflame. Ideas are aflame. Consciousness at the
  intellect is aflame. Contact at the intellect is aflame. And whatever
  there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect —
  experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too
  is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire
  of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I say, with birth, aging &
  death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.

Why is life in the future an opportunity for blessing?

Although it's not possible to change one's past, it's possible to change one's future to become free from suffering, by changing how one responds in the present moment.

As written by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in "To Suffer Is an Active Verb":

  This is one of the reasons why the Buddha doesn’t have us try to go
  back into the past and ask, “What did I do to deserve an illness, a
  mental state, a situation in life?” He said that if you tried to trace
  all those things back, you’d go crazy. In fact, he said, you can’t
  trace back and find a beginning point for the ignorance that underlies
  suffering. But you can see what you’re doing to sustain it now.

From the Themes Sutta, we find that we can avoid future suffering by being aware of the consequences of our thoughts, words and deeds of the present moment:

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

Continuing the Fire Sermon Sutta, we find that ultimately all suffering traces back to craving and craving needs to be eliminated, in order to become free of suffering:

  "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
  disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with
  consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye. And
  whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye,
  experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: With that,
  too, he grows disenchanted.

  "He grows disenchanted with the ear...

  "He grows disenchanted with the nose...

  "He grows disenchanted with the tongue...

  "He grows disenchanted with the body...

  "He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas,
  disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with
  contact at the intellect. And whatever there is that arises in
  dependence on contact at the intellect, experienced as pleasure, pain
  or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: He grows disenchanted with that too.
  Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is
  fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully
  released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled,
  the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"


What are the three poisons? You will often hear reference to the three poisons in Buddhism, What are they referring to exactly when they talk about the three poisons?

The three poisons (Sanskrit: triviṣa; Tibetan: dug gsum) or the three unwholesome roots (Sanskrit: akuśala-mūla; Pāli: akusala-mūla), in Buddhism, refer to the three root kleshas of ignorance, attachment, and aversion. These three poisons are considered to be the cause of suffering (Sanskrit: dukkha).

Source: Three poisons (Buddhism) - Wikipedia

They are commonly circumvented by contemplating on the three characteristics or marks of all existence - anicca, anatta and dukkha. See this talk in the Burmese vipassana tradition.

See also, kleshas


How does Theravada practice to obtain the direct knowledge of anatta? In this comment it is stated that the Pali Suttas contain the correct method for manifesting direct knowledge of anatta. I agree, but I wonder what Theravada adherents would regard as the precise suttas that definitively explain? In particular, is SN 5.10 included:

  “Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?  Māra,
  is this your theory?  This is just a pile of conditions,  you won’t
  find a sentient being here.

  When the parts are assembled  we use the word ‘chariot’.  So too, when
  the aggregates are present  ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.

  But it’s only suffering that comes to be,  lasts a while, then
  disappears.  Naught but suffering comes to be,  naught but suffering
  ceases.”

I ask because the Analysis of the Chariot expounded by Chandrakirti is highly praised as one of the best methods for quickly using analysis to confirm that things lack inherent nature. It is said that conducting this analysis in meditation when combined with serenity meditation is the method to achieve the direct knowledge of anatta. Just as the chariot lacks an inherent nature of "chariot" and is merely a convention, just so the person lacks inherent nature and is merely a convention.

So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta?

How about the conversation between the Arahant Nagasena and the King?

Are there other Suttas which take precedence? What is the precise method for generating direct knowledge as opposed to mere conceptual or inferential understanding?

There's no cutting corners nor shortcuts in Theravada. SN 5.10 speaks the truth. But to actually attain direct knowledge to this truth as opposed to mere conceptual understanding, one has to perfect the Gradual trainings of Sila-Samadhi-Panna, which Ven. Bodhi did a great job of explaining in his "Noble Eightfold Path". And to each aspect of the gradual trainings, there are many different suttas one'd need to read, study, contemplate, and put into practice (ie: for Sila: AN 8.39-43, 3.70, Sn 2.4, SN 3.5; for Samadhi: Anapanasati Sutta, Satipatthana Sutta; for Panna: MN 43, AN 8.2, AN 3.73, AN 7.6, and many more as detailed in Ven. Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words"). There're no shortage of teachers in the world who can eloquently speak at great length about all the ins and outs of anatta/shunyata and stuff. But when facing some young voluptuous beautiful women, some title, some power, some cash, etc. then the number start dropping like flies! Why? Because they're the experts of Anatta who fail the basics of Sila-Samadhi-Panna.


At what stage is it wrong to consider oneself wise? Is it always wrong to consider oneself wise?

I don't mean consider oneself an important Buddhist, or one who has attained such and such a level of absorption or success along the path to enlightenment, but something more mundane, being wise and able to tell e.g. what is a fake way of behaving, or the difference between right and wrong.

Is it always wrong to consider oneself wise?

To refer to yourself as wise could develop an over-inflated sense of self. I think it's best to just remain silent in mind and speech about the concepts you may want to use to describe yourself.

In the Diamond Sutra, Chapter 10 points this out thus:

  “A disciple should develop a mind which is in no way dependent upon sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensory sensations or any mental conceptions. A disciple should develop a mind which does not rely on anything.”

  “Therefore, Subhuti, the minds of all disciples should be purified of
  all thoughts that relate to seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling,
  touching, and discriminating. They should use their minds
  spontaneously and naturally, without being constrained by preconceived
  notions arising from the senses.”

If there really is wisdom, it tends not to make a fuss of itself.


Does mankind evolve or devolve spiritually? Some philosophers have the idea that humanity is undergoing a spiritual evolution. The most famous representative of this idea is G. W. F. Hegel (whose ideas Marx used and later Communism tried to put into practice). There are also many, more esoteric and religious thinkers, with ideas like that. Rudolf Steiner is one of them; he thinks humanity is evolving spiritually. The common idea between them is that we are in a better position to become acquainted with ourselves as spirit (this idea does not pertain to Marx’ materialist view, though).

