Was the influence of Taoism on Buddhism responsible for the development of Mahayana? In this Partially Examined Life podcast the presenters stated that when Buddhism moved into Chinese it naturally was influenced by the pre-existing Taoist philosophy which is uncontroversial. However they then when on to make this stronger claim that

  it was the influence of Taoism that was responsible for the
  development of Mahayana.

That is quite a claim and obviously the real position is more complex. However is there any truth in that statement? Was Taoism instrumental in the development of Mahayana Buddhism?

It is hard to assess half a sentence without a wider context, but I would interpret this as "it was the influence of Taoism that was responsible for the development [but not creation] of [some branches of] Mahayana[, more specifically, some of the Chinese ones]". And in this form the statement is true.

You seem to interpret it as "it was the influence of Taoism that was responsible for the development of Mahayana [in India, even before it reached the Chinese soil]". Which is a false statement.


How Lord Buddha's Way Make Me Out Of This Depression! I don't know If I should ask this here or not. But I am depressed enough and not able to find a way to get out of this situation to live life happily as I used to do before.

In my office I met a girl who is so stunning and met my expection which I wanted to see in my life partner. I then and there fallen in love with her without knowing anything about her life. After getting known by each other, I felt she also likes me. But something in my mind always ran than she is hiding something from me. One day somehow I get to know she is resigning and going to a different city. I asked her why she is resigning and leaving the city. She didn't ever told me the reason. She became very close to me and one day I asked her that I seriously think you are hiding something from me which I want to know. After requesting quit a few times, she told me that she is engaged and getting married to a guy who lives in the city she is going.

After that day, I can barely eat, drink and even breathe. I love her with everything I have, I saw all my life with her, now I am lost. I am not finding any ways to live life happily. I feel like I lost my purpose of life.

Is there any Lord Buddha's way that can take me out of this situation so that I can live again.

What you describe is suffering. Intense mental suffering. I am very sorry you are going through this and will try my best to help as I once went through something very similar and it was extremely unpleasant.

The true cause of your suffering is ignorance. In short, you are under the control of a delusion right now and the only way out is through knowledge and understanding of this delusion. You need to try and see the situation clearly with sober eyes.

So what is this delusion? This person you are so attached to and yearning/aching for... this woman of your dreams... she is utterly unreal just like a dream. She exists as nothing more than a figment if your fevered and frenzied imagination. You conjured her up based upon a whole slew of endless cravings and yearnings that you mistakenly believed would lead you to happiness and now you are discovering it only leads to suffering.

So what is the solution? Simple. You have to wake up from this dream of her and realize that she is utterly unreal just like a dream. When you realize she is nothing more than a mirage... the fever will dissipate and the attachment will dissolve.

How do you wake up? Also simple. Meditate on her to see her for what she really is: like an illusion.

Some suggestions:

Is she a fixed and permanent thing that never changes? Has she changed even slightly over the course of your relationship? Or is she changing moment by moment?
Is she really as perfect as you make her out to be? Consider all of her faults. Really look at them and don’t turn away.
Is she really capable of providing you lasting happiness? If that were true, then why are you so miserable right now?
Is she subject to aging, sickness and death? Is she going to die some day? Is your eventual parting from her an absolute guarantee?

I think if you really look you are going to find she does not exist as you have been imagining her. That imagination of her is just that: pure imagination. See that imagination for what it is and wake up from your day dream of her.

I really hope this helps!

Here is a video of Venerable Thubten Chodron giving a teaching on the above in a much more eloquent and useful way than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aq1fpjEe0Q Please have a look and see if it helps.


Pride and Shame in Buddhism Lately I've been noticing how often people in my everyday life mention being proud of themselves or their loved ones for some good effort or action or being ashamed of themselves (or decrying others should be ashamed of themselves) for some lack of good effort or bad action. Even in court precedings, it seems judges take into account whether or not the convicted is "showing remorse" when sentencing. It seems to be considered a positive thing to display your pride or even your shame when appropriate.

In my studies of Buddhism so far, I don't really recall learning anything specific about pride and shame but have only a vague notion that these emotions don't seem very "Buddhist"; maybe being related to ego or judgement.

Did the Buddha teach anything about pride and shame? Are they ever considered positive mind states in Buddhism?

Thank you.

Lokavipatti Sutta on the eight worldly winds:

  Monks, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.

  "For an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person there arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. For a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones there also arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. So what difference, what distinction, what distinguishing factor is there between the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person?"

  "..the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person..he welcomes the arisen gain and rebels against the arisen loss. He welcomes the arisen status and rebels against the arisen disgrace. He welcomes the arisen praise and rebels against the arisen censure. He welcomes the arisen pleasure and rebels against the arisen pain. As he is thus engaged in welcoming & rebelling, he is not released from birth, aging, or death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, or despairs. He is not released, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

  "..the disciple of the Noble ones does not welcome the arisen gain, or rebel against the arisen loss. He does not welcome the arisen status, or rebel against the arisen disgrace. He does not welcome the arisen praise, or rebel against the arisen censure. He does not welcome the arisen pleasure, or rebel against the arisen pain. As he thus abandons welcoming & rebelling, he is released from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is released, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

  "This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor between the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person."

I suppose before we gain enlightenment equipoise or equanimity would be the appropriate response, then again use Upaya-kaushalya (skilful means), if you have the wisdom


What is the appeal of not Re-incarnating? I understand that after death, the mind may move to a different plane of existance to be re-incarnated, but what is the appeal of moving to a different plane after death? Is it wrong to say that I'm satisfied with where I'm currently at?

The Buddha clearly rebuked the idea of consciousness/mind that runs and wanders on [from birth to birth] in Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (MN 38).

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

Birth(Jati) is caused by becomming (bhava).

"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.

