How to approach motivation for work during Vipassana? My career involves lot of self-learning, and self-motivation. I like my work, which is a reason why my work doesn't feel like work. However, I am finding it hard to incorporate Vipassana into my work. For example, if I'm working and I'm in the zone there's a general pleasurable feeling associated with motivation/focus. It's what keeps me going. I feel like it's a mental state that's actually valuable specially in today's society full of procrastination.

However, if I mentally note that sense of motivation/focus, it does fade away, but it makes it harder for me to concentrate and enjoy work. In fact, I even get slightly depressed and begin to hate the work. Then I would mentally note those negative feelings, but they will come back and I begin to feel miserable, and like a robot. Will this go away?

Should I constantly "mental note" my feeling of motivation/focus, similar to how one "mental notes" a feeling of anger? How am I suppose to apply Vipassana in this situation?

You are already dead might be a useful talk (or read the written transcript here).

I knew of someone who was participating in a series of seminars on death and dying. And for one of the seminars the teacher took him aside beforehand and said: Okay, I want you to tell everybody when we go into the room that we are already dead, and act as if you are already dead. Now, of course not lying there like a corpse on the floor, but having the attitude of someone who has already died, and is able to come back for a brief visit. And he found it liberating. He could talk to people with a lot less concern about what they might think about him, or what he could get out of them, or their approval. And then the following week when he came back for the next course he was his old self again, alive. And one of the women in the course took him aside afterwards and said: You know, I like you better when you're dead.
So it's not morbid. It's actually liberating, it's freeing. To be able to look at all your worries and all the concerns of daily life from this perspective. You've got a true sense of what is important and what's not.


Is divination for fun acceptable? I recently read an answer on here referencing a sutra that states "animal arts" such as performing any form of divination constitutes wrong livelihood which should be abstained from. What I'm wondering is which of these possible interpretations is most correct:

Only monks need to abstain from engaging in these activities, and laypeople can do as they will.
Laypeople should also abstain from engaging in these activities to make money, but using them for fun / as a pastime is fine.
Everyone should abstain from these activities, regardless of any other factors.

Or is there another interpretation altogether?

My understanding is that anyone seeking Nibbana should be refrain from animal arts. it may be a monk or a lay person.


Is here-and-now-view one of the wrong views in DN1? I read the following on the internet:

  Here-and-now-view is one of the wrong views, DN1

Is here-and-now-view one of the wrong views in DN1?

Please kindly provide some quotes about this.

There are five wrong "here-and-now" views listed in DN1. These five views are part of the "net of views" that prevent progress. Here is the first:

  DN1:3.20.2: ‘When this self amuses itself, supplied and provided with the five kinds of sensual stimulation, that’s how this self attains ultimate extinguishment in the present life.’

This view is a trap because it asserts that there can be a self entangled in hedonism and perpetual gratification via the senses. Those who have gained more wealth than one could spend in a life would get trapped in this view.

The other four "here-and-now" views attempt to escape the first wrong view and its successors. But in each of these five wrong views, there is an assertion of and clinging to self that tempt one to stop in the Noble Eight-fold Path.


Momentariness, but birth and death? If everything exists for an instant only, as with Sautrāntika Buddhism, then doesn't that mean everything dies at the exact same time it is born? Isn't that impossible?
I am not asking for an analysis of the sutta pitaka, but to understand how anyone could hold those two positions. Did it ever come up in historical debate?

I would say there were two ways of looking at this.

You can't exist "for" an instant but you can exist "at" this instant.
You are not living five minutes ago, or two hours in the future.
You are living at this precise moment.
"You" are living in this instant and this "you"
is different to the "you" of last week or last year or five mins ago.  As you experience things, you change and become a different person.  You don't die or become a different being.


What does Diamond Way Buddhism say about obstacles at times of becoming more conscious? N. D. Walsch claimed in one of his books that at the point in time, when a person "switches gears" to a higher level of consciousness, it frequently happens that events occur, which you perceive as negative. I don't remember the exact wording, but AFAIR he wrote that when some major obstacle occurs it may be that the universe is testing - do you really want to achieve a particular outcome (then you will continue in spite of the obstacle) or do you just think that you want it, but in reality want something different (in this case you give up) ?

I experienced situations, which support this hypothesis on several occasions:

Once I went to a very powerful retreat. I needed to travel several thousand kilometers by plane and several trains. One train got late, I had to spend a lot of time in the train station filled with drunk (and potentially violent) soccer fans and garbage, then another train had problems because there was a suicidal girl walking on the tracks. According to the train guard, there was a fight on one of the trains and they had to call the police. Those soccer fans were everywhere and they left smell of vomit in almost all train cars. When I arrived at my hotel, nobody was there, my mobile phone ceased to work and I had to go to a nearby bakery to call the receptionist and check in. I've been to that country before and all these things aren't typical (didn't occur in my past travels with such intensity). The retreat was indeed life-changing.
It happens quite frequently that a rain starts exactly at the same time, when I realize something important. Same with Skype: Often the connection is lost precisely at the moment, when I or the other person says something important/profound.
Often, I experience some major conflict with other people (incl. threatening them to call the police, if they don't stop), and then, some time thereafter, I have either a productivity peak or some important insight.

Does Buddhism in general and Diamond Way in particular say anything about

whether emotionally intensive situations (usually unpleasant) are signs of growth and
how to get most benefit from them (other than suck it up and persevere) ?

There is a saying in Zen:

  When we love them flowers wither; when we hate them creepers bloom.

Meaning, the more you like something, the more your mind gets sensitive to losing that. And the more you hate something, the more painfully aware you become of its unwanted existence.

In Vajrayana Buddhism we usually do not see external events as reward or punishment. That would be too dualistic, almost like in Christianity or Hinduism. But we do see everything as training opportunity. So if some problems occur, we are like: "great! now I can practice even more!" In this sense the more you advance - the bigger are the challenges. Not because the world tests you but because you push yourself, you raise your own bar.

When you raise your bar, you become more aware of the imperfections. There is another saying: "Buddha's heart is sensitive like an eye, feels strongly even a tiny hair".

That said,  for beginner students attachments always manifest as obstacles. Whenever you have a strong attachment you can be sure you will encounter major problems that go against that attachment. And the stronger the attachment, the bigger the problems will be. Especially if the circumstances are very important, like one-in-lifetime events as wedding, major retreat etc. If you let go of attachment, it's almost feels like you "pass the test" - and break through to something new. But if you hold on to your attachment, it almost always fruits as some real-life painful problem - and because you did not drop the attachment you keep going in circles. This is how it usually works.

What's important to understand though, none of this is objective. It's not like the universe conspires against you - or wants to help your practice. Rather, the world you find yourself in, is always a manifestation of your "energy", your state of mind - often at subconscious level.

So, emotionally intensive situations are not as much signs of growth as they are signs of attachments - but certainly as you grow you start encountering more and more of your hidden attachments, so in this sense it's a good sign.

How to get the most benefit of these situations: is to never objectify them ("those damn soccer fans!") -- and always try to identify your attachment and drop it. When you drop your attachment you will see all kinds of magic happen, like demons turning into dharma-friends etc.


Stream winner reborn as human If someone enters the stream and becomes a sotapanna (stream winner), then he would have at most, seven lifetimes left. What the stream is, is defined in this answer as:

  This noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech,
  right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration — is the stream. (SN 55.5)

Thanissaro Bhikku further comments here that:

  The coming-together of these factors is called the stream because it
  leads inevitably to two things, just as the current of a tributary
  will lead inevitably to a major river and then to the sea. In the
  immediate present, the stream leads directly to the arising of the
  Dhamma eye, the vision that actually constitutes this first awakening.
  Over time, the stream ensures that — in no more than seven lifetimes —
  one will be totally unbound.

The Dhamma eye is explained as the ability to see firsthand and experientially, the impermanence of the five aggregates and dependent origination.

My questions are (for rebirths as a human):

How does a reborn stream-winner know that he or she is one?
Does being a stream-winner in a previous lifetime, mean that one would be reborn into a devout Buddhist family in this lifetime or would definitely be led to the Dhamma eventually?
Is the reborn stream-winner's Dhamma eye open immediately at birth, or only after he or she encounters the Dhamma and returns back to the Noble Eightfold Path?
How is it guaranteed that the reborn stream-winner would not choose another path or another teacher, and drop out of the stream, considering that we do not remember previous lifetimes?
Please provide any info from the canon regarding this.

How does a reborn stream-winner know that he or she is one?

Like a math or music prodigy who can easily recall their skillset through just some basic exposure to music or math, a stream-winner would be like that, if not much quicker or even instantaneous since Path/Fruit are supra-mundane skills, unlike mundane fields like math/music.
There're concrete metrics to determine a stream-winner. Details are available in many suttas like AN 9.12, AN 3.87, SN 12.41, etc. (ref: suttacentral.net)

  Does being a stream-winner in a previous lifetime, mean that one would be reborn into a devout Buddhist family in this lifetime or would definitely be led to the Dhamma eventually?

S/he's to be born into any place(devas or humans) and time where the conditions are conducive to guarantee enlightenment at most 7 more life times.

  Is the reborn stream-winner's Dhamma eye open immediately at birth, or only after he or she encounters the Dhamma and returns back to the Noble Eightfold Path?

The DhammaEye opens just once and will stay there when the noble disciple makes the breakthrough to StreamEntry, as said in AN 3.94:

  "Bhikkhus, just as, in the autumn, when the sky is clear and cloudless, the sun, ascending in the sky, dispels all darkness from space as it shines and beams and radiates, so too, when the dust-free, stainless Dhamma-eye arises in the noble disciple, then, together with the arising of vision, the noble disciple abandons three fetters: personal-existence view, doubt, and wrong grasp of behavior and observances"

.