One of my teachers, a Plato researcher, said: “we understand Plato better than Plato could understand himself”? How is this in Buddhism? Is mankind now, 2500 years after the historical Buddha, in a better position to make use of the Dharma? Are we better “equipped for enlightenment”? Is the understanding and insights growing as time goes by?

Or perhaps it is the other way around? Maybe the distance in time since the start of the spreading of the Dharma makes it more and more difficult for us? Could talk about a spiritual devolution?

Or is it not changing at all, neither spiritual evolution nor devolution of mankind?

According to Mahayana Buddhism there are Three Ages of Buddhism:

The Former Day of the Law, also known as the Age of the Right Dharma, which lasts between 500-1000 years during which the Buddha's disciples are able to uphold the Buddha's teachings.
The Middle Day of the Law, also known as the Age of Semblance Dharma, (second 1,000 years) during which the teaching only resembles the right Dharma.
The Latter Day of the Law, during which the Dharma declines.

So, according to this, there is devolution in the sense that the Dharma declines over time until it disappears and then the true Dharma will only be re-established by the next Buddha.


What should we say when someone asks 'What is your religion?' Recently I faced such thing. Occasionally I faced an orthodox guy. We were talking about marriage, then he came on this thing "My religion is xxx what is yours?"
First I ignored him but he asked me again so I answered "Buddhist." He didn't really understand me and was pretending like he did. So if someone asks me this question in the future what should I say?

Determine what you will say based on what you can learn from the other person with whom you are talking. Listen carefully to what they say and presume nothing about what they mean. Ask careful questions about what a religion is and see whether what you are part of is a religion by this meaning. You may discover that while Buddhism is a religion the Dharma is something greater and more heartening.

The opportunity for sharing of the Dharma includes as much a listening attitude as it does an attempt to explain what we understand and know. Often meeting people on level ground is as much of an assist to others to find their way as comparing views or values may support our own.

When someone asks a personal question, this is an invitation from them (for whatever reason) to get to know us better, to bring our mind to front and show them who we are. Unless they are already our spiritual guide or filial teacher then we owe them no compliance or explanation in any final sense. Our answer can be "I do not know." and this may become an embrace of humility from which we will persistently benefit.

These categories are not rooted and cemented for all time. What is a religion? Is Buddhism one? Is that what it has always been called? By whom? Perhaps the orthodox guy was bold and yet helpful, and his secret instruction to those he was asking was to cause us to wonder whether religion is valuable and how it helps us to come to a wakeful mind. Are 'isms' generally good at doing this?


How does Buddhist (supra-mundane) Happiness differ from ‘mundane’ happiness? The happiness that can be found within our day to day life has to be sacrificed in the form of sense-restraint if one becomes a disciple of the Buddha. Our happiness’s ranging from the mundane to the supra-mundane, ranging from success, good fortune all the way up to skill in meditation, wisdom and Enlightenment comes at a price. So my question to you is, “What is the price?” Only if we can identify this, will we be able to create the proper foundation for us to succeed in treading the path.

Here is an extract from Me and Mine: Selected Essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa:

An equally close connection pertains between looking within and true "happiness." In the Buddhist texts there are two kinds of happiness. One of these is found in home life, called gehanissitasukka, the kind of happiness that derives from being a householder and raising a family. Contrasted with outward happiness is nekkhammanissitasukka, literally the "happiness that comes from forsaking home life." The reference is to a mental forsaking, a state of mind in which there is no longer the idea of "my home." This kind of happiness comes from looking within, observing things according to the dhamma.
The happiness of home life is called lokiya sukha or worldly happiness; and the happiness that goes beyond home life is called lokuttara sukkha or transcendent happiness. It all depends on the state of mind. If a person's mind is worldly, he can stay in a monastery or in the forest but will attain nothing more than the happiness of home life. Solitude in a monastery or any other place cannot guarantee lokuttara sukha. This happiness depends on the ability to look within.
No matter where we are, we have the power to transcend a preoccupation with the world, above and beyond the "home", simply by looking within. There is a large, guarantee return. Without any outlay of capital we obtain this special happiness which appreciates continuously. As the Buddha said, "Nibbana costs nothing; we pay nothing for it." All we have to do is "throw away". If we will just throw everything away then we will get nibbana. This means simply having a mind high enough not to get stuck in the world. That is all there is to it. We throw away the world completely and get nibbana in return. We do not have to invest anything. We only have to be empty, to live rightly, and nibanna will come of itself.

Note:

It says that the Buddha says, "Nibbana costs nothing; we pay nothing for it." -- I don't know which sutta the venerable is paraphrasing when he says that, but that agrees with Dhammadhatu's answer
Being required to "throw everything away" everything might seem like a cost; on the other hand the one example of what you have to throw away is "the idea of 'my home'" -- if all it costs you is an idea (e.g. "ego") that's maybe not a really tangible cost.
You wrote "supra-mundane" in the OP and I'm pretty sure that the Pali word for that is lokuttara (similarly, sukha is "happiness").

Lokuttara is used to refer to the four paths and four path-fruitions.
Apparently its etymology is,

Loka + Uttara = Lokuttara. Here Loka, means the five aggregates. Uttara means above, beyond or that which transcends. It is the supra mundane consciousness that enables one to transcend this world of mind body.

That meaning (i.e. "above") might be why Bhikkhu Buddhadasa wrote, "having a mind high enough not to get stuck in the world".
Bikkhu Buddhadasa expands on that in this lecture:

Even an old man who can hardly move about and must remain at home all the time, if he knows Dhamma at this level, while still living in the home, may attain the happiness that comes from forsaking the home life. This is because the term "forsaking the home life" refers to a mental forsaking to a state in which the mind transcends worldliness and goes beyond it. A person who is living at home may experience the happiness that comes from the home life. Or, he may experience the happiness that comes from forsaking the home life, provided he is capable of looking within using the technique and method of Dhamma.