Bhava Sutta: Becoming (AN 3.76)


aswaha and katawaha in Buddhism Anyone beleves in aswaha and katawaha? Is aswaha and katawaha defines in Buddhism? Can anyone explain is there any explanations

If this interpretation of those words of those words is correct, then FYI I think that is a common folk belief in non-Buddhist cultures too; for example:

don't jinx it

Anyone can explain this expresion to me? and in what context can I use it?

A jinx is a little like a magical spell, specifically to make something go wrong. It's often used to refer to something good that is hoped will happen, but that might not happen if you talk about it in advance. "Don't jinx it by talking about it."

Or this:

"How beautiful are the noble children! How large are their eyes! And so young too! Indeed, indeed, I might have remembered that the children of kings are men from the beginning."

Now, Tabaqui knew as well as anyone else that there is nothing so unlucky as to compliment children to their faces. It pleased him to see (the parents) look uncomfortable.

Or I can think of many other examples.

One possible (non-supernatural) explanation might be that things are likely to get "better" or "worse" by themselves, no matter what anyone says -- and anyone expecting a "good" state to continue might be mistaken.
For example, I once read another (non-Buddhism) aphorism, "good health is a temporary state which foretells nothing good" -- and I read something similar last night, though I forget where: the young Buddha telling an old man that only a fool would see their body as healthy.
A corollary might be that it's better might be that it's better not to say such things (i.e. if it's customary not to say such things then maybe this is one of the reasons for the custom). For example there's this story (which is maybe Zen or more possibly Taoist), about how it's wrong to predict the future (and predictions are often wrong).
Anther practical reason might be found in the (again, non-Buddhist) phrase: "Hope for the best but plan for the worst." If you're not aware of the possibility that things might (or will) go 'bad' then you have no plan to handle it or you're slow to recognize the need for that plan and put it into action.
Saying such a thing (e.g. "he is winning") might show an attachment to that thing (attachment to "his state-of-winning").


How can I change my perception to overcome reification? Reification is a way of conceptualization or objectification or mental modeling through which we form ideas, beliefs, and make an understanding of our surroundings. However, I saw a youtube video which explains that we have to overcome reification and/or social conditioning for spiritual enlightenment. But, the video does not explain the 'how'.
So, my question is, how can we change/work-on our perception of the surrounding/ environment/society/beliefs, etc so that we see things as they are, like 'yathabhutam'?

Brilliant video, agreed. (The first 9 minutes are really great, then he gets distracted and starts rambling.)
He answers your question right there in the video. He says, reifications are overcome by questioning them.
Let me explain in my own words.
Reifications is the substance the ego is made from. Since ego is a conglomerate of reifications, by overcoming the ego you overcome reifications and vice versa.
And how do you overcome the ego? By letting go of attachments, biases, prejudices, overgeneralizations.
How? Start by watching yourself in the middle of daily situations, watching your behavior and your mind, your state of mind, your emotions. See how you react, how you get angry or irritated or scared etc. See what situations and most importantly what thoughts trigger these reactions these states in you.
Then try and notice how in these situations the ego is trying to defend itself. The conglomerate of reifications is trying to defend itself by convincing itself that its reifications are right. It's a kind of feeding, upadana, the ego is feeding itself by cycling over these thoughts, by holding onto these reifications, prejudices, overgeneralizations and so on.
The more you watch it the better you see it, and then you should make a resolve to not allow the ego to keep on feeding and defending itself. You make a promise to yourself that every time you see your ego justify itself, you will challenge it.
For example, if you have a prejudice against dark-skinned people, you catch your ego holding on to it. You catch yourself feeding onto the thought "I'm better because my skin is lighter. I am more civilized." You notice how your ego tries to convince itself that it is better than someone else. As soon as you notice that, you stop it. You tell your ego: "not so fast, this is a reification. There are plenty of horrible people with white skin and plenty of highly evolved people with dark skin". Then you force yourself to behave in accordance with this understanding. You go and talk with dark-skinned people with  friendly love and friendly respect. Most importantly, you change your attitude.
Similarly in other situations, whenever you feel "it must be this way only and not another", "only this is good - the rest is bad", "only my opinion is valid, the other is not". All of these are reifications the ego feeds on. By systematically stalking and catching the ego in the middle of real life situations, social situations, especially the ones where you get emotional - you can recognize and overcome your reifications.
Once you develop the habit of doing this, your mind will automatically challenge its stereotypes and generalizations.
The most important point to understand, you don't need to be in a monastery in order to practice prajnaparamita. You must practice right in the middle of Samsara, because reifications are the very building blocks of Samsara itself. By working with reifications as they manifest in your emotional reactions in your everyday life you're not just learning to see things as they are - you are walking the real path to real Enlightenment.
P.S.
By the way, when the speaker in that video says that animals do not reify nor suffer, with all respect he is not well-informed on this detail. Animals do engage in semiosis and as all semiosis is essentially reification therefore animals do reify. For example when a bear smells honey and assumes that means food (an example of primitive semiosis), if he or she climbs a tree and finds an empty hive the bear's assumptions fail and there's arising of dukkha, of course! It's just not as deep and convoluted a tangle as it is with humans but animals absolutely do reify and suffer.