  How is it guaranteed that the reborn stream-winner would not choose another path or another teacher, and drop out of the stream, considering that we do not remember previous lifetimes?

S/he won't switch path since they possess the Seven Great Reviewing Knowledges of Stream Entry (MN 48), one of which is: "Knowledge that no other recluse or brahmin outside the Buddha's Dispensation possessed of a view that one possess." Also see the child prodigy analogy mention in question 1.

  Please provide any info from the canon regarding this

All refs. should be available on accesstoinsight.org or suttacentral.net


Is the attempt to understand others a form of value judgement? In a recent conversation and in an attempt to understand others, i found myself not able often understand the actions or behaviors of others to leading to a sense of mind numbness.

If i am not able to understand the actions of others, i find that i am in a state of not understanding and my mind/brain attempts to make sense of it.

This can be extremely vicious since i am unable to let go and i often find myself in an infinite loop of sorts which in many situations is very demotivating, depressing and saddening.

Should i not attempt to understand the behaviors of others especially if they have cause harm be it mental, physical or emotional?
If i do not understand their actions, how does one approach the individual?
If i did understand, is it a form of value judgement?
If i were to abandon the choice to understand, is it a form of value judgement?

Examples - This are real-world situations i have faced

For example, if i were approached by an individual who had
traumatized another and my inability to reconcile their behavior made
it highly saddening as to why one would hurt another?
Another example is when i find others taking a short term view of
situations or simply not working with others in a cohesive manner
(looking after their own interests).
The unwillingness to help when help is sought or to forsake other priorities when attention is needed in other areas

I am unsure what the Buddha would do in situations such as these. If he were approached by a murderer for example, what would the Buddha's do, say, not say, etc?

This is one of the interesting aspects of Buddhism, that in its ideal form it doesn't allow prejudice (valid or otherwise) to interfere with the teaching. The Buddha taught people of all sorts, good and bad.

"Brethren, the omniscient Buddha whose wisdom is vast, ready, swift, sharp, crushing heretical doctrines, after having converted, by the power of his own knowledge, the Brahmins Kūṭadanta and the rest, the ascetics Sabhiya and the rest, the thieves Aṅgulimāla &c., the yakkhas Āḷavaka &c., the gods Sakka and the rest, and the Brahmins Baka &c., made them humble, and ordained a vast multitude as ascetics and established them in the fruition of the paths of sanctification."
-- Jāt 542 (Cowell, trans)

The only distinction he seems to have made when deciding who to teach is between worthwhile and pointless.

Now the Blessed One thought: 'To whom shall I preach the doctrine first? Who will understand this doctrine easily?'
Mv 1.6 (Rhys-Davids, trans)

Since Buddhism teaches the overcoming of partiality, the first thing one should accomplish when trying to come to terms with other people's behaviour is to free oneself from sadness or anger at the bad deeds of others.

Whether that venerable one dwells in the Sangha or alone, while some there are well behaved and some are ill behaved and some there teach a group, while some here are seen concerned about material things and some are unsullied by material things, still that venerable one does not despise anyone because of that.
-- MN 47 (Bodhi, trans)

Having said and quoted all this, on to your questions:
1. Should i not attempt to understand the behaviors of others especially if they have cause harm be it mental, physical or emotional?
There is no reason to single out such behaviours. But the question of whether one should ever attempt to understand the behaviours of others is more interesting. The goal of Buddhism is ostensibly the attainment of freedom from suffering. Insofar as understanding the behaviours of others leads to freedom from suffering, it should be pursued.
Certainly, understanding others is considered useful in understanding oneself; it is also useful in helping others to understand themselves, as you can then provide advice and point out (tactfully) facets the other person may be missing about their situation.
2. If i do not understand their actions, how does one approach the individual?
Buddhism doesn't recognize the existence of an individual in ultimate reality. Hence, taking the present for what it is. This helps immensely in interpersonal relations, as one need not bear grudges or prejudge others based on their past. Since beings are fluid and dynamic, the best way to approach others is with an open mind, ready to take them at face value in the present moment.
3. If i did understand, is it a form of value judgement?
In Buddhism, we tend to think more in terms of partiality than judgement. Judging whether something is good or evil can be wisdom based; partiality is always based on delusion (or more directly, one of four: desire, anger, delusion, or fear - the four agati). So, understanding whether someone's actions are good or bad is useful; liking or disliking them is harmful.
4. If i were to abandon the choice to understand, is it a form of value judgement?
I guess you mean is it a form of e.g. aversion if you reject the impulse to understand others? If so, then for sure it can be; it all depends on one's mindset. In general, the Buddha was critical of those who refuse to help others:

‘In the same way, Lohicca, if anyone should say: “Suppose an ascetic or Brahmin were to discover some good doctrine and thought he ought not to declare it to anyone else, for what can one man do for another?” he would be a source of danger to those young men of good family who, following the Dhamma and discipline taught by the Tathāgata, attain to such excellent distinction as to realise the fruit of Stream-Entry, of Once-Returning, of Non-Returning, of Arahantship — and to all who ripen the seeds of a rebirth in the deva-world. Being a source of danger to them, he is uncompassionate, and his heart is grounded in hostility, and that constitutes wrong view, which leads to ... hell or an animal rebirth.
-- DN 12 (Walshe, trans)

but this doesn't mean one need go out of one's way to try and figure others out, just that one should help others as appropriate. And of course, in order to help, one must understand.

One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached.
-- Dhp 158 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

In summary, understand others is useful in that it gives the potential to help oneself and others. It is partiality that is problematic, as well as obsession with others to the extent that one forgets oneself.


Is psychic disease related to bad karma? I suffer from a psychic disease (borderline disease of personality) which has turned my life into hell for at least half of the time, I spend several hours a day crying desperately and nothing helps, not the psychotherapy nor the medicines. I am obsessed with the idea that I'm suffering so much because in some way I "deserve" it according to the karma law, for having done something very bad in a past life. Is it true? It may seem weird, but this answer means a lot to me. Thank you for your answers in advance.

In Buddhism, the teachings about kamma are for the purpose of promoting good behaviour rather than for diagnosing the cause of psychiatric illness.

Psychiatric illness is generally caused by a genetic neurological disorder of the brain or, otherwise, kamma (actions) in the present life, such as an accidental brain injury or intentional drug use. It is definitely not caused by actions in a past life.

In his 2nd sermon about the ultimate truth or ultimately reality, the Buddha taught every component of the human life ('the five aggregates') can be subject to disease/damage (ābādhāya).

Even the five aggregates of a fully enlightened person can have disease/damage (ābādhāya), such as the famous Thai monk named Ajahn Chah, who had a brain disease in his old age.

Therefore, about the cause of your illness, you should follow the advice of your doctor rather than listen to Buddhists who speculate superstitiously about unknowable past life karma.


What are the differences between the three types of becoming? When reading through the Maha Nidana sutta I came across the three types of becoming: Sensual becoming, form becoming, and formless becoming. I am trying to understand what the different forms of becoming are. This sutta does not explain how they are different, it only says that birth occurs if any type of becoming occurs. To try to understand the differences I read the Bhava sutta; this sutta says

"Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-property, would sensuality-becoming be discerned?"
"No, lord."
"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.

This is repeated replacing "sensuality-property" and "sensuality-becoming" with "form-property" and "form-becoming", and likewise for formless property/becoming.
Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu mentions in his notes on the Bhava sutta that the Buddha never defines becoming, the Buddha just splits becoming into these three types. From these suttas it appears that knowing what sensuality-property, form-property, and formless-property mean is all there is to knowing the differences in the types of becoming but I haven't been able to find information on what they are.

I think the passage you're asking about (in the Access to Insight translation of DN 15) is this:

  "'From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. If there were no becoming at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., sensual becoming, form becoming, or formless becoming — in the utter absence of becoming, from the cessation of becoming, would birth be discerned?"

I think that's a summary of the previous paragraph, i.e.:

  If there were no birth at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., of devas in the state of devas, of celestials in the state of celestials, of spirits in the state of spirits, of demons in the state of demons, of human beings in the human state, of quadrupeds in the state of quadrupeds, of birds in the state of birds, of snakes in the state of snakes, or of any being in its own state — in the utter absence of birth, from the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?

I.e. the types of becoming correspond to birth in the various planes of existence.

Dharmafarer's introduction to the Bhava Sutta describes them as follows:

  Another interesting feature of the two discourses is their treatment of the
  three realms as “low” (hīna dhātu), “middling” (majjhima dhātu), and “subtle” (paṇīta dhātu), that is,
  the sense-world, the form world, and the formless world, respectively.

  The “lowly” sense-realm (kāma,dhātu) [§1b] is the realm of beings dependent on some form of physical
  senses, and is the lowest of the three existential spheres. It comprises the human world, the subhuman
  realms (the hells, the animal kingdom, and the ghost realm of the departed), and the six lower heavens.6
  It
  is said to be “low” (hīna) because the beings there are dependent on the physical senses and the mind.

  The “middling” form realm (rūpa,dhātu) [§2] is the realm of blissful dhyanic existence of radiant
  fine-materiality,7 whose beings still have the faculties of seeing and hearing, but which along with the
  other physical senses are temporarily suspended in the four dhyanas.8 The beings of such realms are called
  brahmas (brahmā), or “high gods,” who normally have almost nothing to do with the sense world,
  since they are absorbed in their celestial dhyanic bliss. When they do appear in the sense-world, they
  apparently have to emerge from their dhyanic state.9

  The “subtle” formless realm (arūpa,dhātu) [§3] comprises of beings of pure energy, that is, without
  any physical form whatsoever.10 They exist only as varying refined states of the four mental aggregates
  (feeling, perception, formations and consciousness). These beings have no contact with the sense-world
  whatsoever.11


Stabilizing the counterpart sign Stabilizing the counterpart sign (nimitta) isn't easy. Is there a 'technique' that leads to stabilize it? I.c. is there a 'technique' to develop/cultivate intensively the absorption factors (jhanangas)?