Reading that, maybe you could say that another "cost" (or maybe "prerequisite") is "knowing Dhamma": i.e. time, effort, attention required to learn and to practice the Dhamma.

This answer doesn't directly address the sentence, "The happiness that can be found within our day to day life has to be sacrificed in the form of sense-restraint if one becomes a disciple of the Buddha" in the OP, but it does try to illuminate what was asked about i.e. supra-mundane happiness and cost.


Meditation causing headaches In the last couple of months, I have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. It's more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 minutes or more. I have come around some articles online reading that focusing on the breath (especially in the nostrils, which I used to do) could lead to an accumulation of energy around the third eye chakra, and it seemed to me my pain felt exactly like this. I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared, but as I stopped meditating I really miss the peaceful state of mind and presence I had when I meditated daily, so I would like to start again soon. I would be so grateful to get tips from you on this.

In the last couple of months i have experienced a chronic headache in my forehead and after checking with doctors etc nothing could be found. I then kind of had the intuition it could be related to my meditation practice. Its more the 2 years I meditate daily for 20/30 mins or more.

Are you meditating while "looking" at your nostrils with eyes closed?

If so, that creates tension in the eye muscles, namely the medial rectus muscle and the inferior/obliquee rectus muscle. The function of the medial rectus muscle is to turn the eye towards the midline and nose, while the inferior/obliquee muscles are responsible for vertical movement, in this case depression of the eye, i.e. looking downwards.

This is a common problem for many meditators who use the area around the upper lip and/or nostrils (anapana region) as a meditation object. They tend to look at that spot with their eyes closed, hence the build up of muscle tension.

Some meditators falsely think that doing something with their physical eyes will actually produce the nimitta. Nothing in the practice is the result of doing anything with the physical eyes.

  ... I have now taken a break from my daily practice and the headache got much better and nearly disappeared ...

This further supports the hypothesis that the pain is caused by muscle tension in the eye muscles.

The solution to the problem is to first and foremost stop looking at your nostrils. That is very difficult in the beginning but after a while it will become easier. Start by doing short meditation sessions such as a couple of minutes and then progress to 5, 10 minutes and so forth.

Before meditation try to relax your eyes. This can be done in several ways:

Consciously place attention on your eyes/eye sockets and try to relax them. Be aware of how your eyes move during meditation and if they begin to turn towards the nostrils or upper lip, then again try to relax them. When meditating your eyes should not do anything at all. They should just be relaxed and not moving.
Do these stretching exercises for the eyes. Follow the instructions given. These exercises should be done 3 times a day. They work both as a preventive measure and treatment for headaches caused by tension in the eye muscles.

Hope this helps.

By the way, I'm a meditator and a licensed physiotherapist.


How can Buddhism help me to get rid of a suffering due to a disease? I came to know about Buddhism very late in my life. It is the time for me to relearn the fundamentals of life. But I struggle with everyday activity. I lack energy.  In fact I have a diabetes. My past Karma has been bad enough to get me a disease.

My question is: How can Buddhism help me get rid of this disease? If I fix my Karma then will the suffering due to the disease will disappear ? If yes, how can I repent and to whom ?

I don't know your situation and haven't suffered anything like it, so any advice I have may mean nothing to you, but I will say these things:

Karma is the fruit of past action. Don't concern yourself with what's past, and focus on the actions you do in the present. The Buddha said that speculating about the workings of karma is a waste of time, because it is too complex, and (at best) only fully-enlightened beings can see the full chain of causes and effects that led us to where we are now, or where we will go in the future. Kindness and mindfulness in the present moment are our tools to create good karma. Taking care of your health is a part of kindness and mindfulness, because it is important to be kind and forgiving to yourself. If you condemn or harm yourself, you are condemning and harming a future being, so be kind to yourself.
Practicing the Dharma and ending suffering are long-term projects. You may not be able to cure the disease. But every moment of kindness and mindfulness erases a moment of future suffering. Repent to yourself first. If, as you do this, you're moved to repent or ask forgiveness from someone else, then do that, but don't put more pressure on yourself than the disease is already putting on you. Be kind to yourself.
Look at the body in a moment-by-moment way and watch the way energy and pain and sensation change in every single millisecond. Watch how feelings that you think last for minutes, days, or hours are actually fluctuating in every moment. Sometimes there are eruptions of pleasant in the middle of a painful feeling. Different parts of the body are feeling different sensations and energies at different moments. Karma doesn't just act on your life, but also on every single moment within your life- the truth is, you die and are reborn many times a second. Observe the bodily sensations as much as you can.
You will be low on energy, and so practice will be difficult. Forgive yourself for not being a great practitioner, and only do the best you are able to. Look into the mind and see if you can find that little part of your mind that's always fully alert, always watching itself, even when you feel that you're tired and your attention is weak. Use that part of your mind to watch the rest of your body and mind and know that none of it is "you" or "yours".
Disease and physical health are partly the result of karma, but also partly the result of the nature of being human in a world made of matter. To be born human is to be born with a body subject to disease and death. So don't blame yourself for what's part of your nature as a human being. To be born human also means being born to hear the Dharma and to be free to act kindly and mindfully in ways that will improve your future. The fact that your karma led to a human birth means that your past included more positive karmic influences than negative ones. So be kind to yourself.

May you be well.


Difference between Kamma, Kammanto, and Kammanta? Question

Hi all, i would like to ask if anyone knows the difference in meaning between these three pali words:

Kamma
Kammanto
Kammanta

What i've found so far

I can see from looking at the pali words for "right action" that this is called "samma kammanto" (sometimes "samma kammanta"), so i'm guessing that these two are the same?

I'm also guessing that Kamma is a more general term which includes speech and thought/intention as well as physical action?