People get sick and die next to me - my karma? If people i care about get sick a lot and die a lot  -  is it part of my karma to experience this ?  is there a name for this type of karma ?  anything that can be added on this subject will be appreciated

Now my grandfather is in the hospital  - so its his bad karma to be there -  but is it also part of my karma cause i suffer from him being there   (and yes i dont have to suffer from it and can use it as even a good thing but its not my question)

Your grandfather in the hospital is not because of bad karma. It is because of the aging & decaying of the physical body. The Blessed One declared:

All that is dear & beloved there must be change, separation & severance. Of that which is born, come into being, compounded & subject to decay, how can one say: 'May it not come to dissolution!'
Mindful and clearly comprehending, reflect in this way: 'Impermanent are all compounded things. How could this be otherwise?'
Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha

Buddhism states, even when there is death, the good karma a person has done will bring good results & the bad karma person has done will bring bad results. Therefore, when your grandfather is in hospital, you should think about the good karma your grandfather did in his life. To quote:

These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions
under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body,
after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
destination, the lower realms, in hell.
But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and
undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the
break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good
destinations, in the heavenly world.
Bhaya-bherava Sutta: Fear & Terror

If your grandfather dies, you must think about his good karma and you must make merits & dedications for him. The scriptures state:

In five ways, a child should minister to his parents:
(i) Having supported me I shall support them,
(ii) I shall do their duties,
(iii) I shall keep the family tradition,
(iv) I shall make myself worthy of my inheritance,
(v) furthermore I shall make offerings in honor of my departed relatives.
Sigalovada Sutta: The Layperson's Code of Discipline

In conclusion, the only bad karma that is occurring is your not having right view in the mind about the Dhamma. Even if your grandfather in hospital causes you grief & sadness, as a Buddhist, you must also have Dhamma in your mind, as the Buddha taught, as follows:

There are these five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained. Which five?
1. 'All are subject to aging. Have I gone beyond [am I peace with] aging?
2. 'All are subject to illness. Have I gone beyond illness?'
3. 'All are subject to death. Have I gone beyond death?'
4. I will eventually be separated from all that is dear and appealing to me.'
5. 'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for ill, to that I will be the heir.'
Upajjhatthana Sutta: Subjects for Contemplation
Click here for Alternate translation.


Best meditation techniques (mindfulness,vipassana,yoga,zazen,TM,etc) to beat behavioral addictions (food,sex,porn,gambling,internet,videogames,etc)? For a layman who wants to overcome behavioral addictions (i.e. any "addiction that involves a compulsion to engage in a rewarding non-drug-related behavior – sometimes called a natural reward", such as food, sex, pornography, gambling, internet, video games, etc.):

Which meditation techniques are the most recommendable?
Additionally, given the fact that an average layman cannot afford going full-time monk, what would be a recommendable frequency (in terms of minutes/hours per day) to see palpable results in a reasonable time?

Furthermore:

Is a single meditation technique enough to overcome behavioral addictions? Or would it better to practice multiple meditation techniques at the same time? Or maybe different meditation techniques for different situations? For instance, are there any special meditation techniques to handle strong, compulsive urges in the presence of addiction cues/triggers?

Finally:

Is meditation as a whole enough, or would one need to complement it with other non-meditative practices or measures? For example, positive affirmations, hypnosis, or maybe going to a therapist, exercising, sleeping 8+ hours, etc. I'm just throwing some ideas around.

OP: For a layman who wants to overcome behavioral addictions, ...
  which meditation techniques are the most recommendable?

Please see this answer about a video talk by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu on addiction to pornography and addiction in general. That answer also states:

  The other technique he proposes is to watch your mind for triggers and
  observe how lust arises in the mind and recognize it (basically
  insight meditation). You can find more info on this in his chapter
  entitled "Daily Life" of his booklet "How To Meditate".

I believe this technique can be applied to most, if not all, addictions.

  OP: Additionally, given the fact that an average layman cannot afford going full-time monk, what would be a recommendable frequency
  (in terms of minutes/hours per day) to see palpable results in a
  reasonable time?

Please see this question for good answers.

  OP: Is a single meditation technique enough to overcome behavioral addictions? Or would it better to practice multiple meditation
  techniques at the same time? Or maybe different meditation techniques
  for different situations?

One way suggested by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu to overcome sexual addiction is to mentally take apart and analyze the parts of the body (the so-called contemplation on unattractiveness or asubha). You can find some info in this question and this question. But also see this answer - this type of contemplation should be replaced with the mindfulness of breathing if it triggers negative thoughts of suicide.

The other technique he proposes is to watch your mind for triggers and observe how lust arises in the mind and recognize it (basically insight meditation). You can find more info on this in his chapter entitled "Daily Life" of his booklet "How To Meditate".

So, here you have two techniques for sexual addition.

Regarding food addiction, you can try the insight method above, or the gradual food reduction method in this answer.

  OP: Is meditation as a whole enough, or would one need to complement it with other non-meditative practices or measures?

The practice of the five precepts and virtue (sila) with heedfulness (appamada) is recommended. In addition, eating, sleeping, consuming entertainment and socializing should be done in moderation.

You can find this in the "Daily Life" chapter of Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's booklet "How to Meditate":

  Meditation is meant to cultivate clarity and understanding, free from
  addiction, aversion, and delusion, and therefore free from suffering.
  Since certain bodily and verbal acts are intrinsically tied to
  negative qualities of mind, they are considered ‘contraindicative’ to
  the meditation practice; they have an effect opposite to what is
  desired, cultivating defilement instead of purity. Meditators who
  insist on engaging in such behaviour will face great difficulty in
  their practice, developing habits that are detrimental to both
  meditation practice and personal well-being. To ensure the mind is
  perfectly clear and capable of understanding reality, certain
  behaviours must be taken out of one’s “diet”, so to speak.

  First, there are five kinds of action from which one must refrain
  completely, as they are inherently unwholesome:

  One must refrain from killing living beings. In order to cultivate one’s own well-being, one must be dedicated to well-being as a
  principle, refraining from killing any living being, even ants,
  mosquitoes and other living beings.
  One must refrain from theft. In order to find peace of mind, we must grant it to others as well; stealing is a denial of this basic
  right to security. Further, if we wish to be free from addiction, we
  must be able to control our desires to the extent of respecting the
  possessions of others.
  One must abstain from committing adultery or sexual misconduct. Romantic relationships that are emotionally or spiritually damaging to
  others, due to existing commitments of the parties involved, are a
  cause for stress and suffering and based on perversion of the mind.
  One must refrain from telling lies. If one wishes to find truth, one must avoid falsehood; intentionally leading others away from the
  truth is harmful both to oneself and others and incompatible with the
  goals of meditation.
  One must refrain from taking drugs or alcohol. Any substance that intoxicates the mind is obviously contraindicative to meditation
  practice, as it is the antithesis of a natural, clear state of being.