With 'stabilizing' I mean: making the nimitta sharp, focused, completely free from tension (of the panca nivarana), so that absorption (1st jhana) can be attained.

The prepatory steps (precepts, location, time, etc.) are just as important as the actual practice. Ven.Buddhadasa's detailed anapanasati's instruction might be useful..


Difference between satipatthana and vipassana Is satipatthana a synonym for vipassana? If not, what is the difference between both?

Vipassana is a compound of two words: vi - and passana. Vi means various, i.e. the three characteristics (transiency, unsatisfactoriness, non self). Passana means right understanding or realization by means of mindfulness of mentality and physicality. Vipassana therefore means the direct realisation of the three characteristics of mentality and physicality.

Vipassana or the right understanding requires the right awareness(Satipattana).

In other words, 'Satipattana' is the meditation you do to gain Vipassana.
It is of 4 kinds:

Kayanupassana(awareness of the body): the movements and postures.
Vedananupassana(awareness of feelings): bodily and mental sensations of pain, happiness, calm, etc.
Cittanupassana(awareness of the mind): thoughts that arise in the mind – of the past or future, good or bad;
Dhammanupassana(awareness of phenomena): groups of mental and physical phenomena that are of specific interest to the meditator, including the mental states that cloud one’s awareness, the six senses by which one experiences reality, and many others

More at http://www.sirimangalo.org/text/how-to-meditate/chapter-one-what-is-meditation/


What is known about the years of oral tradition of the Pali Canon? With the Buddha teaching for 45 years before he passed into parinibbana, what is known about the methods and practices used to keep his teachings alive until they were written down? Do we know how many people were involved in this effort? How was such an extensive collection of teachings categorized?

Traditionally the original source of the teachings is Ananda. Ananda was the Buddha's cousin and primary attendant during a lot of his life up to the Buddha's death. Being
so close to the Buddha, he heard at first hand the Buddha's teaching and was able to commit them to memory. Shortly after the Buddha's death the First Council was convened and Ananda was prevailed upon to recite all the Buddha's teachings he could recall. Fortunately for us he could recall a lot.

This is why many of the Pali Canon sutras begin with 'Thus have I heard'. It is Ananda speaking and recalling the Buddha's teachings from his own experience.

Example from the Mangala Sutta

  Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Exalted One was dwelling at
  Anathapindika's monastery, in Jeta's Grove, near Savatthi. Now when
  the night was far spent, a certain deity whose surpassing splendor
  illuminated the entire Jeta Grove, came to the presence of the Exalted
  One and, drawing near, respectfully saluted him and stood at one side.


Family feuds... is there a path that walks through the fire without burning oneself? thank you for reading this.

my mother was born in a very large family. there were 10 girls, and 7 boys. There have always been feuds among the girls. Every holiday season was a mine field of whom was speaking to whom. Now they are older, but the feuds continue. My mother is now 85, her sister (who is my god-mother and whom I love very much) is near to 90. Currently my mother and god-mother are no longer speaking. I am "forced" not to have contact with my god-mother out of deference to my mother. There are others whom I cannot see for the same reason.

I love all of them and suffer their absence. I know they will someday die (as will I), I would like to enjoy the remaining years.

is there a way to see light in this darkness ? Is there something I can do ?

thank you for your help, I am humbled by your collective generosity towards the struggles of strangers.

in answer to the answer from Yeshe Tenley, the question of force.

thank you for pointing to it. When I say I was "forced" I mean that I was pressured when I tried to not do this.

I tried initially to ignore my mother's desire to have me on her side/team in the feud and I ignored it. When she became more aggressive and threatened me, I ignored it and continued to see my god-mother. My mother's response was to slander my god-mother and to cost her relationships with her other siblings and other members of the family. Several people whom my god-mother supported in the darkest days of their lives (through cancer treatments, the loss of children, and many other troubles) were told lies by my mother and believed them.

This was done to punish me. My mother knew she could not take anything from me she had not already taken, but she knew it would hurt me if she hurt others. The "force" came from this, it was extortion/blackmail. The only thing I could do is see neither of them for many years.

I have a sense that the time to resolve this is now, otherwise mortality will close the doors. I am unsure there is a solution.

I wonder at the word forced. What is forcing you not to see your god-mother whom you love? You say you are forced out of deference to your mother, but since you put the word in quotes I think you realize that nothing is forcing you. This is your choice. I wonder about the motivation for such deference to your mother... Is it motivated out of a sense of obligation or duty? Is it motivated out of compassion for your mother? What of the compassion for your god-mother?

One practice that I've found beneficial is the practice of equanimity. That is looking at ones friends vs enemies or close acquaintances vs strangers and looking at where the distinctions we make are coming? What motivates these distinctions?

When we choose to act based off of distinctions of "friend vs enemy" or "close acquaintance vs stranger" often times our actions are non-virtuously motivated by personal considerations. All beings at root desire to be happy and to avoid suffering. We are all the same in this way. In this way, all are worthy of our compassion.

In the end, we can't control how other people will react to our actions. The only thing we can hope to control is our own actions and to try and ensure that our actions are virtuously motivated. The desire to make people happy with us is very different from the desire to make people happy, right?

I guess my best advice is to really look and see whether your acquiescence to your mother's desire for you to stop talking to your god-mother is actually making her happy? Is it actually making you happy? Is it actually making your god-mother happy? Or is it only serving to make your mother temporarily happy with you? Is that well-motivated?


How we can go to the pari-nirvana if not by being a bodhisattva? I had noticed something that seemed to me a contradiction. I would be grateful if someone could resolve for me this contradiction .
To attain the state of pari-nirvana you need to liberate yourself from the lie of being a separate part of the universe, then the pari-nirvana through this prism seems to be an egoistic thing since you exit yourself from the samsara but you leave the other existences in  samsara.Which seem the epitome of egoism
But the bodhisattva return to the world for helping the other existences which seem more altruistic and by this way more close to pari-nirvana.
Therefore we get that going to pari-nirvana is in a certain sense a contradiction with being liberated from the lies ...
I hope I am being clear...
Thanks in advance !

What appears as a contradiction is the difference between Theravada and Mahayana paths. I cannot speak for the Theravada path since my study is Mahayana, but in our tradition, bodhicitta is necessary for enlightenment, eg: from the Diamond Sutra:

One who wants to give rise to the highest, most fulfilled, and
awakened mind must create this resolved attitude of mind: I must help
to lead all beings to the shore of awakening.

I have been taught that this is not a contradiction, but, rather, that Buddha gave many teachings, all tailored to the student. And that yes, it is possible to achieve nirvana, and become permanently liberated from samsara, the cycle of suffering, without bodhicitta. But that is not the path I am on. And whether or not it is possible to 'lead all lead all beings to the shore of awakening' is not the point. The point is having the intention to do so, and also, of including those you do not like.


Am I following Buddhism as a sort of Escapism? Some body close to me said to me, "you failed in the real world and so now you are chasing Nirvana and running away". It hurt me a little but set me thinking if he is right?
The story is, I come from a Hindu background and long story short I got into terrible life situation. By some miracle I got stumbled on Ajahn Brahm's talk on youtube four years back. I started digging deep and now calling myself a Buddhist, I sitting on my cushion aiming Jhanas and Nirvana.
But could he be right, imparting status quo worldly wisdom of 'I should fight, I should work harder, I should not give up on my worldly goals'
I have given up my job and no relationship. I spend all my time meditating and listening and reading Buddhism. But have I taken this path as sort of run away from responsibilities. Did I even had a choice to begin with in doing what I am doing. Have I chosen this path or I am just blindly riding what has came to my way with no say of mine.

This is a profound question.  Somebody may want to delve into spirituality because he is a "loser" and isn't prospering in life.  This is not a new concept.  In fact, the Ratthapala Sutta addresses this very point.  You should go to the link and study the sutta in full.
In Majjhima Nikaya 82, we are introduced to the ascetic Ratthapala, who took up the life of the holy man even though he was from a privileged background, and wealthy, athletic, successful, in the prime of his youth.  We are led to believe that, in the secular life, he had countless opportunities at his disposal.
In the Sutta, the king asks the ascetic Ratthapala, in effect, Why are you joining the spiritual life with the other ascetics, when they are not rich or strong and successful, and you are?

King Koravya sat down on a seat made ready and said: "Master
Raṭṭhapāla, there are four kinds of loss. Because they have
undergone these four kinds of loss, some people here shave off their
hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and go forth[.]  What are
the four? They are loss through ageing, loss through sickness, loss of
wealth, and loss of relatives.
And what is loss through ageing? Here, Master Raṭṭhapāla, someone is
old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, come to the last
stage. He considers thus: ‘I am old, aged, burdened with years,
advanced in life, come to the last stage. It is no longer easy for
me to acquire unacquired wealth or to augment wealth already
acquired....
And what is loss through sickness? Here, Master Raṭṭhapāla, someone is
afflicted, suffering, and gravely ill. He considers thus: ‘I am
afflicted, suffering, and gravely ill. It is no longer easy for me
to acquire unacquired wealth....  This is called loss through
sickness.  But Master Raṭṭhapāla now is free from illness....
And what is loss of wealth? Here, Master Raṭṭhapāla, someone is rich,
of great wealth, of great possessions. Gradually his wealth dwindles
away. He considers thus: Formerly I was rich, of great wealth....
But Master Raṭṭhapāla is the son of the leading clan in this same
Thullakoṭṭhita. Master Raṭṭhapāla has not undergone any loss of
wealth.
And what is loss of relatives? Here, Master Raṭṭhapāla, someone has
many friends and companions, kinsmen and relatives. Gradually those
relatives of his dwindle away. He considers thus: ‘Formerly I had
many friends and companions, kinsmen and relatives....'