Context

I'm building a to-do-list and life-organizing application and since i have a Buddhist background i'd like to give the application a name inspired by Buddhism

They are basically the same word, though the anta suffix does give it some specific meaning. Remember that the word karma has heavy religious baggage in ancient India every though it simply means action, from the verbal root /kar = "in regards to doing". So kammanta is a way of specifying that one is merely talking about actual mundane action or work. kamma is still often used to mean mundane  work, however, e.g.:

tena kho pana samayena aññatarā itthī kammaṃ karoti. aññataro bhikkhu sāratto taṃ itthiṃ etadavoca -- “tiṭṭha, bhagini, ahaṃ karissāmīti
At one time, a certain woman was doing some work. A certain bhikkhu, enamoured with that woman, said this to her: " Rest, sister, I will do it."
(duṭṭhullavācāsikkhāpadaṃ)

Nouns in Pali and Sanskrit are "declined", meaning their endings change depending on how they are used. -o declension is used in Pali for masculine singular nominative (when it is the subject of the sentence) of -a nouns. That's where kammanto comes from.
As to the idea of a task, something one must or should do, there are words like karaṇiya and katabba.


What is yoniso manasikara and ayoniso manasikara? As suggested in this answer, it is a good idea to investigate this further.

What is wise reflection (yoniso manasikāra) and unwise reflection (ayoniso manasikāra)?

Yoniso manasikāra is also translated as wise attention, appropriate attention.

Why is yoniso manasikāra important? What is it used for? How does one practise it?

The way my teacher explained it to me, we can either be masters of our mind, masters or information (=wise attention), or our mind can be our master, information can be our master (=unwise attention).

In the second case, we let our minds push us around. We allow information to make us think about things whether it's good for us or not. Things that are negative, or things that are useless to think about, things that make us feel bad. Our mind tells us: "see this? Because this is so and so, you have lost, there's no hope", etc. We let our negative inertia maintain ourselves in maimed and injured condition. Or, "see this? you must want this." - as is the case of lust or envy. We eat all kinds of informational junkfood without being selective. Or we let our rational mind, our logical mind, take us down the path of conceptual proliferation and fruitless quasi-intellectual speculation. We get fooled by information into believing that we must come to certain conclusions, that we don't have a choice.

Yoniso manasikāra is Emotional Intelligence. We decide what to think and how to think it - in order to feel stronger, healthier, and motivated. We actively decide what not to pay attention to, so negative mindstates cannot enter our minds. We don't let "Mara", devas, spirits, memes, advertisement, etc. and other informational viruses, to enter our informational space uncontrollably and do whatever they want to us. We are actively responsible for our mental hygiene.

We know the noble truths, so we know how attachment to expectation mismatch causes dukkha and makes us weak, and how being blameless and having no inner conflict makes us happy and strong, so we actively exploit this mechanism.

Moreover, we decide how to frame our thinking, what context and coordinates to choose. Because reality is an interpretation we make, choosing a mental framework is choosing a reality. We choose reality in which we are happy and can make others happy. We don't choose reality in which we are miserable and make others miserable.


Present moment awareness What is the different between living in present and the mindfulness? I experience living in the present without thinking but often not with mindfulness.

In the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, the Buddha teaches how a practitioner should dwell with (right) mindfulness of body and mind;

  (The Four Postures)

  “Again, bhikkhus, when walking, a bhikkhu understands: ‘I
  am walking’; when standing, he understands: ‘I am standing’;
  when sitting, he understands: ‘I am sitting’; when lying
  down, he understands: ‘I am lying down’; or he understands
  accordingly however his body is disposed.

  -- MN 9: Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, p. 146 - (Bodhi, Trans.)

and

  (Contemplation of Mind)

  “And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating
  mind as mind? Here a bhikkhu understands mind affected
  by lust as mind affected by lust, and mind unaffected by lust as
  mind unaffected by lust. He understands mind affected by hate
  as mind affected by hate, and mind unaffected by hate as mind
  unaffected by hate. He understands mind affected by delusion
  as mind affected by delusion, and mind unaffected by delusion
  as mind unaffected by delusion. He understands contracted
  mind as contracted mind, and distracted mind as distracted
  mind. He understands exalted mind as exalted mind, and unexalted
  mind as unexalted mind. He understands surpassed mind
  as surpassed mind, and unsurpassed mind as unsurpassed
  mind. He understands concentrated mind as concentrated
  mind, and unconcentrated mind as unconcentrated mind. He
  understands liberated mind as liberated mind, and unliberated
  mind as unliberated mind.

  -- MN 9: Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, p. 150 - (Bodhi, Trans.)

It is taught that one should be mindful of whatever phenomena arises in the body and mind.

Insight-meditationally speaking this means that one should take whatever physical or mental object that arises and cultivate insight from it. If a feeling of anger arises, one takes that feeling as an object. If aversion towards that feeling of anger arises, one takes the aversion as an object and so forth.

One practices to realize the Three Characteristics of Existence; "impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and uncontrollability". All conditioned phenomena are subject to these three characteristics. They are also the 3 gateways to Liberation as taught in the Visuddhimagga;

  [The Triple Gateway To Liberation]

  It enters upon the state of the triple gateway to liberation now with the
  predominance of [one of] three faculties according as the contemplation occurs
  in [one of] the three ways.
  For it is the three contemplations that are called the three gateways to liberation, according as it is said: “But these three gateways to liberation lead to the outlet from the world, [that is to say,]

  (i) to the seeing of all formations as limited and circumscribed
  and to the entering of consciousness into the signless element,

  (ii) to the stirring up of the mind with respect to all formations and to the entering of consciousness into
  the desireless element,

  (iii) to the seeing of all things (dhamma) as alien and to the
  entering of consciousness into the voidness element. These three gateways to
  liberation lead to the outlet from the world”.

  -- Visuddhimagga: The Path of Purification, p. 685-88, by Ven. Buddhaghosa


What specific emotion would best describe dukkah? One of my key problems studying Buddhism has been definitions. My definition often doesn't have the same span as that of the typical Buddhist - but I am usually successful in coming to similar conclusions. I try to focus on some generalities of the word in question and get an emotional feel.

Which brings me to the problem with dukkah. I am not sure what word(s) properly conveys (in english) the emotion sought to be elicited by the concept of dukkah. And the terms we HAVE come to use in its' description to date are rather, uh, dukkah.

