What are the benefits of Dhamma in this very life that could be understood by a beginner? Please limit the benefits to the here and now, because an ingenious youth hearing the benefit of future rebirths and also hearing hard to grasp concepts of karma might surely say “what’s in it for me now? what do I care what happens in the future?”.  In other words, one who is a beginner and who lack virtues will say “Ooh this karmic concept you teach is like borrowing money from someone I don't know and I don't have to pay right now so why should I care?”
By saying the above I’m not trying to open a discussion about Karma / Self etc… a virtue done because of idea of self as proposed by other religions where you get tormented in the future for action done here is a phony virtue, its like being temperate toward your wife for fear of losing her.

Karma works in this life too. If you are kind to people, you create friends, then friends will take care of you. This is called karma - creating conditions for your future, in this life.
When you are driven by emotions, like obsession or negativity - you become kind of blind, so you create bad conditions for yourself. So seeing your mind and developing ability to stop harmful thoughts is useful for you, in this life.
Stupid people always argue about things, they always see them from one side only. Buddhism teaches you that things have many sides, and when you see it from all sides - you don't argue. This is useful for you, in this life.


Mahayana view on why Theravada's anatta is insufficient to uproot ignorance? A Mahayana-practising member wrote this comment:

  With respect, the Theravada generally has a much more coarse
  understanding of emptiness and anatta and is confused as to the object
  of negation. In much the way that placing a bag of ice on a gushing
  head wound has some efficacy, yet is utterly incapable of actually
  curing the wound the Theravada understanding anatta doctrine is very
  helpful, but insufficient to provide a genuine antidote to ignorance
  and hence suffering ..... The Mahayana tenet systems ...
  believe Theravada adherents are not ready to understand,
  but will understand the selflessness of phenomena eventually as they
  continue to progress on the path.

I would like to understand the perspective of Mahayana Buddhists on why Theravada's anatta (and dependent origination) doctrine is "insufficient to provide a genuine antidote to ignorance and hence suffering" compared to Mahayana's sunyata (emptiness) doctrine?

why anatta is insufficient to uproot suffering? Here is a simple answer:

One type of suffering comes from craving. In other words, if I am sitting over here and in my mind I crave for something over there that I can't obtain - that very experience of painful mismatch between the two is suffering. Another type of suffering comes from fear of losing something. This is the same mechanism at play as with craving, just in reverse:  I sit over here having something nice, feeling good - and I know that over there in the future I will inevitably lose it. Hence, that experience of the painful mismatch between the two is suffering.

Oftentimes (but not always!) these two scenarios occur with our sense of "I" as the object of craving or loss. In case of craving, let's say I want to become a great Buddhist teacher, or a successful businessman, or a big boss, or a father of a big happy family. The mismatch between what I want to be and what I am now is experienced as suffering. Or, in the case of a loss, let's say I already feel that my state of being is good, however what if I know that in the future, due to a sickness or war or simply due to old age - I will lose my happy peaceful state of being. Again, there is a mismatch in the mind, and this mismatch is experienced as suffering.

Anatta can help us become immune to this type of suffering. If we stop identifying ourselves with any social role or any lifestyle or even with this body or this mind - then, if we start losing any of it, we will not regret and we will not suffer. If we are not attached to any idea of "I", any particular manner of being, we will be at peace with who we are now and with whatever happens in the future.

However, there is another type of suffering that cannot be fixed with anatta! This type of suffering comes from attachment to forms other than oneself, forms that have nothing to do with "I". For example, consider the situation when your teenage son suddenly declares that he is a gay person (a homosexual). Because you are so attached to an idea that your son should be a proper man, there is a great mismatch in your mind between expectation and reality. Because of this mismatch you experience dukkha, suffering. This type of dukkha has nothing to do with your sense of "I", it is about your son. But because you have a fixed idea of how things are supposed to be, you suffer whenever there is a mismatch.

So anatta can't help with this type of suffering. But shunyata can. According to shunyata, an idea (a form) such as "man" is a stereotype or a reified generalization. In reality, there are all kinds of qualities: such as strength, rationality, joy, sense of beauty etc. - that are present in  both man and woman to various degrees and should not be lumped into "man qualities" or "woman qualities". The example of "man" vs "gay" is just one example. Our everyday social life is full of examples when we attach to some form, some idea, some concept of how things are supposed to be, some idea of "rightness" that is based on some overgeneralization - and then from this attachment there comes all kind of conflict and suffering.

When you understand shunyata, you understand the principle behind all generalization, all delineation of entities. You clearly see that every human concept in this civilization is some kind of convention, abstraction, or generalization. You also see that our subjective perception, from our limited experience and single point of view, is always partial - it never includes everything that possibly exists. Because we don't know that our experience partial, we assume that our understanding of the world is how it really is - and then based on this we engage in action that leads to conflict and suffering. Deep understanding of shunyata uproots this source of trouble.

And even at the basic everyday level, anatta does not always help to stop impossible desires that lead to suffering. Let's say I met a beautiful woman that meets all my criteria: she is smart, beautiful, sexy, and has a great character. However, she is already married to another man. Because I'm so deeply in love with her and craving to see her, hug her etc. -- I have a huge mismatch between how things are and how I want them to be. From this craving comes suffering. Can anatta help me with this suffering? It might. If I think about my fantasies about being with her as "my future", "this is how I want to live" - then may be by meditating on anatta I can drop that fantasy of living with her. However in practice, this craving is not entirely based on thoughts about I and "my future". This craving is mostly based on the idea that she is perfect, including her physical, mental, and emotional qualities. This craving is based on overgeneralization of her as a perfect object (in my mind). Here again, shunyata can help. By clearly seeing that my idea of her is mere idealization, a generalization - that in real life she cannot possibly be always looking perfect, always being in happy mood, always attracted to me - as she is in my imagination - by seeing how her image is a creation of my mind - I can liberate myself from craving and suffering of unrequited love.

To summarize all of the above, suffering can be classified as a two-dimensional two-by-two matrix. On one dimension we have 1) suffering that comes from craving and 2) suffering that comes from fear of losing. On the other dimension we have A) suffering that comes from some kind of overgeneralized idea about "I" (my state of being in the past, present or future) and B) suffering that comes from some kind of overgeneralized idea about something else (some external object or even an abstract concept of how things are supposed to be). Anatta can provide liberation from suffering caused by 1A and 2A - but not from suffering caused by 1B and 2B. only shunyata can provide liberation from that.


Life and why we (mankind ) exist I'm stuck on this for now ...does the Buddha say anything about why we exist ( mankind ? I know how much he stated about reasons why we should not exist such as Nirvana being the highest goal to escape from the karma bond!! Just like to know for balance of reality.

The main point of paṭiccasamuppāda pretty much comes down to: "if this exists, that exists; if this ceases to exist, that also ceases to exist". And so the reason to our existence, not just mankind but pretty much all conditioned phenomena is that the condition or the root cause for that existence still exists. So in our particular case, the reason we, mankind, still exists is because the conditions to our existence, the 3 unwholesome roots of greed, hatred, and ignorance, still exist. And as long as one has not completely uprooted them, s/he will continue to wander in Samsara's 6 realms of existence.


Unconscious Grasping to a Self In daily life, I guess my self-grasping is not very salient; people tell me I'm considerate, open. However, I've written stories in the past, and in my fiction I project these fantasies that are incredibly grandiose and self-absorbed. I'm not sure what to conclude here.

Is it possible to have an unaware, unconscious self-grasping (which would here transpire in my stories)?

Or perhaps, could writing down and elaborating grandiose, self-themed stories exacerbate self-grasping which would otherwise be much less?

I am somewhat confused about this as, as I said, these stories seem not to fit my day to day personality, but clearly possess important themes of self-grasping.

OP: Is it possible to have an unaware, unconscious self-grasping (which would here transpire in my stories)?

There are 18 internal and external views across past, present and future making a total of 108 views of self rooted in carving.
18 Internal Preoccupations with Craving

(1) “I am”
(2) “I am this [I am like this]”
(3) “Thus am I [I am like that]”
(4) “I am otherwise”
(5) “I do not exist”
(6) “I exist”
(7) “May I be”
(8) “May I be this [be like this]”
(9) “May I be so [be like that]”
(10) “May I otherwise”
(11) “I might be”
(12) “I might be this [be like this]”
(13) “I might be that [be like that]”
(14) “I might be otherwise”
(15) “I shall be”
(16) “I shall be this [be like this]”
(17) “I shall be so [be like that]”
(18) “I shall be otherwise”

Tanhā Jālinī Sutta / (Vicarita) Tanha Sutta
For an untrained person, any externals experience always result in the self-view. What one should do is to contemplate perceptions, thought, view as not-self. To to this one have to develop awareness into this process.

the eye, form, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the ear, sounds, ear-consciousness, ear-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the nose, smells, nose-consciousness, nose-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the tongue, sounds, tongue-consciousness, tongue-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the body, touches, body-consciousness, body-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self,
the mind, mind-objects, mind-consciousness, mind-contact, feeling, craving, are not-self.

Cha Chakka Sutta

OP: could writing down and elaborating grandiose, self-themed stories exacerbate self-grasping which would otherwise be much less?

Self-grasping is always there. (Only at streem-entry is this broke.) More you think about oneself (108 through paths above) it is reinforced.
If

perceptions,
thoughts, or
views

do arise one should straighten them by contemplating:

Impermanent as impermanent
Painful as painful
Not-self as not-self
Impure [unattractive or repulsive] as impure

See Vipallasa Sutta
When creating these stories your self-view may be reinforced. If you do this as living maybe you can take a step back and try to write stories without too much self-centeredness. When you have to write something and the above Vipallasa arises contemplate on the antidote.
This and this answer also might be of interest on how to eliminate self-view arising.