Answering the king, Ratthapala more or less responds that worldly success and prosperity is overrated, and not worth chasing.  It doesn't bring peace.

“Great king, there are four summaries of the Dhamma that have been
taught by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully
enlightened. Knowing and seeing and hearing them, I went forth from
the home life into homelessness. What are the four?
“‘Life in any world is unstable, it is swept away’: this is the
first summary of the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One who knows and
sees, accomplished and fully enlightened. Knowing and seeing and
hearing this, I went forth from the home life into homelessness.
“‘Life in any world has no shelter and no protector’: this is the
second summary of the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One who knows and
sees…
“‘Life in any world has nothing of its own; one has to leave all and
pass on’: this is the third summary of the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One who knows and sees…
“‘Life in any world is incomplete, insatiate, the slave of
craving’: this is the fourth summary of the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One who knows and sees…"

Personally, I see nothing wrong with somebody taking up the spiritual life simply because he is a "loser" in the "real world".  Don't feel self-critical; don't feel lonely.  There are a lot of "losers" in the "real world", almost all of whom cope with severely dysfunctional forms of escape (alcohol, drugs and whatnot).  It is better to have "escapism" with something that is actually an escape, and more importantly, develop the ability to help others to truly escape, losers and successful people alike.
Remember that losers and unsuccessful people, suffering people, full of confusion and despondent from lack -- are the very reason that the Tathagata appeared into the world.
Don't let anybody, especially non-Buddhist, criticize you for following Buddhism for the wrong reason; they don't know any better.  Grow yourself.  Decide for yourself whether you "need" more material prosperity than you currently have, but don't be stressed or distraught about it.  Practice skepticism towards ideas that aren't life-sustaining, and that weren't developed with your interest at heart.  Choose good role models, people who actually have empathy and inner peace of mind -- not just the the temporary trappings of what passes for status or success.  Learn what is beneficial for this life, and the hereafter, and follow that.


What is the buddhist conception of light? How do buddhists regard light? In their statues the eyes of Buddha are most times closed. Do they consider light a low worthy thing or something else. Newton showed gravity to be a powerful competitor of light. Hindi poetry considers the sun a selfish object despite the sun is supporting life. From this a doubt came to my mind that maybe buddhist regard light as a lowly?
Light has cleansing and illumination quality, Islam stress upon physical cleaning before praying. Does buddhism consider bodily cleansing a high virtue?

The Buddha was a psychologist rather than a physicist or house cleaner. The Buddha is called the 'Spiritual Doctor'. For the Buddha, the most important light was the 'light' of wisdom.

Also, the Buddha mostly enjoyed living in the forest or jungle therefore was not overly concerned with keeping marble temples clean; similar to how Muḥammad (PBUH) formerly enjoyed meditating in a cave & would wrap himself in blankets when giving a revelation.

Therefore, the Buddha's eyes are closed so the mind can be understood internally, in particular, how the mind generates sufferings & how the mind frees itself from suffering.

That said, the Buddha was also a mystic and taught one meditation called the 'perception of light', which can be used to develop psychic powers. The Buddha had the 'Eye of God' (dibba-cakkhu) therefore could see, hear & know what people were doing from within his mind. That is why his eyes are closed. The Buddha did not have to open his eyes to know what was going on the world.

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

  Samadhi Sutta


The World • It Disintegrates Friends, I am looking for a sutta from the Pali Canon wherein the Buddha, expounding the nature of the world, goes somewhat like this :

  And what is the world ? That which disintegrates is the world. That’s why we call it is called 'the world'.

Thank you for your very much appreciated help.

With gratitude.

It is ‘breaking up,’ bhikshu, therefore it is called ‘world’.”

(Lujjati) Loka Sutta


Kamma and right livelihood in a modern business environment It is easier to define "right livelihood" in the time of the Buddha when compared to our modern society. I would like to know if this situation can be considered wrong livelihood and if it creates bad kamma or not:

Imagine someone that works for a company, just a regular employee, maybe from HR, finance or the legal department, this person provides a service and gets paid for it, but what happens if the company sells alcohol or maybe other product that damages people's health or even if the company sells meat or products to kill insects, plagues and so on...

To be honest a great part of the companies these days either damages the environment or the public health, others may have practices not very ethical regarding labour or tax payments, it is not easy to find a 100% "clean" business.

I have tried to find an answer in the suttas and dhammapada and the closest thing I found was a story about the wife of a hunter, she used to help her husband by cleaning his weapon, the traps and cooking the dead animals, the Buddha said she was not guilty and was not creating bad Kamma, only the hunter who was actually killing animals.

Are there better references than this one? In my example, is it wrong livelihood? Does it create bad Kamma?

It depends on what services you are providing to the company. If you are just helping them to balance accounts, it'll be similar to the hunter's wife cooking the meat. But if you are actually involved in poison making or marketing of the product, it won't be a right livelihood. Even as an HR officer, if you are hiring people to make poison or butcher animals, it's not a right livelihood. As a lawyer, if you are helping the company to get away with environmental damage, tax fraud, public health concerns, it's not a right livelihood. Yes, it creates bad Karma.


Karma responsibility regarding beheadings I simply can't accept that those poor souls who've been decapitated by ISIS are to blame in any way apart from perhaps the fact that they happened to be in the wrong place.
Please can someone help me understand this from a Buddhist point of view.

One would need to attain one of those supernatural powers that enables one to see other people's previous lives to know for sure. Anyway, the fact is that for every man whose head is chopped off, there has to be another man who carries out the gruesome act. So, ever wonder what'll be waiting for the executioner in the future life times? According to the law of kamma, he'll never be able to get away with what he did. He'll have to pay with his own head or something similar sooner or later..


Is Samma Dithi Right understanding or Right view? Name and expound on the methods meant for Samma-Dithi. Is it Right view or Right understanding?

Diṭṭhi in Pali literally means "sight", but here it is used to mean view, belief, dogma, theory, speculation.
Sammā diṭṭhi means Right View.
There are many other words in the PTS Pali-English Dictionary which may be used for "understanding" in different contexts, but diṭṭhi is not one of them.
From PTS Pali-English Dictionary on Diṭṭhi:

Diṭṭhi Diṭṭhi (f.) [Sk. dṛṣṭi; cp. dassana] view, belief, dogma,
theory, speculation, esp. false theory, groundless or unfounded
opinion.

From Pali Kanon: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines:

(lit. 'sight'; Ö dis, to see): view, belief, speculative opinion,
insight.
If not qualified by sammā, 'right', it mostly refers to wrong and evil
view or opinion, and only in a few instances to right view,
understanding or insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.; ditthi-visuddhi,
purification of insight; ditthi-sampanna, possessed of insight).
Wrong or evil views (ditthi or micchā-ditthi) are declared as utterly
rejectable for being a source of wrong and evil aspirations and
conduct, and liable at times to lead man to the deepest abysses of
depravity, as it is said in A. I, 22:
"No other thing than evil views do I know, o monks, whereby to such an
extent the unwholesome things not yet arisen arise, and the
unwholesome things already arisen are brought to growth and fullness.
No other thing than evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent
the wholesome things not yet arisen are hindered in their arising, and
the wholesome things already arisen disappear. No other thing than
evil views do I know, whereby to such an extent human beings at the
dissolution of the body, at death, are passing to a way of suffering,
into a world of woe, into hell." Further in A. I, 23: "Whatever a man
filled with evil views performs or undertakes, or whatever he
possesses of will, aspiration, longing and tendencies, all these
things lead him to an undesirable, unpleasant and disagreeable state,
to woe and suffering."
From the Abhidhamma (Dhs) it may be inferred that evil views, whenever
they arise, are associated with greed (s. Tab. I. 22, 23, 26, 27).
Numerous speculative opinions and theories, which at all times have
influenced and still are influencing mankind, are quoted in the
sutta-texts. Amongst them, however, the wrong view which everywhere,
and at all times, has most misled and deluded mankind is the
personality-belief, the ego-illusion. This personality-belief
(sakkāya-ditthi), or ego-illusion (atta-ditthi), is of 2 kinds:
eternity-belief and annihilation-belief.
Eternity-belief (sassata-ditthi) is the belief in the existence of a
persisting ego-entity, soul or personality, existing independently of
those physical and mental processes that constitute life and
continuing even after death.
Annihilation-belief (uccheda-ditthi), on the other hand, is the belief
in the existence of an ego-entity or personality as being more or less
identical with those physical and mental processes, and which
therefore, at the dissolution at death, will come to be annihilated. -
For the 20 kinds of personality-belief, see sakkāya-ditthi.
Now, the Buddha neither teaches a personality which will continue
after death, nor does he teach a personality which will be annihilated
at death, but he shows us that 'personality', 'ego', 'individual',
'man', etc., are nothing but mere conventional designations
(vohāra-vacana) and that in the ultimate sense (s. paramattha-sacca)
there is only this self-consuming process of physical and mental
phenomena which continually arise and again disappear immediately.
"The Perfect One is free from any theory (ditthigata), for the Perfect
One has seen what corporeality is, and how it arises and passes away.
He has seen what feeling ... perception ... mental formations ...
consciousness are, and how they arise and pass away. Therefore I say
that the Perfect One has won complete deliverance through the
extinction, fading away, disappearance, rejection and casting out of
all imaginings and conjectures, of all inclination to the 'vain-glory
of 'I' and 'mine." (M. 72).