I see it as frustration. You keep trying to satisfy a permanent hunger with an impermanent response. But I am told that is also not a complete comparison.

For example ... seething in anger borne from frustration is a different type of anger than that coming from a reaction to an insult. Or is it? Was it a generalized word they flippantly threw around? Or did it intend to evoke a specific type of emotional response?

There's a statement here (I'm guessing by Bhikkhu Bodhi) that it has no single best translation:

  No single English word adequately captures the full depth, range, and subtlety of the crucial Pali term dukkha. Over the years, many translations of the word have been used ("stress," "unsatisfactoriness," "suffering," etc.). Each has its own merits in a given context. There is value in not letting oneself get too comfortable with any one particular translation of the word, since the entire thrust of Buddhist practice is the broadening and deepening of one's understanding of dukkha until its roots are finally exposed and eradicated once and for all. One helpful rule of thumb: as soon as you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think again: for no matter how you describe dukkha, it's always deeper, subtler, and more unsatisfactory than that.

Its saying "in a given context" implies to me that the word is applicable to multiple contexts, in which multiple different emotions are manifest.

Some of these emotions include grief (when loved ones dies), fear (of losing what you value), anger, denial, and so on.

Since you're asking about emotion, perhaps consider the so-called "afflictive emotions": a.k.a. the Kleshas. Different schools have slightly different ways to enumerate the Kleshas. I note that the "grief" and "fear" that I mentioned aren't listed but "attachment" is. I think that shows your question is difficult to answer i.e. what one person sees as grief another person sees as (or names it to be) attachment.

The quote above says that dukkha is "deeper and subtler" than any definition you can think of. For what it's worth the shallowest definition I can think of (the highest-level, most single-meaninged definition) is that it's the opposite of sukha. I think that's inaccurate though, to the extent that a lay person would see sukha as a or the worthwhile goal, whereas nirvana is the ideal for a monk.

The four noble truths associated it with tanha, so perhaps the single-emotion you're looking for is "unsatisfied desire" or even "unsatisfiable desire", or just "dissatisfaction".

So "multiple contexts", or perhaps even all contexts: it's canonically associated with all saṅkhārās.


How can people meet again after rebirth? Prince Siddhartha & Princess Yashodhara met in a lot of lives as partners. How are people intended to meet their present life relations in the next life? Is the desire needed to be wished upon?

If you both have:

(1) compatible faith (sama,saddhā),
(2) compatible virtue (sama,silā),
(3) compatible charity (sama,cāgā),
(4) compatible wisdom (sama,pannā).

Sama,jivi Sutta 1
With the balance of probability, you will be born in the same plane, which increases the chance of meeting again. There is no guarantee through. This will make your current life together effective.
What is desirable is not achieved through wishing or praying, but through action resulting is conducive karma, i.e, convergent, action-based karma from both parties should spontaneously effect reunion:

they are not to be obtained through prayer (ayacana,hetu) or through wishing (patthana,hetu)

Pañcaka Iṭṭha Sutta

all of them are rooted in diligence, converge on diligence,

(Hatthi) Pada Sutta


Can meditation help students in exams? Came across this interesting research paper: Harvard Unveils MRI Study Proving Meditation Literally Rebuilds The Brain’s Gray Matter In 8 Weeks

If above is the case, is there any research showing that meditation makes better students or make people fair well at exams? Does it boost your IQ / EQ?

Here are references to some studies on this.  I don't know how rigorous they are!

An abstract of a study:
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/27/0956797612459659.abstract

Two articles in the Huffington Post that reference studies.  I imagine trying to google the universities and professors involved might get you some abstracts or summaries of results:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/meditation-better-grades_n_3053719.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/mindfulness-testing-focus-reading-comprehension_n_2957146.html


In this present time, can we go to Nirvana? I heard that when we settle our mind and focus in one thing, if we meditate we can go to Nirvana. In Buddha's time and many centuries after, people went to nirvana. So my question is, is it possible in this present time if we do all of these things: is it possible go to Nirvana?

The mind can reach Nirvana. It is unrelated to time & place. It is related to dispassion towards the world. Craving, which is an inborn instinct of all life forms, is the major obstacle to Nirvana.


bhava (kammabhava, upapattibhava) and jati How is the connection between bhava (as kamma-bhava and upapatti-bhava) and jāti as links in the twelve link formula of dependant arising  to be understood?

It is actually pretty simple. Once you have identified "yourself" and equated it with an organism, you must have been born. Makes sense? If you don't think you are this organism, moreover, you don't think there is any "you" at all, the notion of birth no longer applies.


Thai Theravada Buddhism In the temple where I am going to ordain, they often sit on their heals with toes bent forward (which I am working on) and they also sit with their legs to the side in what they call "mermaid style" which is very difficult for me.  I am looking for suggestions on stretches and exercises to help me.  I am 60 so these old bones and ligaments are telling me that they don't like these positions...they are very stubborn !!!

Just try little by little, Nyom Wilkes Alexander, there is no fault if not possible now. Just give not up and bear as much pain, if arising, as possible 2 to five years later it will be no problem at all and you might "laught" at western or modern claiming "it's not possible". It's likely with Dana, Sila and meditation. It may need a time, don't forget 60 years was totally in the other direction: how to serve my feelings? How to gain more of what my feeling what? Having followed Maras (defilments cries) a long it's great to hear that Nyom Wilkes Alexander is willing to go into the real battle. Best wishes and much strengh for your most blessed undertaking.

Usual positions in gatherings, especially for lay people (sitting gross legged infront of venerable ones, is very impolite. Even monks would not do on all occations, eg. if not teaching Dhamma or take their meal in public):

"Sit on their heals" (crouch), while the whole ball of the feet touches the ground, might be not possible since western Achilles-sinew is simply to short, never used to. (But it's also a balance matter: putting the knees outside the body and arms is needed)

(required for asking and confession)

There is no problem usually, if "normal" kneeing like this:

(It's not wished here to give to much encouragement and access here, nor to give advices which give release, so my person end here)

[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial use and other low exchange and trading purposes with wordly outcome.]