  Complete abstention from these activities is necessary if one wishes
  for meditation practice to be successful, due to their inherently
  unwholesome nature and the invariably negative effect they have on the
  mind.

  Further, there are certain activities that must be moderated or they
  will interfere with meditation practice. These are activities that are
  not necessarily unwholesome in and of themselves but will nonetheless
  inhibit clarity of mind and lessen the benefit of the meditation
  practice when undertaken in excess.

  One such activity is eating; if one wishes to truly progress in the
  meditation practice, one must be careful not to eat too much or too
  little. If one is constantly obsessed with food, it can be a great
  hindrance to progress in meditation since not only does it cloud the
  mind, over-eating leads to drowsiness, both in the body and mind. One
  should eat to stay alive rather than stay alive simply to eat. During
  intensive meditation courses, meditators eat one main meal per day and
  suffer no negative physical consequences as a result; whereas the
  positive effects of such moderation are clarity of mind and freedom
  from obsession over food.

  Another activity that interferes with meditation practice is
  entertainment – watching movies, listening to music, and so on. These
  occupations are not inherently unwholesome but can easily create
  states of addiction when undertaken in excess.

  Addiction is a form of insobriety in a sense, since it involves
  chemical processes in the brain that inhibit clear thought and clarity
  of mind. Since the pleasure that comes from entertainment is momentary
  and unsatisfying while the addiction and obsession carry over into
  one’s life, a serious meditator should determine to make the best use
  of their short time in this life by cultivating peace and contentment,
  rather than wasting it on meaningless activities that don’t lead to
  long term happiness and peace. If one wishes to find true happiness,
  one must therefore moderate one’s engagement in entertainment.
  Socializing on the Internet and similar activities should be
  undertaken in moderation as well.

  The third activity one must moderate is that of sleeping. Sleeping is
  an addiction that is often overlooked; most people don’t realize how
  attached they are to sleep as a means of escape from reality. Still
  others become insomniac, obsessed with the thought that they are not
  getting “enough” sleep, leading to increased stress levels and further
  difficulty in falling asleep.

  Through the meditation practice, one will find that one needs less
  sleep than before since one’s mind will become calmer. Insomnia is not
  a problem for meditators since they are able to meditate even in the
  lying position and keep their minds free from stress. People who have
  difficulty falling asleep should train themselves to watch the stomach
  rise and fall, noting “rising”, “falling”, all night if necessary.
  Even if they are not able to fall asleep (which is unlikely, given the
  calm state of mind while meditating) they will find themselves as
  rested as if they had slept soundly through the night.

  Finally, it is worth mentioning that to truly gain results in the
  meditation practice, a meditator should set aside at least a period of
  time to remain entirely celibate, not just avoiding immoral sexual
  activity, since all sexual activity is invariably intoxicating and
  will be a hindrance towards attainment of mental clarity and peace.


How long does it take for one to remember a previous life in a sitting? I have always wondered how long does it take for one to remember a past life in a sitting, an immediate previous life for example, does it take just a few minutes, or hours or maybe days?

This answer briefed the following way to remember past lives:

Obtain the four rūpa-jhānas.
Exit the fourth jhāna and remember the last thing one did before one sat down.
Remember the last thing before the thing remembered in the last step. If at any time, one is unable to remember a given experience, one should revert to step one, and after leaving the fourth jhāna attempt to continue where one left off.
Repeat step 3 until one is able to remember the first moment of conception.
Attempt to remember the last moment before conception (i.e. the death moment).

Look at step 3, you have to remember the previous thing, and previous, and previous... Wow, how long would it take? Do we need to skip some huge steps (maybe 10 years of one's childhood) ? Or maybe the mind work lightningly faster when you are in that recollecting mode?

Personally I do not have any experience (I also like to have it though). Anyway according to my understanding the most difficult part is not step 3, it is step 1. Obtain the four rūpa-jhānas. If you can do it, I think the 3rd step is relatively easy compared to the 1st one.

If you somehow managed to go back to your previous life, then going backward from there is considered as relatively easy. Moving this life to previous one is the difficult task (As I have heard).

I heard several "Dhamma" talks around this topic and according to them if you are a good meditator and if you can practice the meditation most of the time, it is suggested a couple of years (it pretty much depends on you and your past Kamma).

Further, generally Buddhist meditators do not practice meditation focusing on getting these abilities.


Are the clinging aggregates the cause of clinging after death? There are five clinging aggregates.
Here it states that one's self clings to the five aggregates. To quote:

  "It's just as when a dog is tied by a leash to a post or stake: If it
  walks, it walks right around that post or stake. If it stands, it
  stands right next to that post or stake. If it sits, it sits right
  next to that post or stake. If it lies down, it lies down right next
  to that post or stake.

  "In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person regards form
  as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' He regards
  feeling… perception… fabrications… consciousness as: 'This is mine,
  this is my self, this is what I am.' If he walks, he walks right
  around these five clinging-aggregates. If he stands, he stands right
  next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he sits, he sits right next
  to these five clinging-aggregates. If he lies down, he lies down right
  next to these five clinging-aggregates. Thus one should reflect on
  one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been
  defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the
  mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings
  purified.

It is clear that one clings to the five aggregates during his or her life time.
But after death the five aggregates dissolve.

My question is : are the clinging aggregates the cause of clinging after death? (Just as one clings to his own existence after death and takes rebirth)

The last mind in previous life is anantara-cause of the after-life-mind.

The previous life, mind&mind factors&forms, is pakatūpanissaya-cause of the after-life.

The previous kamma is nānakkhanikkakamma-cause of the after-life.