Why is Buddha almost treated like a God in most Buddhist traditions? While I find some buddhist ideas intriguing - mainly using meditation to find insights in oneself - I'm also quite irritated, why so many traditions are so full of dogma, i.e. things you just have to believe or do.

It's exactly this way of thinking which always bugged me with religions. Buddhism (at least in it's "westernized" form) seemed to be different: Don't believe in anything except the insights you got from your own meditation practice. At least I thought, that this was one of the core teachings of Buddha.

So why is it, that most established traditions treat Buddha almost like a god, which you have to worship or errect statues for?

Or put another way: Would he be happy if he would see what became of his teachings today, especially in regard to the personality cult?

The only answer I could come up with is: People can't let go of gods.

But isn't this foiling the main idea that the historical Gautama was teaching?

Simply I can tell you this. When Buddhism was invented in certain countries, it mixed with their culture and believes. So if you want to filter what Buddha really said, you have to refer The Pali canon. Actually in "Mahaparinibbana Sutta (Maha vagga - Digha Nikaya)" before The Blessed one passed away, when gods and humans are worshiping him and paying their last respect, the Blessed One stated that:

  "This is not the real way (by offering flowers etc) that you can pay respect for me. I appreciate the disciple who pay his respect by following my teachings (Prathipaththi Pooja)."

However most people have forgotten these words of the Blessed One.


Anyone know about the use of the skull for magic in the Burmese traditions? I am doing research on the Burmese Weikza traditions and wanted help as to the usage of the skull in their magical practices.

Peter

What ever magical practice that might be, it has nothing to do with the Buddha, Dhamma an the Sangha and is called "Animal Art" by the Buddha and a grave misconduct.

Wrong livelihood for contemplatives

So maybe the question is better placed outside of "Buddhism"

Skulls an bones are used as object of investigation and meditation, asuba-nimitta (object of unattractiveness), to gain high concentration if done right. Of coures such training in what is called Jhana, can lead to supranatural powers but such is not the aim just side effects of practicing.

(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other worldly gains.)


SN 22.62: What is meant by "scope of language"? What is the message of this sutta?

  At Sāvatthī.

  “Mendicants, there are these three scopes of language, terminology,
  and descriptions. They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the
  beginning. They’re not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible
  ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them. What three? When form
  has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, label, and
  description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’.

  When feeling …

  perception … choices …

  consciousness has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation,
  label, and description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’.

  When form is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its designation,
  label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘was’.

  When feeling …

  perception … choices …

  consciousness is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its
  designation, label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or
  ‘was’.

  When form has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, and
  description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’.

  When feeling …

  perception … choices …

  consciousness has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label,
  and description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’.

  These are the three scopes of language, terminology, and descriptions.
  They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re
  not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and
  brahmins don’t look down on them. Even those wanderers of the past,
  Vassa and Bhañña of Ukkalā, who taught the doctrines of no-cause,
  inaction, and nihilism, didn’t imagine that these three scopes of
  language should be criticized or rejected. Why is that? For fear of
  being blamed, criticized, and faulted.”

Clearly the past, present and future (was, is, will be) are all evident and incontestible (i.e., uncorrupted and without defilements). Therefore, this sutta implies that the corruption and defilements arise taking the past, present and future as other than what they are. Indeed, suffering arises when we take the past as the present (remorse or sadness). Or suffering arises when we take the past as the future (craving or aversion). Or suffering arises when we take the past or future as the present (delusion). Mixing up past, present and future is suffering.

Yet if one directly knows what was, is and will be:

  He directly knows water … fire … air … creatures … gods … the Creator … Brahmā … the gods of streaming radiance … the gods replete with glory … the gods of abundant fruit … the Overlord … the dimension of infinite space … the dimension of infinite consciousness … the dimension of nothingness … the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception … the seen … the heard … the thought … the known … oneness … diversity … all … He directly knows extinguishment as extinguishment. But he doesn’t identify with extinguishment, he doesn’t identify regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t identify as extinguishment, he doesn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering, and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies. That’s why the Realized One—with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all cravings—has awakened to the supreme perfect Awakening, I say
  --MN1


What will the Satipatthana Sutta teach me? I am completely new to all this (buddhism, meditation etc...) but I really want to begin somewhere

I found this guy called Stephen Procter who has this free guided meditation program (52 guided meditations, 1 each week) that he says will guide you to the completion of the Satipatthana Sutta.

What actually is that sutta about? what will it teach me. Is it for real deal enlightenment (or just new age hippy dippy stuff)? What sort of meditations would this be about (I suuuck at visualization, which is why I am not trying out tantric practices even tho I like the sound of them)

And why is there all these other methods then? all these other suttas, and then stuff like Vajrayana buddhism. I don't get it, I just want something clear cut that can at the very least give me a very solid foundation.

Can I do this Sattipathana program if im physically unhealthy? (all the Hinduism yogas seem to require superman level health before you can even think about doing anything with the mind)

The Satipatthana Sutta is a famous Buddhist scripture attributed to the Buddha (although it is unlikely it was actually spoken by the Buddha but instead is a compiling of various teachings of the Buddha). The Satipatthana Sutta is used for instruction in very basic meditation training (rather than used for very advanced training).
The Satipatthana Sutta is often interpreted and thus taught differently by different teachers.
The word 'satipatthana' means 'establishing mindfulness'. Establishing 'mindfulness' means to 'bring to mind' the Buddhist teachings in relation to experience. In terms of formal 'satipatthana' practise, it means to not have greed, grief or attachment towards experience. The Satipatthana Sutta says as its core practise:

he lives clearly comprehending and mindful, having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief.
he lives detached and clings to nothing in the world.

Satipatthana practice includes the natural experiencing of four objects:
(i) the breathing & body;
(ii) pleasant, painful & neutral feelings;
(iii) the mind, its moods or, otherwise, its clarity; and
(iv) various realities ('dhamma'), such as impermanence, the nature of suffering & peace, etc.
These four objects of meditation experience are used to train mindfulness; so to remember to not cling or have greed or grief towards these four objects.
Importantly, continuously experiencing the breathing & body with a non-attached and non-judging mind causes the breathing to calm & the body to relax. In short, it feels peaceful & calm.
Ideally, Satipatthana requires having normal breathing and being able to sit still with back upright (either cross-legged on the floor or in a chair without leaning against the back of the chair) for about 30 to 60 minutes. Having normal breathing means not having a blocked nose or any other chronic breathing abnormality. Having normal breathing & sitting upright allows the breathing to relax & calm while keeping the mind alert and non-drowsy.
I am listening to Stephen Procter, here. If Stephen is offering a free guided meditation program then you have nothing to lose to do it. His teachings sound reasonable to me.


What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana? What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?

Why Buddha did not say Tanha Paccaya Bhava (instead of Upadana Paccaya Bhava)?

And there are three kinds of Tanha in Sutta (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava): please explain how these three link to Upadana?

I read the topic Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'? but that does not answer my question -- I want answers which specifically discuss this in line with three categories of Tanha with Upadana in Dependent Origination.

Please give me a practical answer than a technical answer which are found in many places.

Here is an answer that is based on my study and meditation. It is not citing any official sources and trying to stay away from technical explanation in favor of real-life examples.

-- What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?

To use a traditional example. Say you met a very nice person. Let's say that person had a beautiful smile and sweet soft voice. Next day, you suddenly get a flash of that person's smile in your mind, and you "hear" the sound of voice playing in your head, all this accompanied with a desire to see that person again. That's tanha. You also feel a somewhat painful sensation in your chest because you're missing that person. That's dukkha.

Then, on the basis of that flash, you start obsessively thinking about the smile, the voice, the hair, the body, the manner of walking - you begin inwardly attending to as many features of the person as you can remember. You also start thinking about the place you met the person yesterday, hoping that if you go there again, there is a chance you will see him or her again. That's upadana.

-- Upadana Paccaya Bhava

The way it works, in my understanding, is like this: the moment you start thinking about going to that location to meet that person, you start thinking about future. In that imaginary future, there is you ("I") that you imagine will experience the pleasant moment of seeing the pretty person again. When you do that you create a sense of identity that spans a period of time from a point in the past to a point in the future. It's like you subconsciously say to yourself: "First I was here, without that person", "Then I will do A,B,C according to my plan", "Then I will be there - with that person", "Then I will enjoy". This personal ego-centric goal-making, projecting, and planning (in my opinion) is what causes Bhava - "becoming" or "individuating" or "identifying".

-- there are three kinds of Tanha in Sutta (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava): please explain how these three link to Upadana?

Same way as in the above. In case of kama-upadana you keep thinking about pleasant sensations, your thinking and action is permeated by craving to a pleasant sensation - that's kama-upadana. For example you keep getting a flash of kissing the person (tanha) and you start fantasizing about the circumstances under which you two would be kissing (upadana).

In case of bhava-upadana you keep obsessing about being in a certain position, living in a certain way, having something in your possession. Your thinking and action is permeated by craving to attain something. For example, you keep fantasizing about having married the person and how you two would be living together, what that would look like.

In case of vibhava-upadana you keep obsessing about something in your life now that you want to get rid of. Your thinking and action is permeated by craving to get rid of something. For example, you keep thinking about your extra weight, how bad it makes you look, and how much nicer it would be to get rid of it.


Did Siddartha have a back problem? in Week 3 Mindfulness of Emotions an online course at:http://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/introduction-to-meditation-transcripts/all/1/

Gil Fronsdal says "... the Buddha had a bad back. You wouldn’t believe it with his good posture, but he had a bad back and sometimes he couldn’t give his Dharma talk, so he’d lie down instead and have one of his senior disciples give a talk."