Dependent origin operating mind During  walking meditation it happens automatically,without any initiation.understanding of dependent  origin lead to fear of sansara. Is it the doer of the  mind cause upadana?

During walking meditation it happens automatically,without any initiation

There is an intention (Cetana) behind every movement in the walking meditation. If you look carefully it can be seen. There's e.g. an intention to lift the foot, move it, lower it, place it, etc. With practice one will begin to see intentions everywhere such as the intention to swallow, to blink, even behind a thought, there's an intention to think.
With consistent practice this part of reality will reveal itself.


Advice for a young person living in a western city I've read here about sensual pleasure and music and I agree with what I've read: that boredom breeds states of unwholesome pleasure and that when we give up our thoughts to entertainment we do just that; that we should instead focus on the teachings and right employment.

However, do you believe there is anything wrong with actually playing an instrument? It is a skill, surely: can musicianship in any sense be thought of as an example of right employment? Is there a Buddhist approach to music? Or to photography and film and etc.? I am maybe generally a little confused on what right employment can be, I am a student and want to consider carefully what I will do for work. While becoming a monk is here out of the question, do you think it is possible to find good employment in an economic system which fundamentally values consumption as a positive value, or will this not create unwholesome pleasure necessarily by contributing to it?

Maybe another question I have which is not wholly separate is how can a young person living in a western city separate themselves from pop cultural influences without withdrawing from society? For instance, it seems like withdrawing from my life would hurt and confuse more people (family, friends) than it would cause happiness, and since there is not even a temple here it is hard for me to accept Buddhism itself as a religion in the strict sense since it would be a profoundly personal study for me to undertake (as opposed to one I could practice with others).

I'm sorry if these questions are too personal, but they are problems that bother me about this path that I have trouble reconciling with my day to day life. The economic world seems geared in a very different direction to the wisdom of the teachings, and it frightens me. Thank you for reading and replying and I hope you are well. And please, point out where I am going astray, because I am in no small need of guidance. If this is an inappropriate place to post this, I am sorry.

The most hard-core interpretations of the suttas would probably make anyone feel as though their chosen career doesn't jive with Buddhist doctrine. Fortunately we're all encouraged to take a middle-way approach in all things, so we needn't be tied to the strictest way of thinking about our careers.

Right livelihood, the fifth element on the Noble Eightfold Path, is actually fairly easy to summarize:

  Right livelihood means that practitioners ought not to engage in trades or occupations which, either directly or indirectly, result in harm for other living beings. (Source)

I think a musician would need to go out of their way to harm other living beings. The career is inherently peaceful in nature, and does a lot of good. Buddhism isn't about avoiding all sense pleasure and completely eschewing anything "fun"; it's more about following a middle way that makes sense for the practitioner.

On a personal level, I have a profound appreciation for musicians. Music helps me relax, and I really enjoy opportunities to listen mindfully. Back when my children were babies, there were some nights when being able to tune into the classical radio station meant the difference between complete peace and total discord within the household. Music does wonders for people, and musicians make it possible for people to benefit from it.

So, music as a career: no problem. Go for it, and don't look back. Your other concern, about economics driven by consumption, could have an entire book written in response. But, simply put, there is nothing wrong with providing a service and charging a fair price for it. This basic practice of trade transcends all modern economic theory, all "-isms", and all other ways of thinking about money, goods, and services. Charging money for the consumption of music is no different than charging money for the preparation of food; both are perfectly valid ways to make a living in the world. Both provide something of value to a consumer. It's all good.

Finally, you needn't withdraw completely from life to be a good practicing Buddhist. Again, it's easy to get caught up in the strict interpretations of precepts and rules, and to let that push us into thinking that the only way to live the "right" kind of life is to put on robes and meditate all day, but it's important to unwind a bit and always remember the Middle Way. You also don't need access to a temple, a Dharma center, or anything else. You can simply read Buddha's words and apply them to your life; you can accept the Four Noble Truths; you can follow the Noble Eightfold Path. You can do all of this within the context of your current life, being who you are, with school, work, friends, and family. If you would change your life in any radical way in the pursuit of Buddhism, and if such changes would result in suffering for you, then what would be the point? The principal teaching of Buddhism is suffering and its elimination; no one's practice should ever cause suffering.


The Practice of Giving: How to Practice Giving "Thusly"? In the Diamond Sutra (or Vajra Prajna Paramita Sutra) Buddha says to Subhuti:

  a Bodhisattva should not dwell anywhere when he gives. He should not dwell in forms when he gives, nor should he dwell in sounds, smells,
  tastes, tangible objects, or dharmas when he gives. Subhuti, a
  Bodhisattva should give thus: he should not dwell in marks.

Below the passage Venerable Master Hsuan Hua (pp.91-94 in the link) explains that this comes down to giving without being aware of or paying attention to:

the one who gives,
the one who receives, and
that which is given

I have read this explanation many times, have attempted to meditate on the matter, and have tried to practice such "giving thusly" actively by being kind, helpful, donating to charities when prompted and to beggars when asked on the street.

However, I cannot help but feel that the manner in which I give is ultimately still contrived and pre-meditated - not free of "conditioned deliberation".

Specifically silly thoughts such as:

"Do I have any change on me to give to this person in the street? - I'll make sure to have change on me at all times in the future."

seem very contrived and not in line with the idea that one must simply "give". Mindfully, perhaps, but not based on logic, not purposefully, or, for that matter, ostentatiously.

Question

Does anyone have any advice in how to practice giving thusly? (practice in the sense of "get better at")

References to relevant literature would be most helpful. We practice Tibetan Buddhism in our family, but as can be seen from the text above, I try not to be a stickler for school-purity.

Does anyone have any advice in how to practice giving thusly?

I think one needs to closely analyze the meaning of "thusly". It's valid to think of it as practicing charity with a serene, equanimous, AND wise mind. It doesn't mean one just carelessly gives to everyone, even if that means giving to evil people so that they'll have the means to carry on with their evil way. Remember the merits of giving is proportional to not only the mind state of the giver, but also that of the receiver:

  [The Buddha:] "I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is given to an unvirtuous person. And the virtuous person has abandoned five factors and is endowed with five". ~~ AN 3.57 ~~


Conventional versus Ultimate People sometimes qualify their statements, by adding the word, "conventionally" — and people distinguish between Conventional Truth (Sammuti Sacca) versus Ultimate Truth (Paramattha Sacca).

When (historically) does this distinction begin: if the distinction is made in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, is there also doctrine like that in the Sutta Pitaka (and if not, do we know why not)?

This Wikipedia section says that the "two truths" distinction is not made in the suttas, though there are some "suttas of indirect meaning".
Is "ultimate" in some way better or more right than "conventional"? Or are they both mere views or descriptions of reality, more or less equal (like a left hand and a right hand) and it's important to select (perhaps, I guess, by using 'wisdom') whichever of the two may be the more appropriate?

Is it OK to regard them both as "views" instead of as "truths"? Is there an important difference between e.g. sacca, vacana, dhamma, and ditthi?
If/when/after people have made a distinction between "conventional" and "ultimate", do people subsequently try to recombine these views? I'm thinking of the Zen-like aphorism, "after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water": is that something to do with "two truths"? Does it imply a continuation of or a return to the conventional? Or does it differ/vary a lot from school to school?

I imagine these questions could be answered with a paragraph each; but please tell me if any of them need to be separate questions, to allow a longer or more detailed answer.

The distinction goes back all the way to Buddha's students' original Maha-Sangha and its two sub-schools Bahushrutiya and Prajnaptivada. From Wikipedia:

  According to Paramārtha, the Bahuśrutīya school was formed in order to fully embrace both "conventional truth" and "ultimate truth."

and

  The Prajñaptivādins were early articulators of the two truths doctrine.

The relationship of the two truths is the main concern of Buddhist ontological tradition called "Madhyamaka". According to them, the "ultimate" that is defined in opposition to "conventional" is not the true ultimate. As you say, these two are mere views or descriptions of reality. The true "ultimate", they argue, is beyond all descriptions, and therefore complete and does not stand in opposition to anything (is all inclusive). One of the very many texts that elaborate on this point and its implications is Karmapa's commentary on an ancient little stanza known as The Cuckoo of Awareness.
As my Zen Master said, it is one thing if I explain this, and another thing if you get it yourself. Therefore I will leave this one unanswered.


Happiness vs. Euphoria from a Buddhist's point of view Most of people these days will define Happiness as euphoria: A big party with friends, dancing, singing all night (sometimes drinking). From a Buddhist's perspective this is not even close to the true happiness, so how would Buddhism classify this kind of Euphoria? Something good, neutral or bad? Is it an addiction? Ignorance?

Euphoria may result in happiness but this is temporary. Reason being is you have not absolute to maintain the world to your liking. Every good movie or party eventually does come to an end. The base of this happiness is creating temporary pleasant sensation. In the case of a movie it is looking at the story line and playing the concept of the story. In the case of food it is taste from the tongue. All these sensations arise to pass away. Also when the stimulus is not there it does not arise any more.

The best way to have lasting happiness if in different to the arising and passing away of sensations and achieving an unconditioned state where you do not need an external stimulus to create pleasantness.


What happens to a cause after it has generated an effect? What happens to a cause after it has generated an effect?
I don't think it can cease to really exist, as it never really existed in the first place. Does the effect somehow - metaphorically - crowd out the cause? Or is the effect sufficient - even necessary - for the cause not to appear?
What is a good way of thinking about this?