The previous life is ārammaṇa-cause of the after-life.

All above is clinging aggregate.

Read: http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_8.htm


Does suffering motivate us to achieve our goals? Here's an interesting situation.

Let's say we have to persons. Tom and Happy. Both have the same desire: "I want a new car." The strength of their desires are equal. Tom lives in universe A, Happy lives in universe B. Both universes are exact copies of each other, everything is the same, timeline is the same, events are all the same, everything,.. Tom and Happy are copies of each other, clones, but there's just one little difference between the two universes: Tom suffers, Happy does not suffer.

Tom suffers: "I have an old car with bad engine and that's why I'm not happy. I want a new car."

Happy does not suffer: "I have an old car with bad engine and I'm happy. I want a new car."

Both persons want a new car for the same reasons: "Because it's old and has a bad engine."

The only difference between Tom and Happy is that Tom is suffering because of his old car with a bad engine; and Happy is not suffering because of his old car with bad engine. There are no other differences between Tom and Happy and the two universes they live in.

We can see that both Tom and Happy have the same motives for getting a new car: old car with bad engine.

If Tom and Happy have the same motives for getting a new car, both will exert the same amount of energy to get a new car. So, both will do the same exact actions in their universes to get a new car. So, both will get a new car at exactly the same time.

But Tom has one motive more than Happy: Tom is suffering! Does that mean that Tom will get a new car quicker than Happy?! If Tom has more motives than Tom, than it's logical that Tom will be more proactive in getting a new car than Happy? So, the question is: who will get a new car quicker, Tom or Happy?

The real question is: is suffering a motivator? Is suffering a motivator only if the amount of suffering does not go over a specific threshold? Or is suffering not a motivator? If suffering is a motivator, than it does not make sense to completely remove it, because if you remove it, you will be less proactive to reach your goals in life? What did Buddha say above this? I'm a beginner and I'm sorry if I don't understand, I hope someone can shed some light on this topic. Thanks

In your example you stated that both Tom and Happy had cars that had bad engines.

Tom was unhappy and Happy was okay with it.

So right from the beginning we can see that their happiness did not depend on whether or not they had bad engines but their reaction to it.

Therefore one must apply the same conclusion to the outcome of getting a new car.It's not about who gets the new car first,it's their reaction to it.

Happiness depends on reactions to circumstances.Not circumstances themselves.

Is suffering a motivator?

Yes absolutely.When the Siddhatta saw suffering he decided to pursue the spiritual life.Sometimes living in deva like bliss masks the true nature of reality.That it is impermanent,not self,and suffering.

Is suffering a motivator only if the amount of suffering does not go over a specific threshold?

Yes that is why the human realm is the best place to practice the dhamma.One has their fair share of happiness and suffering.It is balanced to some extent.

If suffering is a motivator, than it does not make sense to completely remove it, because if you remove it, you will be less proactive to reach your goals in life?

That's like saying bleeding will motivate you to bandage yourself.But if you do bandage yourself,then the bleeding will stop,then how are you going to bandage yourself..??

Removing suffering is the goal.


Studying the subject "the four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets" (Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Cittamātra, Mādhyamika) in English I am one of the (Taiwanese) fans of the Dalai Lama for a long time. Currently I am studying the subject "the four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets (of mainly Indian Buddhism before its decline)" both in Chinese (but actually translations from Tibetan) and in English, wishing to learn and to grow like the Dalai Lama.
"The four Buddhist schools/systems of tenets" are standardly named: Vaibhashika (Skt. Vaibhāṣika), Sautrantika (Skt. Sautrāntika), Chittamatra (Skt. Cittamātra), Madhyamika (Skt. Mādhyamika).
I am having the following questions and looking for guidance and/or instruction.

What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most easily-learnable or learner-friendly?

What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most rigorously- and detailedly- and thoroughly- written?

What English book(s) or document or study material on the subject is(/are) the most faithful and accurate and precise presentation(s) of real historical facts?

Thank you in advance.

I would recommend Insight into Emptiness by by Khensur Jampa Tegchok and Thubten Chodron. This book discusses the tenets of all four of these schools and compares and contrasts them. Further, the authors are of the same branch of Tibetan Buddhism as His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the latter author also works very closely with the Dalai Lama and is a co-author with him on many books for the western audience.
Here are images of some handy charts you can find in this book that talk about the four schools views:


Where can I find the "10 merits of life liberation" in the Tripitaka? I searched, but I couldn't find, where these "10 merits of life liberation" are included in the Tripitaka.

Here you can find the "10 merits" I mentioned: Why do Buddhists practise life liberation?

There is also a Pali verse I found about this, but it's not in English, and also I don't study Buddhism in English normally -- so'll be thankful if anyone can point out where it is in the tripitaka.

I guess it may be in the therapadana part, according to that Pali verse -- I can't write it clearly in English letters as I found it only in Sinhala letters, but nearly it's like this:

  abhayadanan dhatwana - jaththuno bhayajjite
  dasanisanse anubhomi - kammanuchchawike mama

This is a bit delicate, because the list of ten you have mentioned includes statements such as:

  One will have abundant offsprings for future generations.
  One will easily attain what one wishes.

With #4, since monastics are generally celibate as part of the Vinaya, there would be no "abundant offspring" in the literal sense. Perhaps in the spiritual sense would might have "offspring", but with the wording, that would be a bit of a stretch.

With #5, this also a bit in contradiction with all the suttas such as SN12.23 that clearly state that craving leads to suffering. Wishing is a tricky word to use. One might wish for a Ferrari or one might wish for a spiritual path.

Compare your referenced list of ten with a list of ten from the DN33 sutta:

  A mendicant has given up five factors, possesses six factors, has a single guard, has four supports, has eliminated idiosyncratic interpretations of the truth, has totally given up searching, has unsullied intentions, has stilled the physical process, and is well freed in mind and well freed by wisdom.