How did this teleportation happen in DN 16? In DN 16 it is written that:
"Then the Buddha came to the Ganges River.
Now at that time the Ganges was full to the brim so a crow could drink from it. Wanting to cross from the near to the far shore, some people were seeking a boat, some a dinghy, while some were tying up a raft. But, as easily as a strong person would extend or contract their arm, the Buddha, together with the mendicant Saṅgha, vanished from the near shore and landed on the far shore.
He saw all those people wanting to cross over. Knowing the meaning of this, on that occasion the Buddha was inspired to exclaim:
'Those who cross a river or stream
have built a bridge and left the marshes behind.
While some people are still tying a raft,
intelligent people have crossed over.'"
My only question is how did such teleportation happen? Is it metaphorical?
What are your thoughts on it?

Piya Tan's translation and commentary of DN 16 has two footnotes:

The various texts differ regarding the details of the Buddha‘s crossing the Ganges. They however agree that he
uses his psychic power to teleport himself and the order across the river. The redactors added this episode despite
the Vinaya rule against the public display of psychic powers (Pāc 8 = V 4:25): see Kevaḍḍha S (D 11) = SD 1.7
Intro (3.3). The Pali texts apparently regard the episode as ―symbolic of the Buddha‘s attainment of the  ̳other side‘
of transmigration, ie extinction (nirvana), by the power of meditation‖ (Warder 1970:71).

According to the Sarvastivada account, only the Buddha crosses the Ganges by his own power. The monks
swim across while other disciples build a raft (Waldschmidt 1950-51:158). The imagery here is obvious: the Buddha
has crossed the ocean of suffering; his immediate disciples, the monks, crosses the river of suffering using their own
effort; and the lay disciples are working at their own means of the salvation, the raft. On this verse, cf Dh 85.


How did the suffering of Gautama Buddha arise or co-arise? As per my understanding during his lifetime, Gautama Buddha, had attained Nibbana with residue. And after death he attained Parinibbana (or Nibbana with no residue).

Nibbana with residue is defined as following :

  What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life
  fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released
  through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain
  unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbana-element with residue left.

During his last days Gautama Buddha felt sharp pain and illness which he suppressed. In other words Gautama Buddha suffered because he was yet to reach his final Nibbana (Nibbana with no residue).

  And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda
  the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he
  suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them
  mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

We describe all sufferings using dependent co-arising.But dependent co-arising of suffering of Gautama Buddha is only possible if Gautama Buddha had failed to achieve the complete cessation of ignorance. Because if he had completely destroyed the ignorance at the very beginning then suffering would have ceased automatically.

  From the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes
  the cessation of fabrications.  From the cessation of fabrications
  comes the cessation of consciousness.  From the cessation of
  consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.  From the cessation
  of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.  From the
  cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact.  From
  the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.  From the
  cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving.  From the
  cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance.  From
  the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
  From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.  From the
  cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair all cease.  Such is the cessation of this entire
  mass of stress & suffering

My question is: How did the suffering of Gautama Buddha(no matter how small) arise or co-arise?

My guess is that with incomplete cessation of ignorance came incomplete cessation of fabrications. From incomplete cessation of fabrications came incomplete cessation of consciousness. From incomplete cessation of consciousness came incomplete cessation of name-form. From incomplete cessation of name-form came incomplete cessation of six sense media. From incomplete cessation of six sense media came incomplete cessation of contact. From incomplete cessation of contact came incomplete cessation of feeling. From incomplete cessation of feeling came incomplete craving. From incomplete cessation of craving came incomplete cessation of clinging/sustenance.  From incomplete cessation of clinging/sustenance came incomplete cessation of becoming. From incomplete cessation of becoming came incomplete cessation of birth. From incomplete cessation of birth came incomplete cessation of aging ,death ,sorrow,pain , distress.

I am not saying that Buddha was ignorant but that there is a possibility that there are levels of ignorance which one needs to transcend like the levels of jhanas.

"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life
  fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released
  through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain
  unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbana-element with residue left.

According to Itivuttaka 44 (above), an Arahant (including the Buddha) can still feel pleasure and pain.

  And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda
  the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he
  suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them
  mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

The suffering had indeed ended for the Buddha. That was why he was unperturbed by physical ailments. He feels pain but does not suffer from it.

In the Sivaka Sutta, the Buddha explains that not everything one feels is due to past karma becoming ripe:

  "There are cases where some feelings arise based on
  bile. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on bile.
  Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on bile. So
  any brahmans & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that
  whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before
  — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by
  the world. Therefore I say that those brahmans & contemplatives are
  wrong."

  "There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
  internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
  change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
  treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
  some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
  on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans
  & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."

In the story of Ven. Chakkhupala in Dhammapada 1, we find that it is possible for an Arahant to be blind due to past karma becoming ripe prior to Nibbana.

But since he was already blind, he does not suddenly become cured and starts to have vision because of Nibbana.

  On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
  the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
  meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
  morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
  thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
  Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
  When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
  not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
  Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no
  intention of killing and so was quite innocent." On being asked why
  Cakkhupala was blind although he was an arahat, the Buddha told the
  following story:

  Cakkhupala was a physician in one of his past existences. Once, he had
  deliberately made a woman patient blind. That woman had promised him
  to become his slave, together with her children, if her eyes were
  completely cured. Fearing that she and her children would have to
  become slaves, she lied to the physician. She told him that her eyes
  were getting worse when, in fact, they were perfectly cured. The
  physician knew she was deceiving him, so in revenge, he gave her
  another ointment, which made her totally blind. As a result of this
  evil deed the physician lost his eyesight many times in his later
  existences.

So, we find that no new karma becomes ripe after Nibbana. But it is possible that the Arahant could feel pain due to other reasons.

At the same time, any chronic conditions caused by previous karma becoming ripe prior to Nibbana, do not suddenly disappear due to Nibbana.