I think the right way to think about this, according to Mahayana Buddhism, is that it is our mind that delineates the spatiotemporal continuum and identifies a cause.
In other words, things are not discrete, not discontinuous - so there are no separate "events" to begin with. In the general case, an event does not and cannot have a precise spatial and temporal boundary. Some events may have more or less well-defined boundaries but that's just a happy accident that we can't expect of most events. Usually when we examine an event very carefully we will see that it is "leaking" outside its boundaries, the boundaries are not accurate.
In summary, any "event" that we call "an effect" is a product of our own delineation. In Mahayana we say "event is empty", meaning it's an empty construct, not something concrete that exists ontologically but an abstraction we project onto our observation of the world.
Next, let's talk about the causes. Every "event" that we have thus delineated always exists in some context. The context is the environment that gave rise to the event. This environment is also contiguous and nondiscrete. As we analyze it with our mind we can identify some specific conditions that supported arising of our event. This is to say that an event does not usually (ever?) have a single cause. Instead, our mind delineates the background or the environment and identifies primary and secondary causes and conditions that were necessary for the arising of the event.
Now, what would happen if some of the secondary conditions did not exist or existed in a different way? Most likely the event they were to produce would be slightly (or very) different. Would we consider it the same event then? This is a very important question because it taps into the concept of "sameness" or identity. What makes an event itself? How different does it need to be before we start considering it an entirely different event? If we analyze this question deeply we will understand that sameness or identity is also empty, is also an abstraction, projection, convention, imputation.
From this last point we can conclude that so-called primary and secondary causes and conditions are also entirely our own designation. We pick some aspects of the environment from which an event arisen and designate them as important for this event, designate them as causes or even The Cause.
Finally, let's get to your actual question, what happens to the cause once the effect has arisen. Now we can understand that both the cause and the effect were our designations or our delineations to begin with. It's the entire environment that continuously and contiguously transforms.
The effect grows out of the environment like a sprout grows out of the seed (with other necessary conditions being the moisture, the warmth, the nutrients in the soil etc). What happens to the seed after the sprout has grown? Parts of the seed transform into the sprout while other parts dry or rot away. What happens to the molecules of water, nutrients etc.? They are used as the building blocks for the sprout. What happens to the warmth? The warmth or the vibration of the atoms is passed on to some chemical reactions that serve the growth of the sprout. Entire environment in the neighborhood of the sprout transforms.
Individual things only exist as analytical designations. Because everything keeps on changing (whether growing or falling apart or mixing with something else or gradually changing to something else) - in some sense exact things only exist for an infinitely short moment, and in the next moment they are no more, having passed their energy and information on to some successors (either slightly different from themselves or very different). In another sense things don't disappear at all, they just keep transforming and mixing with parts of other things. Neither of these descriptions is 100% accurate, but they point at Truth which is the living reality underneath our concepts.
This is the right way to think about this, as far as I know. If you want to do a formal study of this analysis, in Buddhism it's called "Madhyamaka".


When the obstacles are abandoned does one experience dharma everywhere? When I first started to think of encouraging myself on the path I imagined that when I reach the moment of cessation that I would see and experience dharma in an all pervading way " omniscient " is this true or false ...to sum it up once reaching enlightenment there should be a connection made with some sort of unified reality.

I imagined that when I reach the moment of cessation that I would see
  and experience dharma in an all pervading way

Wrong! There's no seeing at the moment of cessation. All experiences cease. There is no arising.

Only the Buddhas attain omniscience with enlightenment. Others do not!

  Connection made with some sort of unified reality.

There's no such thing called a "unified reality". But just before cessation, you will come to the understanding that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, unsatisfactory & uncontrollable.

Read the answer given by ven.Yuttadhammo to the following question:

How does stream entry occur?


What is a Tao Buddhist? This answer refers to a Tao Buddhist. I've never heard of this term. Is a a definite religious movement or is it just a colloquial term that refers to someone who holds both view simultaneously? In either case, is there any conflict when subscribing to both philosophies at the same time?

I would think a Tao Buddhist is a Taoist an Buddhist. The Tao is the religious experience of the world, an the Buddhism is the philosophical experience of the world. The Tao developed its understanding of Yin an Yang this is sort like the Hindu/Buddhist concept of Karma.

You can find that Buddhism mingles with all type of religions. Buddhism is a very adaptable system that can help improve people in or out of religion.


Is there a historical connection between Buddhism and martial arts? Are kung fu monks and all related Hollywood stereotypes based on any actual historical connection between Buddhism and martial arts? Or is it just a fun movie concept? :)

There is a legend that Bodhidharma instructed the monks at the Shaolin Monastery in ways to increase their physical fitness. These exercises later became the Shaolon kung fu.  As one of the documents involved seems to be a forgery, scholars now doubt this connection.

Also see here and here.

Additionally the concept of Do has influenced many japanese martial arts, changing the craft (-jutsu) of fighting to a way (-do) of fighting (e.g. karate-do, ken-do)


Is shikantaza meant to spontaneously relax you, unlike ch'an meditation? Is shikantaza meant to spontaneously relax you, unlike ch'an meditation? I've never taken classes in the former, but the latter seems to teach you to relax -- and then follow the breath spontaneously.
Is this about right?
To stay alert, in zazen, I focus on the tip of my nose, as and when I need to. If my thoughts bother me, I mentally turn toward them (both literally and metaphorically).
I believe that is still zazen?
I don't have any other questions about how to meditate, anymore; though I'm unsure what enlightenment or jhana is.

To sit in zazen is to sit facing emptiness.  M H's answer is absolutely correct, but like most things in Zen there is more to the story once your practice deepens.  Relaxation and concentration on a focal point have their place, but really what zazen is after is the arousal of mushin or "no-mind".  In early Zen, and later in Soto, they sat in pi-kuan or wall gazing.  You'd literally just sit facing a wall.  No fancy techniques, no mantras, kasinas, or even the breath.  Just you, your cushion, and a surface staring back at you.  As you advanced in your sitting, little by little, things began to fall away.  (In fact, if you don't allow them to, you will drive yourself batty doing this practice.)  As that is happening, concurrently, you'll also begin to internalize that blank wall.  This happens through no effort of your own.  As you let go of you, emptiness is revealed.  Eventually you become the blankness - mushin - itself.  The wall becomes secondary if not entirely ancillary.
So don't worry about your thoughts, don't worry about the tip of your nose, and certainly don't worry about spontaneity.  Just sit and don't move.  Stare at the wall and see what happens.


Can Buddhism lead to eternal happiness? Does Buddhism propose the possibility of any state of consciousness which feels better than neutral?

Many buddhist teachings I have heard so far (mostly by Alan Watts) seem to point to an "ideal" state of consciousness which feels neutral or maybe even not at all, as there is no conscious.

Does Buddhism claim to have some path to "eternal happiness" and more than "non-suffering"?

That's a very common misunderstanding of what Buddhism is after.  Western authors (especially some of the early dabblers in Buddhism like Watts) had a very difficult time expressing Buddhist ideas in the parlance with which they and their audience would be familiar.  Consistently, concepts like "voidness" (e.g. shunyata) get mistaken for ideas like nihilism, inertness, or Stoicism.  You'd half expect the Buddhist ideal to more resemble Mr. Spock than Shakyamuni!   I think this is even further compounded by the Pali and Sanskrit languages which often use prefixed negations to express positive qualities (e.g. ahimsa or non-harming).  Based on that linguistic trope, it's very easy to think that Buddhism is only interested in a state in which negative qualities are absent.

Not to get caught in the weeds over what Buddhism is after (and you might want to stay away from words like "eternal" on a Buddhism Q&A site!), but let me assure your that liberation is anything but neutral.  There are positive states like the seven factors of enlightenment (of which "joy" is one!), the compassion, equanimity, etc. of the Brahmaviharas, the sweetness of meditative absorption, among many, many others that are of paramount importance and have to be cultivated with just as much zeal as one uses to overcome their negative views and behaviors.


Possible Potential Buddhist I come from a background where my interpretation of the world naturally fall as into the reductive methods of its determination and have subsequently had an interest in mathematics and physics which are a pinnical of this reductive process and a major approach of the western world. Now I don't now if This natural approach I have is a function of western conditioning in education.

I am able to concieve of its opposition as that of wholism which its source is Persian and eastern and have had personal revelations along these lines. Like when a tree falls in the woods. There is no sound because physically sound is the interpretation of pressure differences in the air that the consiousness is provided with and is personal to that consiousness etc. That may be a reductive view.

My question is iam at a crossroads in life and iam not certain in which direction I should take, with my age I should be mature enough to a sensible descision but I have had supernatural experiences like that that make the path I should take a difficult choice. Iam adult and should need no guidance but iam at a loss lol

My teacher always insisted, there's no conflict between Buddhism and the rational world, no conflict between Buddhism and the scientific method. He said, one can be saint and a successful businessman. The Buddhism's teaching on karma, emotional intelligence, and the nature of phenomena, are all continuation of the rational approach we know from western discourse.

The only difference I know of is in the goal. The implied goal of mainstream culture these days is what's known as success: personal and professional realization. The goal of Buddhism, in Theravada school is the peace of Nirvana and in Mahayana school is the endless service to the world and people. And yet, my teacher said, you can have it all: peace, service, and realization.

The only choice we have, he said, is to try and achieve something greater, and what can be greater than spiritual realization? The other alternative, the life of mediocrity, is not a serious choice.


Taking refuge in practice My understanding of "taking refuge" is reciting a mantra.  However, is there a certain ceremony to become fully Buddhist?  Is it just repeating the mantra X number of times, or is there more to it?

Taking refuge can take many forms. You do not have to recite a mantra, although you may find it a helpful means. Taking refuge is as simple as placing your faith in the Buddha, the Dharma, or the Sangha.

For example, if you are suffering, and you remember the Four Noble Truths, and you settle your concentration on the Noble Eightfold Path -- then you have taken refuge in the Dharma.

Buddhism is a method of practice. If you follow the method, then you are already a Buddhist.