Anyone know where he might have got this information from?

So the Blessed One, putting on his robe and taking up his bowl & outer
  robe, went together with a community of monks to the reception hall.
  On arrival he washed his feet, entered the hall, and sat with his back
  to the central post, facing east. The community of monks washed their
  feet, entered the hall, and sat with their backs to the western wall,
  facing east, ranged around the Blessed One. The Kapilavatthu Sakyans
  washed their feet, entered the hall, and sat with their backs to the
  eastern wall, facing west, ranged around the Blessed One. Then the
  Blessed One — having spent most of the night instructing, urging,
  rousing, & encouraging the Kapilavatthu Sakyans with a Dhamma talk —
  said to Ven. Ananda, "Ananda, speak to the Kapilavatthu Sakyans about
  the person who follows the practice for one in training. [2] My back
  aches. I will rest it." - Sekha-patipada Sutta : MN 53

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html


Was the kamikaze against the Mongol empire considered a supernatural event in Buddhism? The English language edition's article on the original kamikaze (divine wind) against the Mongol empire (not WWII) refers to Buddhism, though it also mentions Japanese "gods".

  ...1274 and again in 1281.  Due to growth of Zen Buddhism among Samurai at the time, these were the first events where the typhoons were described as "divine wind" as much by their timing as by their force.

This surprised me a little - I thought the "kami" in kamikaze referred to beings from Japan's native shinto belief system, which many Japanese have alongside Buddhism.

Was kamikaze typically regarded as a supernatural event in Buddhism?

I don't think the line between Shinto and Buddhism has been very clear in Japan, just as the line between Hinduism and Buddhism was never very clear in India.

For that matter, whenever any religion travels it is forced to either defeat or integrate its newest cultures. Religion can't take prisoners of war, it has to conquer by assimilation or destruction.

I don't have personal knowledge of this branch of Buddhism, but I've made use of a search engine to find these sources.

Syncretism of Shinto & Buddhism in Japan

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2007/09/04/reference/japans-shinto-buddhist-religious-medley/

  Most in Japan may know Buddhism has something to do with controlling
  lust and anger, and is associated with funerals and graves, while
  Shinto involves venerating nature, and weddings. But many people have
  trouble making theological distinctions between the two or even
  telling a Buddhist temple from a Shinto shrine.

  The internationalists in the Japanese court welcomed Buddhism. Others
  saw it as a threat to the status quo, with Buddha nothing more than a
  “jajin,” or devil.

  Prince Shotoku (574-622) promoted Buddhism and it took hold. Still,
  Japan would never see a full conversion away from its indigenous
  religion, as occurred to a much greater extent across pagan Europe
  with the introduction of Christianity. Rather, Japanese absorbed
  Buddhism gradually, mixing it with local folk religions.

  This process played out in the divine realm, too, with certain Shinto
  gods coming to be seen as protectors of the Buddha. One was Hachiman,
  the Shinto god of war, who legend has it aided the construction of the
  Great Buddha statue in Nara during the Nara Period (710-784). This act
  of kindness won him the name “Great Bodhisattva (Buddhist saint)
  Hachiman” in 781.

  Reflecting this meeting of religions, Hachiman was sometimes depicted
  in sculptures as a very unwarlike Buddhist monk.

  But what does the eighth century have to do with mixups over temples
  and shrines now?

  The syncretism, or weaving together of religions, would continue over
  centuries as Japan went about absorbing Pure Land, Zen and other
  Buddhist sects from China. Over time, cross-pollination between
  Buddhism and Shinto would deepen in a process known as “shin-butsu
  shugo” (Shinto-Buddhism coalescence), or less flatteringly as the
  “shin-butsu konko” (Shinto-Buddhism jumble).

  Much of the convergence amounted to Buddhism trying to make a mark on
  the host culture. Buddhist monks felt certain Shinto divinities needed
  salvation. So they chanted sutras in front of shrines that were the
  gods’ sacred homes.

  Meanwhile, temples started sprouting up next to Shinto shrines, to be
  called “jingu-ji,” meaning “shrine-temples.” By the 16th century, such
  mixing and matching had become official policy.

Kamis vs Butsus

http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/shinto-deities.html

  In modern Japan, both Shintō and Buddhist practice among the common
  folk has taken on the air of “this-worldly benefits” (concrete rewards
  now; Genze Riyaku). To many Japanese, Shintō and Buddhist
  faith is primarily involved with petitions and prayers for business
  profits, the safety of the household, success on school entrance
  exams, painless child birth, and other concrete rewards now, in this
  life. Shintō deities are called KAMI, SHIN , JIN , SAMA , TENJIN
  , GONGEN , and MYŌJIN  to distinguish them from their Buddhist
  counterparts. The latter are known as BUTSU  and NYORAI (all
  mean Buddha or Tathagata), BOSATSU (meaning Bodhisattva), TEN
  (meaning Deva), MYŌ-Ō  (meaning Luminescent Kings).


Dasa Paramitha - Sources Where can I find sutras describing about the 10 paramithas and the 3 types of paramithas in the pali cannon? I couldn't find a proper sutra on it.

You can find a study guide here by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: The Ten Perfections
A Study Guide
There seem to be four types of perfection, and not three.

Passages in this guide are drawn from the Pali canon and from the teachings of Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo.

The four determinations:
One should not be negligent of discernment,
should guard the truth,
be devoted to relinquishment,
and train only for calm.

— MN 140

You can find a further commentary here by Bhikkhu Bodhi: A Treatise on the Paramis
From the Commentary to the Cariyapitaka


What is the process that creates "Saṅkhāra" Is it right if i say the origin of Saṅkhāra is not by a natural process of the mind but it is a byproduct of Avidyā which dominates the non-arahant mind?

Is it right if I say the origin of Saṅkhāra is not by a natural process of the mind

It is a natural process that when we get feeling born from contact of the faculty with an external object which you react with craving and clinging for a worldly person. You do have control over the process as this point there you can be just see the airing and passing of the feeling born of contact of the faculty with an external object, (phenomena what is felt or known) and be completely be equanimous towards the feeling without clinging and craving. The latter is going against the stream and requires effort. This is going against the natural process this happens.

  ... but it is a byproduct of Avidyā which dominates the non-arahant mind?

This is a by product of Avidya. It is in short reaction to sensations / feelings with craving and clinging.

The way to overcome this is given in the Pahana Suttas (or the way to let go): Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2. There are times that this process is formalised as understanding 4 Noble Truths.


Did the Buddha talk about karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts Did the Buddha talk about karma and sexual misconduct independent of the lay precepts?

Killing a Buddha results in (immediate) rebirth in avici; what is the karma for cheating on your spouse?

Karma is karma, but I'm asking merely because I don't think many people realise it is considered important in Buddhism.

Ask yourself if the misconduct will bring about less suffering for any being.
Bring yourself to be honest with the person you wronged, take on their burdens.
Only once the suffering is forgiven will you see your true life potential Buddha nature.


Can you kill yourself with meditation? I have heard of sages being able to kill themselves with meditation. How do they do this?

Many yogis have claimed to be able to do this - the scientific evidence is not convincing.

In a controlled study, it was found this was not based on meditative control, but on holding the breath and considerable tensing of the muscles in the abdomen and thorax. This resulted in reduced blood flow, but did not stop the heart. One subject was able to slow his heart for a maximum of 3 seconds using this method.


How can the concept of Anicca be linked to Sunyata? Sunyata is more commonly used to explain Anatta, but how about Anicca?

See anattalakkhaṇasutta, anicca and dukkha are fully used to describe anatta, suññata.

  “Monks, are feelings permanent or impermanent?”

  “Venerable sir, they are impermanent.”

  “Those which are impermanent, are they unpleasant or pleasant?”

  “Venerable sir, they are unpleasant.”

  “Those which are impermanent, unpleasant, changing, are they suitable
  to be reflected, ‘They are mine, I am there, they are my self?’”

  “That is not so, venerable sir”

For the example explanation "If something is atta (autocrat, controllable), sāra (real core, like wood core), asuññata (real existent forever)":

It must can control itself to live permanent,
It must can control suffering to be far away from itself forever,
It must can live at the same time/same place/same status forever
(real core must be permanent stable, real asuññata must never
disappear anyway), etc.

However, the fact is nothing can act like that. Every aggregate arising and vanishing depending (paṭiccasamuppānna, saṅkhata) on many variant causes (paṭiccasamuppada), so they are impermanant, and unpleasant. And by that no ability to control anything even itself, therefore aggregate is anatta.

Even nibbāna can not control anything, too. So nibbāna is anattā, also. But it is not anicca and not dukkha, because nibbāna not depending on any causes (asaṅkhata). So, nibbāna is not anicca and not dukkha, too.


How to avoid the dangers of gain and honor (lābhasakkara)? It's said that desire for gains as intention for one undertakings, beyond simply that for liberation from suffering, is a huge hindrance, obstacle.

No, the Buddha also warned even Arahats, at least in regard of the accumulation of sakkara (honor, amassing honor, Labāsakkara), as being a cause that leads to unease.

Now, what could, should one do, should avoid, that all kinds of such accumulations do not take place and do not endanger ones intention, aspiration, to bend from highest path and fruits, awakening?

Which role does maccharia (stinginess of five kinds and one primare cause) plays here, and if related, what kind of practice would work against such?

(Note that this task is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainments but just to bind toward liberation)

Now, what could, should one do, should avoid, that all kinds of such accumulations do not take place and do not endanger ones intention, aspiration, to bend from highest path and fruits, awakening?

That sutta implies that even accumulating dung can be a problem for some.