But in all cases, the Arahant is unperturbed. He feels pain but does not suffer from it. That shows that the Arahant has risen above suffering.

In this resource about dependent origination, Mahasi Sayadaw says:

  One who watches these present resultant processes effectively does not
  have craving that is rooted in feeling and so will put an end to the
  cycle of existence completely. In other words, the meditator watches
  every mental and physical phenomenon that occurs at the six
  sense-doors clearly in terms of its three characteristics. Through
  this effective practice of mindfulness, the meditator gains insight
  into the nature of the sense-objects and overcomes attachment to them
  there and then (tadaṅga), that is he or she overcomes it by opposing
  it with the knowledge that undercuts it. The cessation of attachment
  rules out the arising of the other phenomena, e.g. clinging, the
  process of becoming, birth, etc. After the this cessation through
  insight the meditator overcomes the latent attachment completely
  through cutting-off (samuccheda) when he or she attains the knowledge
  of the Noble Path. At this moment the other phenomena, e.g. clinging
  etc., also become totally extinct.

  There is no teaching that says: “With the extinction of feeling, craving ceases to exist.” This is not surprising for even Arahants do
  not have any control over the feelings that arise from contact with
  the six senses.


What does Buddhism say about Antinatalism? Antinatalism is the view that it is ethically wrong to procreate any sort of sentient beings, be it human or otherwise because to exist means also to experience pain, pleasure, suffering, bodily deprivations and psychological frustrations.
None of the above obviously is inflicted upon the non-existent.
My question is:
(i) What is the Buddhist view of this way of thinking;
(ii) Why create further imperfect human beings who are capable of experience any sort of dukkha, need, want, deprivation, frustration etc., when these kinds of dukkha (and ills) could've been prevented in the first place?
Even in the most ideal case, where a parent brings a child into existence that becomes an enlightened being, it is still ethically indecent to do so because (i) one is gambling with the life of that child; (ii) one is using that child as a means to an end; (iii) that "need" or desired outcome to attain enlightenment is only relevant for existent beings.
It seems that Buddhism has some Antinatalist undertones, because although not mentioned in the scripture, if everyone followed the ideal, everyone would strive towards arhatship, and thus stop procreating.

Wikipedia defines antinatalism as follows:

Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is a philosophical position and social
movement that assigns a negative value to birth. Antinatalists argue
that humans should abstain from procreation because it is morally bad
(some also recognize the procreation of other sentient beings as
morally bad).

In respect to Noble People, Buddhism may possibly appear antinatalist, when it says:

Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search.
And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being
subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise
subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness...
death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is
likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.
And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are
subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are
subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth
MN 26

However, for laypeople, Buddhism appears not antinatalist. It says:

To support one's father and mother; to cherish one's wife and
children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupations — this is the
highest blessing.
Maha-mangala Sutta

Buddhism says the pleasant feelings from renunciation, meditation & enlightenment are superior to the pleasant feelings from the household family life. Refer to the Sukhavagga in AN 2.

There are, mendicants, these two kinds of happiness. What two? The
happiness of laypeople and the happiness of renunciates. These are the
two kinds of happiness. The better of these two kinds of happiness is
the happiness of renunciates.
There are, mendicants, these two kinds of happiness. What two? Sensual
happiness and the happiness of renunciation. These are the two kinds
of happiness. The better of these two kinds of happiness is the
happiness of renunciation.
There are, mendicants, these two kinds of happiness. What two? The
happiness of attachments, and the happiness of no attachments. These
are the two kinds of happiness. The better of these two kinds of
happiness is the happiness of no attachments.

It follows it appears Buddhism is not 'antinatalist' because it appears to never say having children is "morally bad". Buddhism appears to merely say (for those capable of entering the Noble Path) not having children brings more happiness when compared to having children.
In conclusion, my personal view is Buddhism is not antinatalist. My impression is Antinatalism is merely another regressive ideology held by psychopaths, similar to Marxism and Feminism.


Can homosexual monks or nuns ordain, if not WHY? Namo Buddhaya!
(I am a Theravada Buddhist)

The Vinaya says monks & nuns cannot be together in private (it would be an offense).

  But what if someone is a homosexual, how would they go about
  ordaining, as they would not be able to technically be with men then (similar to nuns)?

I would have a hard time believing the Buddha would discriminate against someone who is a homosexual.

IF they cannot ordain,

  what is the reason that they can't ordain as according to the Buddha? ( WITH SOURCE)

The Buddha chose to ordain woman, and homosexuals for sure can overcome their sexual urges just as a woman can towards men AS WELL, so why can't homosexuals ordain?

(Please, if possible, cite sources!)

Metta!

Homosexuals may fall under asittaka pandaka. They cannot ordain.

  asittakapandaka - A man who gains satisfaction from performing oral sex on another man and from ingesting his semen, and only becomes sexually aroused after ingesting another man's semen.

Source: Pandaka


What is funeral law of Buddhism? What is funeral law of Buddhism is there any ? For both layman and monk.

There is some information about funerals at this link.

When I lived in a forest monastery in Thailand, dead monks & residents were cremated on a pile of wood in the forest & we would practise meditation on the burning corpse.


What is the Pure Land? The Three Pure Land sutras contain descriptions of a beautiful and serene place with trees, ponds, and palaces all made of jewels and surrounded with heavenly music and fragrance. How is this Pure Land understood by followers of Pure Land schools? Is it thought of as a place one will literally go after this life or is it more of an inspiration or source of imagery for meditation? Or something else entirely? Thank you for helping me to understand this.

It depends on the school and/or the tradition a Buddhist chooses to follow. Just so you are aware, Pureland is really only a "school" in Japan. Everywhere else in Mahayana, a kind of Pureland practice is usually taken for granted, or at least not treated as its own separate practice, like in Chinese Ch'an, for instance.