Vibrations while sleeping The following questions are targeted to Vipassana. Nevertheless, contributions from other traditions are appreciated.

is there any stage where it is expected that meditators feel vibrations while sleeping ?

-- If yes, then how should this be managed ?

-- Moreover, how to handle this when vibrations are so intense that it is impossible to move during this experience  ?
What if it is not clear if such experience is while dreaming or awake ? Sometimes it is not clear if such experience happened in a dream or in real life.
Moreover, is there any guideline on how to manage experiences that happen while sleeping ?

Answers with references are strongly appreciated.

This sounds like sleep paralysis, which often involves the following:

An inability to move
Vibrations
Imagery
A sense of a (often malevolent) presence near you

This is a common state that has nothing to do with Buddhism. In fact, some hypothesize that stories of alien abductions or succubi are distorted reports of experiences in that state.

Perhaps meditation may increase the incidence of this? One reported way of entering sleep paralysis is to remain conscious while the body falls asleep, an ability aided by improved concentration which can come with meditative practice.

To bring this back to Buddhism, if you are in this state, then you could try to induce a lucid dream by visualization and use that to practice Dream Yoga.  You can also use the experiences you gain as insight into your daily life.  With so much of life said to be illusory or dreamlike, experiences in this border state can be very illuminating.

For non-Buddhist stuff, you can...

Enter a lucid dream for fun.
Will "yourself" out of your body.
Focus all your might on moving your big toe to snap out of this
state.

Of course if you suspect that there may be any medical issues involved with this, then see a doctor!


Favourite Mahayana inspirational texts/treaties I would like to ask the community here what are your favourite treaties or texts in Mahayana tradition that did personally make great impact on your practice in the way that it cut through illusion or allowed you to grow by breakthrough in understanding etc. It might have sentimental value of sorts.

It might be a bullet point list with the title and description what it is and why it had such impact on your practice.

Examples of such works could be Dogen - “Shobogenzo” or Shantideva - “Way of Bodhisattva”. It might be written from perspective of Vajrayanists but not about tantric practise per we.

Hope this helps!

On the method side: Shantideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life

The quintessential guide to the method aspect of the Mahayana path and one of the most beautiful works of literature ever conceived. I challenge anyone to read this book three times and not come away with an aspiration to become a Bodhisattva for the benefit of all.

On the wisdom side: Nagarjuna's Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way

The definitive explanation of the Buddha's Middle Way. This treatise explains how things exist and how they utterly do not exist. Ideally, the commentary by Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Chandrakirti, Je Tsongkhapa and others should be read in order to understand what this treatise says and what it does not say. Probably one the most important yet misunderstood text in all of human history.

Analogies, metaphors, allegories, illustrating and illuminating the above including: Rope and Snake, Dreams of a Mother, Ambrosia+Water+Pus&Blood, Chandrakirti's Chariot, Ship of Theseus, many many others.

These have been extremely helpful to my mind and contemplating them has opened up my own understanding meager as it is.

Diamond Cutter Sutra

Especially this verse, "As a star, a visual aberration, a lamp, an illusion, dew, a bubble, a dream, lightning, and a cloud – view all the compounded like that." This succinct instruction by the Buddha summarizes how to view all phenomena.

The Sutra of Golden Light

The last few chapters are both self-referential in delightful way and give extremely beautiful examples of Buddha Shakyamuni's actions as a Bodhisattva in previous lives. IMO, reading this Sutra is a good way of starting a New Year.

This verse, "As long as space endures, as long as sentient beings remain, until then, may I too remain and dispel the miseries of the world."

The quintessential sentiment of a Bodhisattva displaying profound Bodhicitta.


How to realise "anatta" of "Nama-rupa" By noticing my abdomen while breathing , I can feel up and down movement of it . Also I can keep a mental notes as "up" and "down". When it is up there is "rupa of up" and "Nama of up mental note " and vice versa for down. But when it is down both "up rupa and Nama " already gone . So I have a glimpse of " anicca" .

I do not feel directly  "dukka" relate to abdomen movement but by applying same "anicca" for other temporary things in life I can get an understanding about "dukka" too .

But I do not still have any clue about "anatta" , how can I understand the "anatta" using above scenario?

The three characteristics are not meant to be understood through analysis; they are meant to be understood through direct realization (paññā). Once you truly see anatta for yourself, the next moment is the realization of nibbana. So there is no reason or benefit in seeking out this knowledge intellectually; it has to come by itself through mindfulness.

  “sabbe dhammā anattā”ti, yadā paññāya passati.
  atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.

  -- Dhp 279

In truth, you are seeing anatta at every moment - because the experiences arise and cease without remainder, they are not self or anything belonging to self. Eventually, through the practice of mindfulness, you begin to understand this clearly, and give up any attachment to experiences as me, mine, etc.

  He sees all formations as not-self for the following reasons: because they are alien, empty, vain, void, ownerless, with no Overlord, with none to wield power over them, and so on.

  -- Vism XXI.48 (Nyanamoli, trans)

  then, seeing nothing to be taken as “I” or “mine,” he abandons both terror and delight and becomes indifferent and neutral towards all formations.

  -- Vism XXI.61 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Mahasi Sayadaw acknowledges the difficulty in understanding the characteristic of non-self in comparison to understanding the other two characteristics, referring to the commentaries and sub-commentaries who acknowledge the same. The sub-commentary points out, however, that this is simply because intellectual knowledge is inadequate to truly understand any of the three characteristics:

  The commentary states that the non-self doctrine is so deep that even the Enlightened One had to employ either the characteristics of impermanence or the characteristics of suffering or both of them to facilitate the teaching of the doctrine of non-self.

  The sub-commentary explained further that: 'In the above statement of the commentary, the anicca and dukkha known outside the Dispensation are mere conventional terms, by means of which idea of non-self could not be known. Only the anicca and dukkha realized in the absolute sense could be useful in explaining the doctrine of non-self.

  Mahasi Sayadaw, Anattalakkhana Sutta

If you want to understand the teaching on non-self intellectually, then, you can do so by reflecting on the characteristics of impermanence and suffering and inferring the characteristic of non-self in a way similar to the Buddha's exposition in the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta:

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

  -- SN 22.59 (Nyanamoli, trans)

This will not, however, constitute true understanding of any of the characteristics, for which the culmination of insight meditation is required.


Do beings without conscious experiences have buddha nature A philosophical zombie is defined as follows,

Zombies in philosophy are imaginary creatures used to illuminate problems about consciousness and its relation to the physical world. Unlike those in films or witchraft, they are exactly like us in all physical respects but without conscious experiences: by definition there is ‘nothing it is like’ to be a zombie. Yet zombies behave just like us, and some even spend a lot of time discussing consciousness.
Few people think zombies actually exist. But many hold they are at least conceivable, and some that they are possible. It is argued that if zombies are so much as a bare possibility, then physicalism is false and some kind of dualism is true. For many philosophers that is the chief importance of the zombie idea. But the idea is also of interest for its presuppositions about the nature of consciousness and how the physical and the phenomenal are related. Use of the zombie idea against physicalism also raises more general questions about relations between imaginability, conceivability, and possibility. Finally, zombies raise epistemological difficulties: they reinstate the ‘other minds’ problem.

Using this definition, would a being which is "not conscious" have Buddha-nature?
I ask because I want to know if the Buddha is dead and inanimate matter, and inanimate matter has Buddha nature, that means that the Buddha senses what inanimate matter does?
Moreover, I want to know if a non cognition of emptiness is "like" a cognition.

This question may seem speculative, but I think it actually has a basis in Buddhism. There is a class of beings called nonpercipient beings that don't have any consciousness at all. However, they are basically just a body that doesn't do anything, not a zombie per se.

Such a being would have Buddha nature because by the Tathagatagarbha Sutras teach that all beings have Buddha nature.


Techniques for sluggish mind and restless mind The sutta quote below talks about using different awakening factors when the mind is sluggish as opposed to when the mind is restless.
What are the meditation or mindfulness techniques to be used for each case?
Please elaborate and also quote from suttas, if possible.
From SN 46.53:

“... when the mind is sluggish, it’s the wrong time to develop the
awakening factors of tranquility, immersion, and equanimity. Why is
that? Because it’s hard to stimulate a sluggish mind with these
things.
When the mind is sluggish, it’s the right time to develop the
awakening factors of investigation of principles, energy, and rapture.
Why is that? Because it’s easy to stimulate a sluggish mind with these
things.  .....
“... when the mind is restless, it’s the wrong time to develop the
awakening factors of investigation of principles, energy, and rapture.
Why is that? Because it’s hard to settle a restless mind with these
things.
When the mind is restless, it’s the right time to develop the
awakening factors of tranquility, immersion, and equanimity. Why is
that? Because it’s easy to settle a restless mind with these things.