So I'm not sure it's feasible to solve that by avoiding literally everything (especially for a house-holder, but presumably mendicants too -- the sutta seems to be addressed to bhikkhus, not to arhats) -- even including, for example, "food" and "honours".

Instead the problem seems to be in the mental attitude toward accumulation, for example:

"With a mind overcome and overwhelmed by possessions, honor, and popularity"
"they look down on other good-hearted mendicants"

There are other suttas nearby on the same or similar theme -- for example, SN 17.3 offers,

  Whoever enjoys and likes arisen possessions, honor, and popularity is called a mendicant who has been pierced with a harpoon

I suppose the problem originates from the delighting in such things.

Perhaps the sutta itself suggests one of the remedies -- if you see (view) it as being like dung, not nourishing, then you might not be inclined to accumulate (eat) it.

And, as you pointed out in a comment, SN 17.30 says,

  We will give up arisen possessions, honor, and popularity, and we won’t let them occupy our minds.


Is there a moral aspect to financial debt in Buddhism? If I recall correctly I've heard that one can not be ordained if one has debts. Is this just a practical rule to avoid ordaining people that run away from financial problems or does it also have moral aspect to it?

Answers from all schools are welcome.

If you have obligations like debt you might be forced to disrobe. You will not be able to do what you set out to do and any debtor trying to get hold of you will be doing bad karma.

Also you cannot practice properly as you will be afraid of debtors getting hold of you.

You and the Sanga will get a bad name due to your not fulfilling your obligation. This has a karmic implication towards people who might bad mouth the monk and the order.

This can be extended to other obligations also.

Regarding being disfigured or disabled it is the latter reasons. Also you need all your faculties in good condition to effectively do Vipassana.


Who are the past Buddhas mentioned in the Canonical Works? What references do we have in canonical texts on historical Buddhas and Pacceka Buddhas? Ideally including information beyond the commonly referenced 28 Buddhas.

"Historical" is fact established by historical science. Even historical existence of Shakyamuni is debated. There is no other historical buddhas besides Shakyamuni. That is other buddhas are present to us only as mythological characters.


Is OM an imported religious term from Hinduism? OM or AUM is used in "OM MANI PADME HUM" and some other mantras.

To my knowledge, OM is found only in  Mahayana and Vajrayana schools. It's not found in Theravada. The 14th Dalai Lama explained the meaning of OM here: On the meaning of OM MANI PADME HUM.

It's an extremely important and venerated word in Hinduism -- see "What is the significance of ॐ (Om/Aum)?" on Hinduism.SE.

Is OM in Buddhism an imported religious term from Hinduism?

Or like "namo" which means "salutations" or "adoration", does OM have an ordinary meaning and therefore not considered an imported religious term?

OM is basically associated with Shaivya tradition of Hinduism i.e. those hindus who worship Shiva. And according to hindu mythology Shiva's abode is Kailash mountain which is in tibet. So inhabitants of that part of Tibet were using the word AUM or OM either for purpose of meditation or as ordinary word to  mean Consciousness. Hinduism was mostly rooted in Afaganistan, Pakistan and the Gangaitic plains of India during ancient time.

With this line of reasoning there is a heavy possibility that Hindus themselves adopted OM from Tibeteans.

OM is not used by Theravadins only by Vajrayana Buddhists and Mahayana Buddhist whose roots are in Tibet. So basically Tibetians are using it and it belongs to them.

So I wont say it is imported.


How can there be Happiness without suffering? I always thought that in order to be light, darkness must exist, in order for us to appreciate a beautiful sunshine, rainy days must exist, for a food to be good, bad food must exist and so on, if you have only good things you will not appreciate or feel happy about it. (this is the common mundane view)

This kind of thought clearly doesn't fit with the concept of Nibbana, where there is only Happiness and no suffering at all, so Happiness in Nibbana is not relative, it is something absolute.

Can someone explain what is wrong with the thought that sees happiness as something relative, that needs to be compared with other things? Is Happiness in Nibbana a different thing that has more to do with peace and stability?

Light vs darkness is a better analogy to wisdom vs ignorance than happiness vs suffering. What you describe as happiness and suffering are just experiences. They belong to the Sankhara group in the five aggregates of clinging. Nibbana exists independently of the five aggregates. All experiences, whether they are pleasurable, painful or neutral, fall under the first Noble truth. So they all have the inherent nature of Dukkha. Nibbana is non-experiential and devoid of Dukkha.


Best book or documentary related to mindfulness What is your best mindfulness book or documentary? I have experienced Vipassana retreats. I would like to know more about mindfulness.

Most Buddhists don't know what mindfulness is therefore i cannot recall any good books about it except a short talk by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa called The Use of Dhamma.
Pra Payutto wrote a lengthy book called Sammasati:
An Exposition of Right Mindfulness however it contains errors, such as the following:

It is attentive, as if keeping its eyes on each impression that
passes into consciousness and then bearing down on it. When one wishes
to concentrate on a particular object, it maintains one's attention
fixedly upon it, not allowing the object to drift away or disappear.
By means of sati, one keeps placing the mind on the object, or
recollecting it, not allowing oneself to let it slip from the mind.
There is a simile likening it to a pillar, because it is firmly
embedded in its object, or to a gate-keeper, because it watches over
the various sense-doors through which sense-data pass, inspecting all
that enters. The proximate cause for the arising of sati is a firm and
clear perception of the object [OMG!], or any of the different sorts of
satipatthana that will be spoken of below.

I recommend to read the scriptures, namely:

Indriya-Vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of the Mental Faculties.
SN 46.3 - Sila Sutta.
Maha-cattarisaka Sutta: The Great Forty.
Nagara Sutta: The Fortress.

In summary, "mindfulness" means "to bring to mind (to recollect), to remember & to not forget" to practise the Dhamma teachings. Mindfulness does not mean to observe objects.
This video called "Buddhist Meditation: Sati Sampajanna" by Ajahn Jayasāro is reasonably good.


What does the word 'nimitta' ('sign') refer to in SN 47.8? SN 47.8 (Pali here) is translated as such:

  Bhikkhus, suppose a foolish, incompetent, unskilful cook were to present a king or a royal minister with various kinds of curries:
  sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, sharp, mild, salty, bland.

  That foolish, incompetent, unskilful cook does not pick up the sign of his own master’s preference: ‘Today this curry pleased my master,
  or he reached for this one, or he took a lot of this one, or he spoke
  in praise of this one; or the sour curry pleased my master today, or
  he reached for the sour one, or he took a lot of the sour one, or he
  spoke in praise of the sour one; or the bitter curry … or the pungent
  curry … or the sweet curry … or the sharp curry … or the mild curry …
  or the salty curry … or the bland curry pleased my master … or he
  spoke in praise of the bland one.’

  That foolish, incompetent, unskilful cook does not gain gifts of clothing, wages, and bonuses. For what reason? Because that foolish,
  incompetent, unskilful cook does not pick up the sign of his own
  master’s preference.

  So too, bhikkhus, here some foolish, incompetent, unskilful bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly
  comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in
  regard to the world. While he dwells contemplating the body in the
  body, his mind does not become concentrated, his corruptions are not
  abandoned, he does not pick up that sign. He dwells contemplating
  feelings in feelings … mind in mind … phenomena in phenomena, ardent,
  clearly comprehending, mindful, having removed covetousness and
  displeasure in regard to the world. While he dwells contemplating
  phenomena in phenomena, his mind does not become concentrated, his
  corruptions are not abandoned, he does not pick up that sign.

  That foolish, incompetent, unskilful bhikkhu does not gain pleasant dwellings in this very life, nor does he gain mindfulness and
  clear comprehension. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that foolish,
  incompetent, unskilful bhikkhu does not pick up the sign of his own
  mind.

  Suppose, bhikkhus, a wise, competent, skilful cook were to present a king or a royal minister with various kinds of curries: sour, bitter,
  pungent, sweet, sharp, mild, salty, bland.

  That wise, competent, skilful cook picks up the sign of his own master’s preference: ‘Today this curry pleased my master … or he spoke
  in praise of the bland one.’

  That wise, competent, skilful cook gains gifts of clothing, wages, and bonuses. For what reason? Because that wise, competent, skilful
  cook picks up the sign of his own master’s preference.

  So too, bhikkhus, here some wise, competent, skilful bhikkhu dwells contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending,
  mindful, having removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the
  world. While he dwells contemplating the body in the body, his mind
  becomes concentrated, his corruptions are abandoned, he picks up that
  sign. He dwells contemplating feelings in feelings … mind in mind …
  phenomena in phenomena, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having
  removed covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world. While he
  dwells contemplating phenomena in phenomena, his mind becomes
  concentrated, his corruptions are abandoned, he picks up that sign.

  That wise, competent, skilful bhikkhu gains pleasant dwellings in this very life, and he gains mindfulness and clear comprehension. For
  what reason? Because, bhikkhus, that wise, competent, skilful bhikkhu
  picks up the sign of his own mind.”

What specific thing does the word 'nimitta' ('sign') refer to above in SN 47.8?

In the same sutta, buddha said:

  tathā hi so, bhikkhave, bālo abyatto akusalo bhikkhu sakassa
  cittassa nimittaṃ na uggaṇhātiฯ.

Then said about satipaṭṭhāna:

  evameva kho, bhikkhave, idhekacco paṇḍito byatto kusalo bhikkhu
  kāye (=base, object) kāyā-nupassī (=sati-cetasika) viharati ātāpī
  sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃฯ

So:

cittassa nimittaṃ (base[=object] of consciousness) = satiya paṭṭhānaṃ (base [=object]  of sati).

The other name is kammaṭṭhāna (base[=object] of cetanā).

P.S. Sati must arise with consciousness.