The majority of the Buddhists who aspire to be reborn in any Pureland (there is more than one) usually believe it to be a literal place you go after you die if you aspire to be reborn there. Others use thoughts of Pureland as grounds for meditation and/or prayer. Others take it upon themselves in their Bodhisattva practice to make this realm a pureland. None of these are mutually exclusive either--all three practices can be undertaken by any given person.


Reference request: the ways of the world I am looking for sutta text where the Buddha says something like...

  The ways of the world will never be finished find your own salvation
  with diligence...

Meaning, all the politics, hatered, war in this world will always continue you need not heed them and instead you should work towards your own salvation...

"The affairs of the world will go on forever. Do not delay the
  practice of meditation." - Milarepa


How to memorize suttas? I was watching a video about the oral tradition in relation to how the suttas was first communicated and conveyed to monastics and lay people.

I was wondering what techniques buddhist monastics and lay people used/are using to memorize suttas. I know of chanting as an effective method.

Are there other methods used within Buddhism?

Thank you for your time.

The best way to "memorize" suttas is to get the key idea or sanna of the given sutta. It is the “learning” of true dhamma and not “memorization” that will help in the retention of key phrases. For that one needs to get the key idea or sanna of a given concept. When one gets the sanna of a concept, one will never lose it.

So, the best way to memorize is to grasp the concepts of dhamma. Then it becomes easier to analyze a given concept as one progresses. The more one grasps about a concept and the meanings and how to use them in other situations, things start to come flowing through. This is unlike memorizing the wording, but another will think that you’ve memorized a given thing.

The basic difference between “real learning” and memorization is that in the first case you have acquired the ability to grasp concepts, whereas the latter makes you just blindly follow rules/instructions.

This is a concept that is hard to grasp for many these days, because we are so much used to “book learning”. There are many people who can repeat certain tasks mechanically without even bothering to think through. And then when the situation changes somewhat they do not know how to handle the “new situation”.


MN 137 - Directed only to Stream Entrants (and beyond)? "And what are the six kinds of renunciation joy? The joy that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, stressful, subject to change: That is called renunciation joy. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)

Is this achieved by intellectual pondering about the six senses (and meditative insight into the three characteristics) or just pondering alone?

I'd say the former, but then this Sutta is primarily directed towards Stream Entrants, no?

The way my teacher explained a crucial point about this was summarized with a single but powerful word: Immediacy!

At some point in our practice our familiarity with Dharma should go beyond it being something "over there" that we study and try to understand, and become something very personal that is happening "right here" in our own immediate experience, second-by-second.

This type of joy that arises in case of mature student, is part of this breakthrough to the Immediacy of Dharma. On the initial phases of the breakthrough, we keep discovering more and more real life microsituations that turn out to be perfectly described by some ancient scripture, and this gives a sense of wonder and joy. And then as we get used to this match, we get a kind of relaxed bliss of a traveler who reached the oasis, had enough food and water to recover, and is now resting in the shade (to give a traditional image of what "bliss" means in this context).

Specifically as it pertains to Transience/Inconstancy of all configurations, once you clearly see that every frustration you used to take seriously is a temporary arrangement of clouds that actually shifts beyond pain fairly quickly, as long as you don't hold on to it, -- this immediate observation gives a sort of deep peace and a sense of relief that you experience continuously as you interact with all kinds of situations.

So to answer your question explicitly, it's not just intellectual pondering nor is it meditative insight, as it is the immediate observation (directly seeing) it all in your own life.


Explain this Theravada Wheel of Life? Wikipedia's Bhavacakra (Within the Theravada tradition) article includes this picture of the wheel:

From inner to outer, it has four rings:

Past, Present, Future
Active and Passive
?
Twelve Nidanas

My question is, what's the third ring? Assuming I know approximately what each word in the third ring means, why are those words in particular placed in those segment of the third ring? What's the relation between the third ring and the other rings? What is the lesson or advice, how is understanding this ring useful/usable towards enlightenment?

Craving, attachment in the present lead to becoming and fabrication due to ignorance. Ignorance is included and if it is not present there is no craving and clinging to feelings hence no fabrication.

What is subjected to birth decay and death (in the future) is a being composed of the 5 aggregates due to fabrication and ignorance in the present.

Craving, clinging in the past due to ignorance hence leading to becoming and fabrication creates the rebirth, mind and matter, 6 sense bases, contact and feeling in the present.


How did Buddha deal with people that were sexually attracted to him? Is there any known case, where someone was sexually attracted to Buddha?

I recall there is a story (which is probably not from the Pali suttas but from a commentary) where a woman was in love with the Buddha so the Buddha used psychic power to make his appearance age before the woman, similar to the commentary story below:

Janapadakalyāṇī became a nun because her eldest brother (the Buddha) had renounced his kingdom to become a monk, his son Rāhula had become
a monk, her own husband, Nanda, had become a monk, and her mother, had
all gone forth. Due to her great beauty, she became known as Rūpanandā
Therī. Hearing that the Buddha deprecated beauty, she avoided visiting
him. However, hearing the lavish praise of the Buddha by the nuns and
women devotees, she wished to see and hear the Buddha, so one day went
with the other nuns, sitting behind them. The Buddha used his psychic
powers to create a vision of a beautiful young woman fanning him.
Rūpanandā was captivated by her beauty. The Buddha then caused the
young woman to age gradually, slowly taking on the form of an old
woman, then one dying in agony. Finally he made her body became a
bloated corpse, pecked at by crows. Becoming thoroughly disgusted,
Rūpanandā reflected that her own body was the same. Then the Buddha
uttered the above verse and Rūpanandā gained Arahantship.
http://www.aimwell.org/11-jara.html


Is the Tathagata 'special'? Mahayana or Theravada, or any other offshoot. Is a Buddha an exception? Or a personification?

It is not personification. There is evidence that Gotama Buddha exists in India. He is special so he was called Samma Sambuddha.
================
when the Buddha is designated a sammā Sambuddha, "a perfectly enlightened one," this highlights not only the fullness of his enlightenment but his authority and reliability as a spiritual teacher.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html