In short when you notice drowsiness don't just sit there developing that theme of anapanasati, metta, the noting of drowsiness and whatnot. See Capala Sutta for examples.
As soon as you notice that the hindrance of drowsiness is present in you then you should rouse yourself as to wake yourself up and give attention to the theme of arousal of energy or joy.
This you can do by contemplating stirring objects, something that makes ypu glad and even doing tiresome work and whatnot. Basically somehow you hype yourself up if you can.
On the other hand if restless then harness the excess energy to stick to a meditation object like it's glued. A calming theme is used here, something like the breath is good if the mind is racing because anapanasati is particularly good at preventing distracting thoughts.
Otherwise one could develop the themes or appreciation or recollection of nice things like one's virtue, the gems or devas. These can be both calming andor gladdening.
The theme you pick depends on your temperament and circumstances, you can use other themes like the asuba or metta as well if you want, anything that keeps you focused all the way into jhanas.
What then happens is that mind quickly gets secluded due to that non-distractedness on account of directing of aroused energy and keeping it focused.
I have studied this extensively and this is only a very brief practical abbreviation of how to train, not analyzing each theme nor each factor.
Here some texts i've read;

Dhamma Vicaya
He, dwelling mindful in the above manner, searches, investigates and reasons out thoroughly that same thing with wisdom. This is called truth investigation-awakening-factor. (2) Therein what is truth investigation-awakening-factor? That which is wisdom, understanding. absence of delusion, truth investigation, right view, truth investigation-awakening-factor, path constituent, included in the path. This is called truth investigation-awakening-factor.
“And how, bhikkhus, is a bhikkhu a triple investigator? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu investigates by way of the elements, by way of the sense bases, and by way of dependent origination. It is in such a way that a bhikkhu is a triple investigator…

Viriya

The energy of his searching, investigating and reasoning out thoroughly that same thing with wisdom, is strenuous, unshrinking. This is called energy-awakening-factor. (3)Therein what is energy-awakening-factor? That which is the arousing of mental energy. right effort, energy-awakening-factor, path constituent, included in the path. This is called energy-awakening-factor.
The mental inception of energy which there is on that occasion, the striving and the onward effort, the exertion and endeavour, the zeal and ardour, the vigour and fortitude, the state of unfaltering effort, the state of sustained desire, the state of unflinching endurance, the solid grip of the burden, energy, energy as faculty and as power, right endeavour—this is the energy that there then is.

Piti

Therein what is rapture-awakening-factor? That which is rapture, gladness, rejoicing, rapture, mirth, merriment, felicity, elation, delight of consciousness, rapture-awakening-factor. This is called rapture-awakening-factor. (4)For him of strenuous energy there arises rapture that is not worldly. This is called rapture-awakening-factor. (4)
The joy which on that occasion is gladness, rejoicing at, rejoicing over, mirth and merriment, felicity, exultation, transport of mind—this is the joy that there then is.

Passadhi

Therein what is calmness-awakening-factor? That which of the aggregate of feeling, of the aggregate of perception, of the aggregate of volitional activities, of the aggregate of consciousness is calmness, serenity, being calm, being serene, state of being serene, calmness-awakening-factor. This is called calmness-awakening-factor. (5)For him of raptureful mind the body (of mental aggregates) becomes calm, also consciousness becomes calm. This is called calmness-awakening-factor.
The serenity, the composure which there is on that occasion, the calming, the tranquillizing, the tranquillity of the aggregates

Samadhi

Therein what is samādhi-awakening-factor? That which is stability of consciousness. right samādhi, samādhi-awakening-factor, path constituent, included in the path. This is called samādhi-awakening-factor. (6)For him of calm body (of mental aggregates) and mental pleasure, consciousness is in samādhi. This is called samādhi-awakening-factor.
The stability, solidity, absorbed steadfastness of thought which on that occasion is the absence of distraction, balance, imperturbed mental procedure, quiet, the faculty and the power of concentration, right concentration—this is same as composure [collectedness/self-collectedness/onepointedness]

Upekkha

Therein what is equanimity-awakening-factor? That which is equanimity, having equanimity, supreme equanimity, state of balance of consciousness, equanimity-awakening-factor. This is called equanimity-awakening-factor. He, having consciousness in samādhi in the above manner, is well balanced. This is called equanimity-awakening-factor.
The mental [condition] neither pleasant nor unpleasant, which, on that occasion, is born of contact with the appropriate element of representative intellection; the sensation, born of contact with thought, which is neither easeful nor painful; the feeling, born of contact with thought, which is neither easeful nor painful—this is the feeling that there then is.
*Here end the Theravadin Abhidhamma & Sutta excerpts.

Also when the mind is sluggish or aroused, the theme you pick depends on why it is aroused, it might be due to remorse, worry, anger, sensual desire or due to giving of attention to the factor of Viriya as you can easily hype yourself up immensely once you get a grip on this.
Therefore one should be mindful of the hindrances at all times.
I won't post on these and picking themes but i have compiled commentary and sutta excerpts here;
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qVz1XtntivxPRsxycsrH0_sgILcMbcghdpxoKuxlLYo/edit?usp=drivesdk
I think the least obvious development is that of upekkha factor and there are several ways of going about it.
Ie defining elements brings about a kind of equanimity, as do certain lines of contemplation and entering the 4th rupa jhana brings about a kind of equanimity.
In general equanimity that is good is brought about however you can get it imo.


Is it okay to leave your suffering family behind when you have an instinct to attain Nirvana? I see my society cherishing and nourishing their respected beloved ones and living at their best. I've tried to do that but I have many unanswered questions. How can I help myself to attain Nirvana when I have doubts about leaving my suffering family behind?

This is something you have to decide. There are many angles to consider. Some that I through of are:

What happens to your family when you leave. This can later become a worry that can come back and hold you back in your practice.
Sometimes some level of unsatisfactory is conducive to practice as you are always tested in daily life which might not be the case when in long time meditation as a recluse.
Leaving does remove some responsibility which makes time for serious practice.


Is it considered against standard Buddhist doctrine to meditate with music? Two slightly related questions:

Is it considered against standard Buddhist doctrine to meditate with music? In particular, "meditation music" - where it's calm, relaxing, peaceful, etc. I'm fairly new to all this; my meditation practice is hardly a year old, although getting stronger and more consistent; I don't have an overwhelming urge to meditate to music, but wondered what light could be shed on the subject from the perspective of the teachings. I am committed to undertaking this path as purely as possible, as it was laid out by the Buddha himself. But I enjoy music and find it draws me into certain mental states that could be useful to cultivate.

What should I do when the inevitable song pops up in my thoughts? This is something I've noted for years (I'm quite musically inclined)...I always seem to have some sort of tune running through my head. Now, when I sit, it becomes much more noticeable than when I'm doing something more secular...say, standing in line at the store, or performing some task at work. I suppose that the tune could become the focus of some mindfulness meditation and help develop concentration. OTOH I can see how it would be considered yet-another-thought, and one that should be avoided dwelling on (unless it happened to be the focus of the meditation). I don't know how useful it would be for insight meditation however. Is there an official stance in the teachings on this?

I hope this is not considered a useless question.

I am aware of some studies that suggest that "noise" can be an aid to concentration - i.e. people who doodle at meetings tend to be more attentive, people who chew gum in class tend to remember more, and people who listen to classical music write more fluently.  In preliminary stages of meditation, you might even find it easier to gather your mind when there is an outside stimulus.  Guided mediation is just one example of this.  That being said, all four of those activities refer to modes of thought that are distinctly different from what you are aiming at in deeper meditation.  When sitting in a Buddhist sense (i.e. for jhana meditation, vipassana, koan practice, etc.), you need to work towards developing applied and sustained thought in a way that is as free from distraction as possible i.e. "Quite secluded from sense pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states of mind..."  MN 4.  This also infers that the influence of the five hinderances needs to be limited.  It goes without saying that listening to music is fairly antithetical to that end.

Regarding your experience that you hear music more readily when sitting - that's a fairly common occurrence.  You are just becoming aware of another level of your mind that was previously obscured by grosser thought (for what it's worth, I have the same experience when I'm backpacking or doing any other activity that isn't thought-intensive).  You do need to get beyond that state, however.  As you apply concentration, you will eventually push past that boundary and into deeper, more silent layers of the mind.


Benefits of sleeping in a sitting posture Occasionally some buddhists monks will take up the practice of only sleeping in a sitting posture for an extended duration of time - sometimes up to 3 months.

What are the meditational (preferably insight-meditational) benefits of such practice?
How would one undertake such practice regarding posture and technique?

I read that one could start sleeping 1-2 hours in sitting posture and then move to a lying posture. Then slowly increase the time sleeping in sitting posture while reducing the time spent sleeping in lying posture.

Thank you for your time.

The practice of sleeping in a sitting posture can be explained as one of the 13 Dhutanga.

  Sitter's Practice (nesajjik'anga) — living in the three postures of walking, standing and sitting and never lying down.

The advantages of sleeping less as described by the Buddha can be found in Jāgariyasutta

  Vigilance

  This was said by the Lord…

  "Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu should be vigilant; he should live mindful, clearly comprehending, concentrated, happy and calm, and should know when it is suitable to cultivate those things that are wholesome. Bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu who is vigilant and living thus, one of two fruits is to be expected: final knowledge here and now or, there being some residual defilement, the state of non-returning."

  You vigilant ones hear this:
  Wake up, you who are asleep!
  Vigilance is better than sleep:
  There is no fear for the vigilant.

  One who is vigilant and mindful,
  Comprehending and concentrated,
  Joyful and calm in his thoughts,
  By rightly investigating the Dhamma
  With unified mind, will in time
  Destroy the darkness of ignorance.

  Therefore be devoted to vigilance,
  An ardent, discerning, meditative bhikkhu.
  Having severed the fetter of birth and decay,
  One may here and now attain
  Enlightenment which is supreme.

Note that the pali word 'Jāgaro' which means 'deprive sleep' is translated as 'vigilant' in the above sutta translation.


Understanding compassion fatigue from a buddhist point of view For the last couple of years there has been growing research on so called compassion fatigue among social workers/therapists/social workers, and their likes. In short, compassion fatigue can be described as exhaustion and/or vicarious traumatization in different forms of healthcare/emotional labor. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue).

My question is - if and how - one can understand these phenomena based on buddhist dharma? As far as i understand there is no mentioning of these types of specific phenomena in the suttas.

A few personal hypotheses is that compassion fatigue is the result of one or more of these factors:

an imbalance between the five indriyas/faculties and the five pancabalani/strengths, leading to
akusala padhana/unwholesome effort.
upadana, grasping for being overtly supportive at the expense of own health, or clinging to a self-view as a tireless helper.

I realize this may seem counter to popular buddhist notions such as the brahmaviharas, for instance. I still can't help but wonder if this can explain compassion fatigue, or if there are other alternative interpretations based on a buddhist framework?