Indeed, why would a Liberated One wish for anything? Grasping a wish, one searches for the fulfillment of that wish. And above we have clearly stated that there is no more searching.

Note, that one might argue that the list you've quoted is a list for lay practitioners. However even here, we have AN8.61 with Ugga the Householder happily choosing celibacy:

  I’ve undertaken the five training rules with celibacy as fifth

I would recommend reading AN8.61 yourself to understand how far the list you have linked differs from what the Pali Canon shows in the suttas.

When lay instructions differ from monastic instructions it is always good to understand the differences so that we our practice progress rather than regresses.

Advantage #5 is very close to the following quote from DN33. Yet the following quote provides more context. One must be ethical and pure.

  The heart’s wish of an ethical person succeeds because of their purity.

This is a very important consideration. When we live by violence, that is impure. WHen we give fearlessness, we are being ethical. So item #5 should be read in the context of being ethical. It does not stand alone.

DN33 goes on to say:

  If only, when my body breaks up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of well-to-do aristocrats or brahmins or householders!

So yes, in the context of Right View, one will easily attain what one wishes simply because what one wishes for is Right. This is where the precepts come in for lay practitioners:

  It’s when a noble disciple doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or use alcoholic drinks that cause negligence
  --an5.179

The following warning from DN33 also indicates that being rich, young and healthy and having abundant offspring is a temporary condition with uncertain outcome. One must focus on Right View:

  It is not because of endowment with family, wealth, or health that sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.
  It is because of endowment with ethics or view that sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.

The list of 10 therefore does have concrete roots in the suttas. The suttas mostly deal with monastic study. They do also have instruction for lay practitioners. The lay instructions are usually quite terse and somewhat restrictive. Indeed, many lay practitioners would have trouble following the first five precepts (e.g., avoid alchohol?). Because of this, one might list out the advantages of following the first five precepts. I believe the list you have referenced is one such list. It is a list of advantages to be gained from following the path of:

Right View
Right Thought
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Livelihood
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Immersion


Can we reach enlightentment with recreational drugs? Some drugs, like ecstasy, help build empathy and help our mind see things from a different point of view.

What about if meditation is the obsolete ways to see enlightment and perhaps drugs are the easier ways?

From the perspective of the 5th precept then the answer would be no. The fifth precepts states

  I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that
  causes heedlessness

But I've often seen this rendered as

  I undertake the training rule to abstain from intoxicating substances

While the fact that it breaks the precept might leave you unconvinced these precepts are viewed as training principles i.e. it is the best way to achieve liberation or enlightenment. So in many traditions intoxicants are not seen as an aide to liberation.

Also the point of the Buddhist path is to see things as they really are. It's difficult to see how one might see things as they really are when one's mental processes are been influenced by recreational drugs of any sort. Reality is difficult enough as it is without dulling, altering or confusing the six senses (I'm including mind here as one of the senses).

The founder of the the sangha that I practice with, Sangharakshita, has taken psychedelic drugs on a couple of occasions to see if there are commonalities with the Buddhist path. From his perspective there wasn't though I believe he found the experience interesting. I have to say this was a controversial action by an often controversial figure. I have never heard any recommendations from him to try this approach so this would be another reason that I would personally discount recreational drug use as an insight practice.

As an aside, the beatnik guru Alan Watts (another contraversial figure) had a more sympathetic attitude to this approach. The most famous quote (which I will include with a little context) is

  Psychedelic experience is only a glimpse of genuine mystical insight,
  but a glimpse which can be matured and deepened by the various ways of
  meditation in which drugs are no longer necessary or useful. If you
  get the message, hang up the phone. For psychedelic drugs are simply
  instruments, like microscopes, telescopes, and telephones. The
  biologist does not sit with eye permanently glued to the microscope,
  he goes away and works on what he has seen

So even Alan Watts wasn't a whole-hearted proponent of this approach. He saw them as a tool at best and in no way replacing meditation or other traditional insight methods. Just to be clear though - Alan Watts wasn't a traditional Buddhist if he was one at all so this comment though interesting has probably limited relevance to this site. Please see it as a footnote to this answer.


What are the main differences between Buddhism and Ellen Langer's 'scientific mindfulness'? Ellen Langer has an interesting passage in her book on mindfulness claiming that her work is significantly different than 'spiritual buddhism' because it comes from the Western Scientific tradition.

  “Mindfulness East and West

    The definitions of mindfulness in this chapter, especially the process orientation just discussed, will remind many readers of various concepts of mindfulness found in Eastern religion. Students in my classes who are knowledgeable about such fields are continually drawing parallels. While there are many similarities, the differences in the historical and cultural background from which they are derived, and the more elaborate methods, including meditation, through which a mindful state is said to be achieved in the Eastern traditions should make us cautious about drawing comparisons that are too tidy.

    My work on mindfulness has been conducted almost entirely within the Western scientific perspective. Initially, my focus was on mindlessness and its prevalence in daily life. As can be seen in the order of chapters so far in this book, the notion of mindfulness develops gradually by looking at aspects of mindlessness and then at the other side of the coin. Only after a series of experiments demonstrating the costs of rigid mindsets and single-minded perspectives do I begin to explore the enormous potential benefits of a mindful attitude in aging, health, creativity, and the workplace.

    Behind Eastern teachings of mindfulness lies an elaborate an elaborate system of cosmology developed and refined over time. The moral aspect of mindfulness (the idea that the mindful state achieved through meditation will lead to spontaneous right action12) is an essential part of these philosophies. It reaches into matters too complex for the scope of this book. Since many qualities of the Eastern concepts of mindfulness and of the one being described in this book are strikingly similar, however, we might hope that some of the moral consequences striven for by the Eastern disciplines might also result from mindfulness as understood in this Western form and context.