I'm sorry for my first mistake answer.


obligation to render justice? related to, but not the same as Does Buddhism have a significant notion of justice

I need some clarification.  What is one's moral obligation to render justice (or bring to justice) others for observed misdeeds?  this can but need not be as member of a jury which must render justice.

it is clear that one should sympathize with the perpetrator.  it is clear that one should not get emotional over a (passed) misdeed or over (or while) rendering a sentence.

I am guessing that to be compassionate is to contemplate the effects of a sentence on other sentient beings, [a] in light of the future incentives that one's judicial actions will create, and [b] in light of the contemporaneous effect that one's sentence will have on the perpetrators, victims, and others.  even though the deed was done and thus has passed, and even though others should be philosophical about it now, it is still true that a sentence can improve the lives of many others at the cost of worsening the life of the perpetrator.  [there is no dilemma if the latter is not the case.]

is there more Buddhist advice to us here?

because with a worldling justice is being served from a defiled mind, the intentions can't ever be completely pure and so justice will eventually not be just

i think the most Buddhist advice would be to refrain from rendering justice as much as possible, the law of kamma will in due course take care of that anyway

in response to the comment below

  If anyone gives those bhikkhunis a blow with his hand, with a clod,
  with a stick, or with a knife in your presence, you should abandon any
  desires and any thoughts based on the household life. And herein you
  should train thus: 'My mind will be unaffected, and I shall utter no
  evil words; I shall abide compassionate for his welfare, with a mind
  of loving-kindness, without inner hate.'

  If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a clod, with a
  stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and any
  thoughts based on the household life. And herein you should train
  thus: 'My mind will be unaffected, and I shall utter no evil words; I
  shall abide compassionate for his welfare, with a mind of
  loving-kindness, without inner hate.' That is how you should train,
  Phagguna.

Kakacupama sutta (MN 21)

to be sure, bearing no ill-will towards the perpetrator doesn't negate bringing him/her to justice, but the very act of bringing to justice is certainly not dissimilar to taking revenge, because that particular moment occurs after the fact, by the time the victim or the object of the crime is usually out of danger, and deprivation a person of freedom for X amount of time isn't after all an act of compassion or benevolence


Perceiving or not perceiving? My question is related to the quote below taken from Chapter 29 of The Diamond Sutra. Can you provide any references for other explanations for this quote or can you provide your own explanation?

  “Subhuti, if any person were to say that the Buddha is now coming or
  going, or sitting up or lying down, they would not have understood the
  principle I have been teaching. Why? Because while the expression
  ‘Buddha’ means ‘he who has thus come, thus gone,’ the true Buddha is
  never coming from anywhere or going anywhere. The name ‘Buddha’ is
  merely an expression, a figure of speech.”

As I understand from my current practise, there have been many instances I've been walking and I am aware that there is nowhere I'm walking to, and nowhere I'm walking from and no reference for somebody walking. I can then only discern beyond forms and see that there is only what I perceive to be a stillness in which there is neither time, distance and dimension. I don't know what is doing the perceiving in this instance or if anything at all is being perceived. If I am able to put this into a language there must be a perceiver beyond all forms or that my conceptual mind is doing this perceiving. In the latter case I would be being fooled by mental perceptions.

Out of curiosity and using consciously directed thought I experimented with this experience by watching a seagull flying through the air. Within several seconds I removed the earth and the rest of the universe. The seagull was bouncing its wings and orienting on the spot. From this I deduced that form provides dimension, distance and time. Without form the seagull cannot move from one position to another and time seems intrinsically bound to distance and dimension. That's as far as I got.

It may seem that I'm bordering on nihilism here, but on the contrary: there is the use of form to make the deeper discovery. Form seems to be the substrate to depth of knowledge but in this case it seems like I haven't learnt anything.

Another more precise and concise translation of the Diamond Sutra renders it differently, Chapter 29:

  “Subhuti, if someone said the thus-come comes, goes, sits, or reclines, this person doesn’t understand the meaning of what I taught. Why is that? What thus-come is, that is from nowhere comes nor anywhere goes, hence called the thus-come.

I think you have quite good intuition to come to conclude that ...From this I deduced that form provides dimension, distance and time. Without form the seagull cannot move from one position to another and...

This chapter, on the meaning of Tathagata, is touching on the Tathagatagarbha. Tathagata, generally renders as thus-come. What is Tathagatagarbha? It is formless, but from it form arises; it is emptiness, but it contains everything - the seeds. Hence is called the Tathagatagarbha (如來藏), the womb of the treasure of suchness.

When you perceive form, by it defines space/time, that is activity of the mind, which is a "negation" from the suchness. The form doesn't exist independently from your mind. In fact it is your mind limited by the 5 senses, the intellect (6th consciousness), the subjectivity (7th consciousness/ mānas-vijñāna), hence it perceives the world as it created - the forms. But it is hindered by it's own creation - the activities it engaged. When you can remove from all these activities, you are abiding in the suchness. The Buddha is abiding in the suchness therefore called the Tathagata - he doesn't engage in any activity. There are many names referring to the same ultimate reality in different contexts for different significance: Alaya, Dharmakaya, Citta (mind), the 8th consciousness... etc.

It's too board to completely elaborate, especially a lot of Sutras to help understanding it are not available in English. But the above is the condensed favour hopefully you could enjoy :)

Just as a note, your linked English version of the Diamond Sutra is awfully translated, from the perspective of someone who is able to read the Chinese Classical Diamond Sutra. That appears the same as Red Pine's version but the site belonged to one called Alex Johnson. I wonder if the Alex Johnson has infringed someone's copyright. One the other hand, I hate to say this since Red Pine appeared genuinely liking oriental cultures, I read somewhere someone said Red Pine's translation can't be taken serious. He mixed the Tibetan text with the Chinese compiled as one. Not sure which 2nd language he is fluent in, Tibetan or Chinese?

Translation of Sutra is a very very serious matter, if it is translated wrongly, it causes severe defilement to oneself, for it misleads the Dharma seekers - this is the attitude all ancient Dharma masters taken.


Limitations of meditation/mindfulness without Vinaya Some teachers say that the meditation practice without the Vinaya is very limited on its achievments. That is equivalent of saying that lay meditators will have very limited results, even if he/she keeps the 5 precepts.

Can anyone explain what is the real difference? What gets limited by not following Vinaya?

PS: The teacher was Ajahn Chah, he was talking about retreat, even in retreat the lay person wont get so far because of Vinaya, there is only so much a lay men can develop in meditation (even in a retreat).

The basis of Vinaya is morality and taming the senses
Lack or morality (Sila / Vinaya) or hedonistic practices is based on unwholesome thoughts
Unwholesome thoughts result in unpleasantness (due to -ve fabrications and karmic formations) which is detrimental to meditation (Piti and Passadhi being an aid to meditation)
This also lead to verbal fabrication as most unwholesome thoughts lead to through proliferation which makes the mind harder to focus and also creating more fabrication.

Morality (Sila / Vinaya) is the basis of developing Samaddhi which helps developing Panna. So strong morality is needed.


What is the physics of the 'phenomena' of Nirvana? Although a lot has been said and written on the internet about Nirvana, the physics behind it seems to be an obscure and elusive area.

Human experience seems to be summed up in five-skandhas, dependent origination and six-sense bases.Existence of all of them seems to be physically provable. I want an answer based on such arguments for an e.g. interaction of skandhas etc.

Nibbana is also said to be 'unconditioned' phenomena, all that is made of Matter or contains Matter is 'conditioned'. If it is nothingness or emptiness, what is the underlying Physics?

Physics has not yet arrived at the definition and exact phenomena of Consciousness. It is called the hard problem of Consciousness. As of now, it has not been explained in terms of physical interaction or as an emergent phenomenon. Consciousness is the only thing that seems to transmute in Nirvana. I have long held the belief that 'Consciousness conscious of itself is Nirvana.

A blind, deaf, mute, senseless, touchless, everyone can get Nirvana but someone without consciousness cannot get Nirvana, that person is essentially dead. After Nirvana the person remains conscious, so what is it that essentially transmutes?

I am asking, what's the physics?

I am aware this is kind of a question that the Buddha discouraged to ask for e.g. in the Parable of Poisoned Arrow, but still, I have to ask.

In the case of the human mind (or any kind of mind), we're not talking as much about physics as about cognitive functions and the capacity for interpretation.

Chemistry emerges from Physics and physical phenomena; Biology emerges from chemistry; cognitive functions emerge from biology; language emerge from cognitive function; society emerge from language, and so on. Can we explain society just from laws of physics? The more complex are the new emergent processes, the less useful is to use "basic" laws to explain such new complex phenomena.

"Mind" is a term we use to describe and group all the processes that allow us to build interpretations about the world from sense-data, in orden to make some sense from it and to adapt to the ever changing world.

Emotions and mind-states in general are habitual responses that arise from how the mind has learnt to react under determined circumstances. And those reactions come from the nature of the interpretation built previously in the mind.

We have learnt to control and arrange in specific ways the conditions of the world in order to receive and specific kind of sense-data; namely, that which we perceive as desirable. Also, the opposite is true: we want to put away any part of the sense-data that might be perceived as undesirable.

The Buddhist Path is a gradual training for elininating cognitive ignorance and wrong interpretations about the world and reality, in order to eradicate the habitual emotional and mind-states reactions that lead to insatisfaction and suffering.

Nibbana is the state where, to be at peace, there's no need for an specific set of sense-data information. No matter what enters through the sense-doors, emotions and mind-states will no give rise to insatisfaction, because there's no need to arrange and control the world and the input of sense-data that comes from it. In other words, craving for sense-data and craving for specific states of the idea of the self are uprooted. Nibbana is peace without conditions.

Kind regards!