(This is a sutta reference request)

I don't know the definition of "compassion fatigue", or who defines it.

The link you posted includes,

  People who experience compassion fatigue can exhibit several symptoms including hopelessness, a decrease in experiences of pleasure, constant stress and anxiety, sleeplessness or nightmares, and a pervasive negative attitude.

Why do you say, "there is no mentioning of these types of specific phenomena in the suttas"?

Perhaps there's some traditional Buddhist practice which provides occasion for that experience -- Maraṇasati.

The "fatigue" aspect of the condition may be less than ideal -- maybe let's say, "unenlightened". There are suttas about caring for the sick, as a duty, maybe in the vinaya too, and about being sick.

But mightn't some of the other "symptoms" in that definition -- for example "decrease in experiences of pleasure" -- be to some extent or in some ways promoted by Buddhist doctrine, which might call that "dispassion" or something (depending on how you define "pleasure")

If one names a mental state or "symptom" -- for example anhedonia -- it might be difficult to say in isolation whether that state is pathological. I think that any serious diagnoses might require meeting in person (a Buddhist teacher or, like, a psychiatrist). So far as I know, practicing clinicians have their own mentors.


Elaboration of Vasubandhu's argument for the possibility of mental appearances to be publicly sharable? The vivid qualitative experience of a word (or called "quale" as a philosophical jargon, "private language" as a linguistic jargon) formed by each person is intrinsically different due to one's knowledge, environment, mood, past experience, etc, even same person may form completely different private language's words at different times for a same public language word.
I once see reference here in Wikipeda, without elaboration, that the famous ancient Buddhist Yogacaraist Vasubandhu

uses the example of mass hallucinations (in Buddhist hell) to defend against those who would doubt that mental appearances can be shared.

Can anyone elaborate any historical accounts/stories or speculative explanation about Vasubandhu's argument referenced above to argue for the possibility of mental appearances to be publicly sharable? If such sharing cannot be made exactly on the same common ground, then will there always be some confusion and difference between any two people no matter what cognitive level they achieved?
As a side note, I know this is very similar to the Problem of Other Minds in modern social science where scholars and philosophers invented a term "intersubjectivity" defined here to objectify the existence of certain social common "thought communities" one unavoidably belongs to explain why people can share their private intrinsically different experiences. But I think this community-wise intersubjectivity is just like the sound of a chorus which can be entirely reduced to the superposition of individual sounds, thus seems not a necessary concept. Also per Buddhism's doctrine, the source of suffering is from objectifying private conscious experience and the following endless craving of such reified object, so I'm also interested in hearing any other different middle-way Madhyamaka-style explanations from Yogacara or any other Buddhist schools... Or does Buddhism never have an answer for such question as it belongs to papañca (conception proliferation) and thus effectively reject true possibility of exact mental appearances sharing like in the purely neutral and rational math-like ideal-forms realm?

There is a famous allegory in Mahayana Buddhism relating three different beings' experience of the very same cup of liquid. The first being is a God, the second is a human, and the third is a hungry ghost. To the God, the cup full of liquid is experienced as a golden chalice full of the most wonderful crystal clear ambrosia giving off a mesmerizing scent. To the human being it is a rather ordinary cup of water. To the hungry ghost it's a revolting and ugly basin full of blood and pus.
Then the Buddhist student is asked to consider what is the truth of this object? Is it a chalice of amazing elixir? Just a cup of water? A vile concoction of mucus and phlegm? And what is it to an ant? An ocean? Is it something else? All of these things at the same time? How about to other humans? To other gods? To other beings? Could it be that there are countless experiences of the same "thing" all related to the karma of the beings experiencing it?
A western philosophical student might wonder what is the qualia of this object? How can different beings experience such different qualia of the same underlying object? Is it "the same" underlying object?? If so, how can it have different qualia? If it is not the same, then what is it? Can anything at all be objectively measured and understood and experienced the same by all beings that might encounter it? By some subsets but not others?

"As a side note, I know this is very similar to the Problem of Other
Minds in modern social science where scholars and philosophers
invented a term "intersubjectivity" defined here to objectify the
existence of certain social common "thought communities" one
unavoidably belongs to explain why people can share their private
intrinsically different experiences."

I think that is a very poor set of definitions. From all I can tell, it sounds like "intersubjectivity" is merely another word for "convention."

But I think this community-wise intersubjectivity is just like the
sound of a chorus which can be entirely reduced to the superposition
of individual sounds, thus seems not a necessary concept.

Ah, this is rejected by Mahayana buddhism (and I think Thervada too) as can easily be seen in the allegory of the chariot by Chandrakirti. This can be found also in this sutta.

Or does Buddhism never have an answer for such question as it belongs
to papañca (conception proliferation) and thus effectively reject true
possibility of exact mental appearances sharing?

What do you mean by "exact" here? I would challenge you to find even one set "thing" in this world or any other in which all beings immediately agree or have a universal objective experience that does not differ in any significant way. Name one such universal qualia that is permanent and fixed. Can you?
I'm not sure if these allegories help answer your questions, but your questions aren't very specific. Rather they seem to allude to a whole host of ideas that are not well defined and mixing western philosophical words/ideas - that are themselves ill-defined - with Buddhist ideas that may/may not be defined according to your usage. Anyway, I hope it is helpful.


Is Maithree meditation a recommended practice? I use Maithree meditation for many moments of stress instead of Anapanasati. Is it a recommended practice? I find out this works for me and helps me move away from the stress at hand and find present moment peace in my mind. All ideas are welcome!

Metta meditation will help you to reduce stress caused by hatred. But it won't be much effective against stress caused by craving or clinging. Anapanasati meditation can be used to get away from all kinds of stress and calm the mind. But it may require Metta meditation at the start as it is hard to concentrate, if you get irritated a lot. Ultimately, it is Vipassana meditation that will give a lasting solution for stress. There is no end to other meditation types. You will have to keep practicing them to maintain whatever peaceful state you may attain.

You can use all these meditations in combination.
ex:

Start with Metta and then do Anapanasati.
Start with Metta and then do Vipassana.
Start with Metta and then Anapanasati to attain Samadhi and then turn it to Vipassana.
Or just do one of those meditations from the start.

If you don't have a teacher, you can experiment and see what works best for you.


Buddhist Perspective on Value, Sentiment, Attraction? Paul Bloom: The origins of pleasure describe pleasure based on information. To further elaborate original artwork is worth more than a duplicate, how we get attached or less attached to a person on additional information we have, how a artifact gains value because it was used by a famous person, and how you experience pain and pleasure due to additional information you have.  How is this explained through a Buddhist perspective in terms of how attachments works.

The following gives an in depth explanation of the Jhanas and how at higher levels
Here is a very short excerpt from a long presentation
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html

  By reflecting upon the second jhana as more tranquil and sublime than
  the first, the meditator ends his attachment to the first jhana and
  engages in renewed striving with the aim of reaching the higher stage.
  He directs his mind to his meditation subject — which must be one
  capable of inducing the higher jhanas such as a kasina or the breath —
  and resolves to overcome applied and sustained thought. When his
  practice comes to maturity the two kinds of thought subside and the
  second jhana arises. In the second jhana only three of the original
  five jhana factors remain — rapture, happiness, and one-pointedness.
  Moreover, with the elimination of the two grosser factors these have
  acquired a subtler and more peaceful tone.[17]

  Besides the main jhana factors, the canonical formula includes several
  other states in its description of the second jhana. "Internal
  confidence" (ajjhattamsampasadanam), conveys the twofold meaning of
  faith and tranquillity. In the first jhana the meditator's faith
  lacked full clarity and serenity due to "the disturbance created by
  applied and sustained thought, like water ruffled by ripples and
  wavelets" (Vism. 157; PP.163). But when applied and sustained thought
  subside, the mind becomes very peaceful and the meditator's faith
  acquires fuller confidence.


The Bodhisattva ideal in practice (and its relation to the Arhat ideal) I have questions about the Bodhisattva ideal, based on the 37 practices of the Bodhisattva. I’m also curious about how this practice is for one with the aspiration of becoming an Arhat.

The general Bodhisattva ideal seems to be that you are supposed to have compassion and take everything upon you no matter what happens. But isn’t this sometimes going to make things worse – for everyone - the perpetrator included?

And I wonder if you people have any reflections on how this is for someone with the aspiration to become an Arhat? Is s/he equally supposed to have compassion and take everything upon him/her self – no matter what happens?

What are the differences and similarities here between the two?

Some background

In “the 37 practices of the Bodhisattva” there are some passages about how a Bodhisattva reacts to different situations. Some situations described are quite extreme, and too much for someone on my level! But many of them are such that I try to practice them, and here is an example (verse 15):

  “Though someone may deride and speak bad words About you in a public
  gathering, Looking on her as a spiritual teacher, Bow to her with
  respect— This is the practice of Bodhisattvas.”

This is a situation I come upon very often at work. We have had some big problems with calumny, people saying bad things about each other. I find it quite difficult to see someone doing this as “a spiritual teacher”. But, more disturbingly, I think it might be counterproductive. If a person keeps saying bad things about the others, and we all look upon that person as “a spiritual teacher”, how is the situation going to get better?

Violence is another example. If a woman is about to be raped, is she not going to fight back? Is she supposed to take the misdeed upon herself? How is not fighting back going to make the situation better? Isn't this just going to produce more rapists? I’m thinking here about verse 13:

  Even if someone tries to cut off your head When you haven’t done the
  slightest thing wrong, Out of compassion take all her misdeeds Upon
  yourself— This is the practice of Bodhisattvas.