    As an example of the semantic and philosophical tangles that arise if we try to compare Eastern and Western views of the mindful state, consider the activity of creating new categories. While this is a form of mindfulness in our definition, it appears to be in direct opposition to what one does during meditation.13 In meditation, the mind becomes quieter and active thought is discouraged. In some forms of meditation, thoughts and images that come to mind are considered unimportant and are relinquished as soon as one discerns their presence. At the same time, in many Eastern views, the[…]”

  Excerpt From: Ellen J. Langer. “Mindfulness.” iBooks.

What are these big differences?

Do you have the passage? If you posted an excerpt it would be easier to answer the question.

But "scientific Buddhism", or Buddhist philosophy and practices adapted to fit a Western, secular audience, is not new. The Dhamma talks I've heard from teachers on retreat at places like the Insight Meditation Center in Massachusetts, focus much less on formal scripture and avoid metaphysics or the supernatural. Since the Buddha himself spent a lot of time de-emphasizing metaphysical questions, this is an easy step to take. Sam Harris has an entire book (Waking Up) that tries to convince skeptical, secular Westerners to practice Buddhist meditation.

On the plus side, this kind of approach cuts away the cultural baggage that grows up around any religious institution. Buddhism works perfectly well without spirits, devas, or reincarnation, and in this form it is easier for modern people to work with. Using the scientific method as a check on the woo-woo and wishful thinking that can corrupt spirituality is also a big benefit. (Does practice increase happiness? is a testable question, and it's reassuring that science seems to say "yes".)

On the minus side, emphasizing medical research showing that meditation and mindfulness are correlated with lower blood pressure, reduced stress, blah blah blah, risks taking a very thorough and rich spiritual tradition and turning it into a relaxation technique. Even people like Sam Harris, who take things like no-self seriously, throw out a lot of serious introspection in their attempt to strip things down.


What does 'Ignorance' mean in Dependent Co-Arising? A while ago I wrote a question here about the relation between dukkha and the sense of self (whether from identity view, from conceit or both). There, most answers said that, indeed, that sense of self was at the root of all forms of dukkha.

Now I want to ask some things related to that: I know that that sense of self is part of what we call ignorance (avijja) in buddhism. And at the same time I know that the first link of the Dependent Co-Arising (or Dependent Origination, DO) is Ignorance.

Is ignorance only referred to the illusion of the sense of self?

Is ignorance in the DO just referring to that sense of self?

Are the rest of the distortions (vipallasa) of the mind (seeing the impermanent as permanent, the unsatisfactory as satisfactory, and the unlovely as lovely) included in the definition of ignorance?

If the answer to the last question is "yes", then can we say that not all forms of dukkha arise because of a sense of self, but rather from ignorance in general, i.e. from the distortions of the mind?

Thanks in advance for your time and patience.

Is ignorance in the DO just referring to that sense of self?

No. The sense of self is 'born' at the 10th link of Dependent Co-Origination, preceeded by 'becoming/tendencies' (bhavā), that is, sensual becoming (kama bhavā), form becoming (rupa bhavā) & formless becoming (arupa bhavā)
Since the four noble truths are a condensed version of dependent-co origination, I would suppose that 'Ignorance' means lack of knowledge of the 4 noble truths, as follows:

Bhikkhu, not knowing suffering, not knowing the origin of suffering, not knowing the cessation of suffering, not knowing the way leading to the cessation of suffering: this is called ignorance, bhikkhu, and it is in this way that one is immersed in ignorance.

SN 56.17
This said, not comprehending the four noble truths also entails a lack of insight into the 3 characteristics (especially anatta & anicca), & obviously a lack of 'Right View':

The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises.
"Clear knowing is the leader in the attainment of skillful qualities, followed by conscience & concern. In a knowledgeable person, immersed in clear knowing, right view arises. In one of right view, right resolve arises. In one of right resolve, right speech... In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration arises."

Note: This is just sutta knowledge, but no personal verification of Dependent Co-Origination.


Which consciousness/es are involved in meta-congnition (thinking about thinking)? Which consciousness/es are involved in meta-congnition (thinking about thinking)? And can the skandhas exist without them?

I'm asking because I'm interested in whether animals without metacognition have skandhas.

1. mana-āyatana is 7 viññāṇa-dhātu (7 mana-āyatana) that is dvāra of mano-viññāṇa

In tipitaka of theravāda-buddhism, viññāṇa in mano-dvāra are called thinking.

Viññāṇa generally translated as "consciousness" in english-tradition. This is a terrible translation, because when we compare viññāṇa with english in sense article, viññāṇa is not just the consciousness, but consciousness is the part of viññāṇa. There seem to be:

Six viññāṇa, such as seeing, etc. = Six sense, not just
consciousness, however consciousness is included  in the part of
sixth viññāṇa, too.
Six dvāra, such as eye, etc. = Six sense-organ.
Six object, such as color, etc. = Six sense-data.

The sixth dvāra called mano, that is enumerated to 7 viññāṇa/mano in 18 dhātu, such as cakkhu-viññāṇa/mano, etc. for describe mano in 12 āyatna. A cakkhu-viññāṇa arises at eye-dvāra to see a color-object. But when mano-viññāṇa will arise to think about that color-object, which was saw by that vanished cakkhu-viññāṇa, mano-viññāṇa will not arise at the eye-dvāra. Because the dvāra of mano-viññāṇa is not the cakkhu-dvāra, but the pāli said that mano is  dvāra of mano-viññāṇa. So, when mano-viññāṇa thinking about a color-object, it thinking at cakkhu-mano, cakkhu-viññāṇa. So, first viññāṇa at mano-dvāra is called mano-dvāra-āvajjana. And so, mano-viññāṇa is called "mano"-viññāṇa. Therefore,  Mano-viññāna is a thinking about a saw color, a heard sound, a smelled smell, a tasted taste, a touched touching, and a thought thinking.