The essential aspiration of a bodhisattva is bodhicitta, the vow or intention to achieve enlightenment out of compassion for all those suffering in samsara, which contrary to popular perception does not necessarily imply being reborn until all beings in samsara achieve enlightenment, since the Buddha, who was clearly a bodhisattva, is not (and cannot be) reborn, but he did live many many lives before achieving Buddhahood. The difference between a stream entrant, who seeks arhantship, and a bodhisattva is that a stream entrant seeks enlightenment for himself and seeks to achieve emancipation as soon as possible, thus freeing himself from the bondage of samsara quickly. The Buddha taught that it is possible to do this in not less than seven days and not more than seven rebirths, but the Pali Canon records instances of attainment of arhantship in as short a time as five days. Arhantship has the net effect of reducing dharma in samsara, since the arhants are not reborn, reducing the overall quantum of dharma, whereas bodhisattvas are reborn many many times - perhaps infinite numbers of times potentially but not necessarily - thus increasing the quantum of dharma in samsara. Thus, the arhant ideal leads to degeneration (entropy) whereas the bodhisattva ideal leads to evolution (negentropy).


Maintaining the stealing precept and my morality regarding free, open and equal accesibiity to knowledge One of the five precepts is "Abstain from taking that which is not given". I am confused by this right now. Since this does talk about maintaining your sila. I believe that all knowledge should be free of cost , and charging for knowledge is what is leading to all the inequality in our society. The Brahmins in India have for centuries exploited women and lower-caste people by maintaining their strong hold on all spiritual knowledge and only sharing it with fellow Brahmins. Women and lower caste people were forbidden from learning the scriptures. This is the kind of exploitation that Buddha spoke strongly against. Today's society in the developed and developing world is no different. Students are paying enormous sums of money to gain knowledge and many leading miserable lives due to student debt. Textbooks are ridiculously priced. I hate the commercialization of knowledge because it is exclusive and not inclusive. That is the reason why a part of me does not believe that reading pirated books is morally wrong. All knowledge should be free .Every person must get the opportunity to improve themselves through education. I do not support the commercialization of education. This especially for Dhamma teachers , who sell Dhamma books. I absolutely do not support this. And by pirating books I am taking a stand ( I feel ) , and not allowing people to profit commercially by selling dhamma and spirituality. One only needs to look at the spiritual market place in India.

However when I analyse what the Buddha said :

"Taking that which is not given"-- I am doing that
"The person to whom the copyright belong will not be happy knowing that I am taking their books via piracy"
"The king a.k.a government will definitely punish me"

Considering these , I am very sure I am breaking the stealing precept.

Is my mind just making up excuses because it is "expecting to gain without giving " or ? I am so confused with these two opposing thoughts ! Please help me!

Good to get aware of serious issues! Sadhu!

Don't take what is not given without string binding to the world and as for wordily matters, always stick to a fair deal and pay (material or in mental ways) the demanded price.

The backwards of debts, even if willing to deny their existence, are much more burdensome then to do not gain the desired things. At least knowledge is very fleeting and will be gone latest with break up of the body, while kamma and certain gained virtures, real wealth, will follow even on.

It should be clear of how heavy such taking what is not given functions even in relation of Dhamma.

In regard of debts generally, one is required to gain them also if given, but the point, aside of simply misconduct, is to whom one falls into debt and where this might pull one to.

The todays moral, especially here in this internet realm is very very low and there are only less who will aside of less remorse, sooner our later, not face really burdensome results out of greed and misconduct. Ohh... there will be many poor who will need to pay, pay and pay, not to speak to be stolen on and on.

Stealing leads in the best cases just to poorness, not to speak of low states of existing.

Start to give, teach others, be generous... why do you think that people are so bound to places like this and other crowd working communities, concentration and working camps, no way to leave?

No one, if not penetration the step of virture, will ever escape from carring out debts on and on with no way to find peace at mind.

Stop now! And refrain and things will work out much better, even it will be hard for the first time. And if in lack approach those tending torward liberation, the Sangha and Noble Ones.

Some thoughts might be useful in regard of "Depts, but to whom?"

My person would even not encourage someone not secure in regard of virtue, to listen to much to a talk, in some regards useful, like: Think Like a Thief and many, sadly incl. Bhante Thanissaro, take the issue of "mental propery" and trade with knowledge incl. the misconducts with it much, much to light and this will be for the suffering of many, many, many, no need to argue: it is already the biggest source of crime and contless misconduct is accumulated within this section of copyright and imaterial ownership. The Sangha, ignoring that issue and often advice wrong, is already very, very poor in regard of this and hopless depending on others far outside and with heavy strings.

At least, able to forward given, you may always feel given to make proper use of what is shared here and here. And it would be a ly to say this and Dhamma is without strings, but those are pulling torward liberation if given and if stolen and misused upwards for a long, long time.

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


If a substance enhanced the ability to stay mindful, and didnt cause intoxication or carelessness, would it still violate the fifth precept? this subject is so controversial i cant get a solid explanation.
i am retrying an attempt to find better advice on the subject of continuing unorthodox methods that are controversial if they are truly of benefit to the individuals practice. (even if they may commonly be detrimental to others.)

Given that the fifth precept specifically refers to substances that cause "intoxication and carelessness", such a hypothetical substance would of course not violate it, no.


Burst bubble : How to deal with a traumatizing event? Recently i stumbled upon a movie disc and on it was a movie called "American guinea pigs".
It wasn't a typical funny horror story, it was a ultra realistic documentary style movie.
There was a woman laying on a table (tied to it) and she was surrounded by masked group who injected something into her.
Then her skin was removed from her neck and her calves were cut of in pieces.
I was shocked and i felt my heart pumping and i was about to faint. i stopped the movie and just waited for this rush to pass.
But i couldn't close the movie until i knew it is a movie not a real life event (if you have seen it you will know why, it is very real). So i played it again and dragged it manually to the end.

Then the carnage was followed by them chopping her arms and gutting her. I couldn't take anymore so i skipped to the end.
Just like all the movies this had a clip from the sequel too.
It was a new born baby and a little boy on the table this time, i was too traumatized to remember but the text below meant that this would be the sequel.

This was hard for me and my mind burst into a sea of emotions and it kept reminding me the equally disturbing real life events i unfortunately witnessed in my life. I had no other idea but to write them all down on a book.Now whenever i feel i'm loosing my edge with my still very young practice i read that book and somehow it immediately bring me back to mindfulness.

This was meant to be entertaining to some audience and someone knowingly gave her baby to be presented as the next pray to this. I know the world isn't alice's wonderland but i am left with some questions and i hope you can help me....

1:- How do we understand this kind of sick entertainment in a Buddhist perspective (why do people enjoy this kind of things)?

2:- How to deal with this kind of emotional trauma?

Know that they are only actors and don't watch it if it's going to traumatize you. Don't watch any movies unless you like distraction.


Can a person become a buddha after reaching nirvana? There are answers here that suggest that being a buddha is not the same with entering nirvana.

Many people enter nirvana. Very few become buddhas.

So I wonder, say you enter nirvana. But then you want to "complete the mission", like replaying the whole game. Can you do that?

Let's say there is some bodhisatva that doesn't enter nirvana until he accomplish something.

So after he enters nirvana he can't accomplish what he wants to accomplish?

Are there buddhas that do not enter nirvana?

According to Mahayana, a person can become a buddha after reaching nirvana. We hold that all sentient beings will, sooner or later, become buddhas - be it after they reached nirvana or not.

As to the hearers and solitary realizers, we say that while they dwell in abiding nirvana, the buddhas manifest to them and encourage them to enter the Mahayana path, so that they will in turn become buddha - thereby achieving their own benefits completely, and the benefits of others. This is the presentation of the Abhisamaya-Alamkara:

  The arhat without the contaminated aggregates will hear the voice of
  the Buddha telling him or her something like “you are free from the
  suffering of samsara, but still you have not gained nonabiding
  nirvana. Therefore, you need to enter the Mahayana path.” With these
  words the Buddha wakes up the arhat from their blissful meditative
  state.

In this context, there are two types of nirvana:

Abiding nirvana. It is the nirvana of hearers and solitary realizers. We refer to it, in a somehow derogatory fashion, as "individual liberation".
Non-abiding nirvana. It is the final true cessation, the nirvana that bodhisattvas attain when they achieve full perfect enlightenment - the path of no more learning.

In his commentary to Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra Geshe Gyaltsen said:

  Non-abiding, the nirvana of a buddha, is a nirvana not abiding in the
  two extremes. It is not the nirvana of a hearer or solitary realizer,
  but the nirvana of the highest state of development of a buddha.

The following passage also shows that the one who has attained abiding nirvana did not abandon all objects of abandonment.

  Abiding nirvana is a temporal goal. Temporal has the connotation of
  being ordinary. This is because there is still something to abandon.
  But it is tricky because the term 'nirvana' is also synonymous with
  '[final] true cessation'. And the true cessation of a buddha is not
  something that is ordinary.

There are buddhas who did not enter abiding nirvana, but buddhahood is non-abiding nirvana. After a bodhisattva enters non-abiding nirvana, he abides in neither of the two extremes of peace (abiding nirvana) or samsara. This is because here, samsara is understood as the contaminated aggregates. A buddha is free from contaminated aggregates, and he can manifest countless enjoyment body and emanation bodies. For instance, we say that an already enlightened one showed the aspect of being born as Shakyamuni, and then showed the aspect of undergoing austerities and achieving enlightenment while he was, in fact, already enlightened. We say that Shakyamuni buddha was a supreme emanation body, one of the countless bodies a buddha can emanate so as to benefit sentient beings.


Which Buddhist sect do I belong to? I've been a Buddhist since I was 13 years old, ever since my confirmation and studying the bible following that, realizing that I didn't believe in the scriptures which I was raised on then I started searching for some sort of a philosophical structure and knowing that without religion I'd have a void within me.
To make long story short, I studied the tenets of Buddhism and the eight fold path and I started living like that at the best of time however strafing away from it at the worst of times.
However I would like to add some depth to my understanding of Buddhism and it's teachings, however the local temples are either Thai Buddhists with the golden statues which I find revolting or the Zen which I'm not quite sure of.

As far as i can tell the delineation of school/sect doesn't really come into play until one plans to join a community for the long term or is in a doctrinal discussion.

The various schools have collections of texts, some doctrines therein are non-negotiable whereas a lot of texts will be in a "maybe true maybe not true" category (ie commentary) and the various positions in regards to those will be tolerated within that school as a whole, although some sects within a school might hold strongly a position regarding a particular non-canonical text and be thus closed off to those of other persuation.

Buddha himself said that he taught the doctrine of analysis (Vibbhajavada) and one would historically have ie  Vibbhajavadins of Theravada, people who would reject some positions held within a school, based on analysis and cross referencing with texts known as true.

Nowadays there are different sects within Theravada, some reject the Abhidhamma, some reject commentary, some rejecting some commentary, some not rejecting anything at all even if the texts contradict themselves.

It is my impression that relatively few people actually study the texts before joining a school.

More often than not people find a community and get taught as the teacher was taught. More often than not the expression and methods are more or less based on the very recent popularizations or passed down tradition.

There is really no reason for having to choose a school before having familiarized oneself with the various doctrines.

Birds of feather flock together, so it is with holymen and views. If one wants to join a community one will for the most part have to learn their particular doctrine because it's just a lot less conflict if all members believe same things. The actual study of texts will often be neglected as well, because that's looked at as a bit dangerous as it might cause disruption and challenge the guru's authority.

Also most monks and lay people alike don't really study beyond the things their teachers tell them. This in part has to do with the sheer volume of essential and non-essential material to study.

If mastering a teachers expression & it's meaning takes 1000 hours, that alone might keep one occupied for years and it might not even result in any understanding of the essentials of what the Buddha taught but instead be based on stories, anecdotes, popularizations and new age systems of doing and explaining things.

Therefore you probably don't belong to any particular school. Ideally one should know why one belongs to a particular school and the various points of controversy.

You can frequent the various communities as you like and as i said people usually don't care about what you believe lest they see you as a threat or consider you for long term cohabitation.


What does Buddhism say about intentionally killing dangerous insects and beings? Recently I got into a long debate with some people on Reddit about killing pestilent, poisonous insects. Feel free to read it. There are some interesting scientific findings.

Whatever the word is for people who go over-board with their compassion/ahimsa trip... I think they are doing that, considering it was a poisonous spider (about to give birth to 100 more) I dispatched.

So what does Buddhism say about intentionally killing dangerous (poisonous) and/or pestilent insects?
Specifically dangerous insects in one's personal and community environment.
Surely, the suttas, aimed towards forest-dwellers, must have some guidelines on harmful insects and animals.

This is not justifiable in terms of the precepts. Also any action like killing will be rooted in hatred, hence is counter-productive to achieve the Buddhist goal of Nirvana or peace for one self. Also you have to look at the possible effect on subject of the action. Will the subject be happy about it.


Conditions to break a precept In the commentary it's said, in order to lie, all four conditions must be met:

An untrue statement
Intention to deceive
Effort is made
Other deceived by what is said

But according to original Vinaya, AFAIK, whether one is deceived or not is irrelevant. I think that is because the intention to lie arises from the doer not the perceiver. But if last condition is not met i.e. a being is not dead, how can we say someone is killing?

According to this description of the vinaya, on page 74+ the conditions for the offence "intentionally deprive a human being of life" includes the result as a necessary condition:

  This rule against intentionally causing the death of a human being is best
  understood in terms of five factors, all of which must be present for there to be
  the full offense.

  Object: a human being, which according to the Vibhaºga includes human
  fetuses as well, counting from the time consciousness first arises in the
  womb immediately after conception up to the time of death.
  Intention: knowingly, consciously, deliberately, and purposefully wanting
  to cause that person’s death. “Knowingly” also includes the factor of—
  Perception: perceiving the person as a living being.
  Effort: whatever one does with the purpose of causing that person to die.
  Result: The life-faculty of the person is cut as the result of one’s act.

On page 245 the conditions for telling a lie involves only two factors:

  A deliberate lie is a statement or gesture made with the aim of
  misrepresenting the truth to someone else. The K/Commentary, summarizing
  the long “wheels” in the Vibhaºga, states that a violation of this rule requires
  two factors:

  Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and
  Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to
  communicate based on that aim.

Page 246 says,

  Result is not a factor under this rule. Thus whether anyone understands the
  lie or is deceived by it is irrelevant to the offense.


Is chanting mantras a common practice in Theravada Buddhism? In Mahayana Buddhism chanting mantras is one of the core practices and each mantra is associated with a certain Buddha form (yidam).

Since in Theravada Buddhism there is no meditations on yidams (or am I wrong?), I'm wondering what is the role of mantra chanting. Are there secret mantras which can be recited only after receiving the transmission from the teacher or can the mantras be shared publicly and used by anyone? And finally, are prayer beads (malas) commonly used?

There is chanting of Pirith. This is not done as a meditation but sometimes advocated to be done when sloth and torpor is preventing you from meditating to raise energy levels. So in a way it can be used as part of your meditation sitting through not exclusively doing this but use it when needed to progress your meditation siting.


Which early canonical references help one find a skillful teacher? There is a similar question from the Vajrayāna stand-point in which I gave an answer that was partially off-topic since it wasn't from that tradition's texts. So I thought it could be useful for newcomers to know what the early texts say on this matter.

Note: Since one is explicitly encouraged to answer his own questions for the sake of sharing his knowledge, I've also answered the question below.

(Disclaimer: Bear in mind that this answer is structured for the purpose of providing references. This structure is entirely my own way of putting the answer together. I'd emphasize taking the references on their -own terms- without giving too much importance to this structure.)

To find a skillful teacher, one could approach the matter prudently by investigating the teacher for the following points:

Doesn't accept money, especially for teaching.1
Doesn't show traces of greed, hatred or delusion in their behavior.2
Meditates frequently and for lengthy periods.3
Eats once a day before noon.4
Is content with very little.5
Is bent on solitude & seclusion.6

Note that these points are just good guidelines and should be taken as a supplement to one's own discernment. A skillful teacher doesn't need to fulfill all of the points, but if he does, great, stick with him.

For further references, the following discourses might be of great aid:

DN 12: Teachers that are worthy & unworthy of criticism.
MN 8: The whole discourse is worth reading but I linked to the specific section about instruction called "Quenching".
MN 47: This discourse addresses the issue head-on. (Recommended)
AN 4.73: Qualities of a person of integrity. (Recommended)
AN 4.192: Shows how one finds a person's virtue, purity, endurance & wisdom. (Recommended)
AN 5.100: Teachers being covered up by their pupils.
AN 5.159: Five qualities a teacher should set up. (Recommended)
Dhp 158-159: Two verses about teachers.

1. AN 5.159 has five qualities a teacher should set up. The fourth one is that he will not teach for the purpose of material reward.
2. MN 150 mentions that recluses without greed, hatred & delusion are those that should be respected, venerated & honored.
3. DN 29 mentions that buddhist recluses live addicted to the pleasure of meditation.
4. MN 65 is a good reference about the Buddha's thoughts concerning this issue.
5. AN 4.27 is a good reminder about contentment with the bare minimum but I wouldn't advocate it as a necessary guideline.
6. AN 8.53 has the qualities that make-up the Buddha's teaching and one of them is solitude\seclusion.


Translating "dukkha" as "reactivity" Daniel Brown, on p. 6 of Pointing Out the Great Way, says this (emphasis added)...

  The Pali word typically translated as “suffering” is dukkha, which
  could also be rendered as “reactivity.” For, as we experience events
  unfolding in our stream of consciousness moment-by-moment, the
  ordinary mind reacts based on ingrained habits. If the event is
  experienced as pleasant, the mind habitually gravitates toward the
  event. If it is experienced as unpleasant, the mind pushes it away. In
  Buddhism these automatic reactive tendencies are referred to as
  clinging and aversion, and lapses in the continuity of awareness are
  called nonawareness, or ignorance. Together these “three poisons” mark
  every moment of ordinary experience. They are habitual. They obscure
  the mind’s natural condition from us and in so doing become the
  fundamental cause of everyday unhappiness. In other words, Buddhism
  defines everyday unhappiness in terms of a habitual dysfunction in the
  way we process our experience. Seen in this way, it can be identified
  and corrected, and the root of everyday unhappiness can be eradicated.

My question: Is there a linguistic or philological basis for translating "dukkha" as "reactivity"?

Or is Brown being a bit loose here, reflecting the dynamic that he explains -- reactivity underlies dukkha.

'Dukkha' means 'suffering', that is, mental torment, i.e., a lack of peace. So "reactivity" is certain a type of dukkha since reactivity is disturbing, tormenting & not peaceful. However, other mental experiences are also "dukkha", such as sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair. Reactivity or mental concocting is one kind of dukkha (called sankhara-dukkha; see SN 38.14; "stressfulness of fabricating") but it is not a translation of the word "dukkha". "Dukkha" means "difficult to bear"; "hard to endure".


Buddhism view on mercy When I come across animal or bird or bug injured and in pain, no resources available nearby to shelter, do I leave it to nature or kill it to end its misery. What is Buddhism view on mercy?

Definitely no killing. That's the first among the Five Precept to be observed. Do what you can to help. If it's a large animal, call the local animal shelter helpline. If it's a small animal like a bird or a bug, at least move it to a safer place like under shade of a tree to avoid the hot sun and to prevent people from stepping on it, cover it with some large leaves, etc.. Any kind of help no matter how small might still bring great peace to other beings.