So, in abhidhamma said that mano, viññāṇa, manoviññāṇa are the synonym. But they are used by buddha in difference function in each pali context, for avoiding the  confusion of homograph and for briefing the word, such as 7 viññāna-āyatana brief to mano-āyatana, to make new word "mano-viññāṇa-dhātu", buddha is very intelligence!

Another, there is someone maybe teach consciousness is not thinking, because he has a weak pāli skill and never listen anyone around him. Especially, he never recite tipitaka, follow buddha's order, in A.N. Pañcakanipāta, to recite the teaching. This case often happen with the western professor, because they have a superego in their mind, so they always close their ear and their mind to learn the others' views. So, he never notice this pali's relationship. And he just always told that consciousness is not thinking, although consciousness is one part of mano-viññāna.

However, this case also happen to thai tipitaka translation, too. So, I often remind everyone to recite tipitaka in pāli, especially before teaching something.  Especially when you listening the translate version of tipitaka, especially, from the western professor.

2. Asaññā-satta an nirodha-samāpatti-attaining-person can live without any viññāṇa.


What are the Four Immeasurables (aka Four Noble Abodes)? Also known as the Four Noble Dwellings or the Buddhist Virtues or the Brahmaviharas.  Where in the Pali Canon are these described?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara the Four Noble Abodes are:

Loving-kindness (Pāli: mettā, Sanskrit: maitrī) towards all: the hope that a person will be well; "the wish that all sentient beings, without any exception, be happy."

Compassion (Pāli and Sanskrit: karuṇā): the hope that a person's sufferings will diminish; "the wish for all sentient beings to be free from suffering."

Empathetic joy (Pāli and Sanskrit: mudita): joy in the accomplishments of a person—oneself or another; sympathetic joy; "the wholesome attitude of rejoicing in the happiness and virtues of all sentient beings."

Equanimity (Pāli: upekkhā, Sanskrit: upekṣā): learning to accept loss and gain, good-repute and ill-repute, praise and censure, sorrow and happiness (Attha Loka Dhamma), all with detachment, equally, for oneself and for others. Equanimity is "not to distinguish between friend, enemy or stranger, but regard every sentient being as equal. It is a clear-minded tranquil state of mind—not being overpowered by delusions, mental dullness or agitation."

According to the Metta Sutta, Shākyamuni Buddha held that cultivation of the four immeasurables has the power to cause the practitioner to be reborn into a Brahma realm (Pāli: Brahmaloka)

According to: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel006.html:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.

They are found in the Pali Canon in Digha Nikaya 13:
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel006.html

The Basic Passage on the Four Sublime States from the Discourses of the Buddha
I. Here, monks, a disciple dwells pervading one direction with his heart filled with loving-kindness, likewise the second, the third, and the fourth direction; so above, below and around; he dwells pervading the entire world everywhere and equally with his heart filled with loving-kindness, abundant, grown great, measureless, free from enmity and free from distress.
II. Here, monks, a disciple dwells pervading one direction with his heart filled with compassion, likewise the second, the third and the fourth direction; so above, below and around; he dwells pervading the entire world everywhere and equally with his heart filled with compassion, abundant, grown great, measureless, free from enmity and free from distress.
III. Here, monks, a disciple dwells pervading one direction with his heart filled with sympathetic joy, likewise the second, the third and the fourth direction; so above, below and around; he dwells pervading the entire world everywhere and equally with his heart filled with sympathetic joy, abundant, grown great, measureless, free from enmity and free from distress.
IV. Here, monks, a disciple dwells pervading one direction with his heart filled with equanimity, likewise the second, the third and the fourth direction; so above, below and around; he dwells pervading the entire world everywhere and equally with his heart filled with equanimity, abundant, grown great, measureless, free from enmity and free from distress.


Questions from 21-st century's Milinda The Lotus Sutra’s parable of the burning house imagines inhabitants of a house in fire. They do not register the dangerous situation and therefore  “the thought of getting out does not occur to them”.
Later on, the Lotus Sutra ascribes the following comment to Buddha: “Even there, in that threefold universe that is like a burning house, they enjoy themselves and run about. For though they are being afflicted by a great deal of suffering, the thought that they are suffering does not occur to them.”

I imagine a 21-st century Milinda brought up in critical thinking. He is alike to the elder Milinda in his attitude of questioning, but - different from him – today’s Milinda is not willing to accept a bunch of metaphors as a sufficent answer.

21-st century Milinda has no remembrance of past lifes. He does not expect a future life. In addition, he has learned to accept: Present life is not arranged to primarily satisfy human wishes. He asks his modern "Nagasena":

If I do not suffer from rebirth: Why worry about rebirth?
If I do not remember any actions in past lifes: Why worry about karma?
If I expect that death - quite naturally - ends the life of all beings: Why worry about nirvana?
I distinguish between questions with answer and questions without: Why strive for enlightenment due to meditation?

I'd hazard a guess that if the Ven. Nagasena were around today he might respond with something as follows:

1) Just because you don't know that you have a problem doesn't mean there isn't one.

2) One cannot conclude that something in the past didn't happen just because you don't remember it. For example, I don't have any memories of being an infant or being born but that doesn't mean that I never was.

3) One should be concerned about Nirvana because it is not some sort of prize after death, but a reality that is fully realizable in the here and now.

4) One should strive for enlightenment through meditation because meditation is a necessary part of the spiritual practice. Without it one cannot expect to attain anything.


Does samatha practice always come before vipassana practice? In my tradition (Triratna) there is a big emphasis of a lot of samatha practice before any vipassana practice. This has always made sense to me. However is this universal in all Buddhist schools? Are there any Buddhist schools that do minimal or even no samatha practice? Does anyone jump straight into vipassana?

While different traditions might emphasize one over the other, they all need a certain level of development for both:

  "These two qualities have a share in clear knowing. Which two? Tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana).
  "When tranquillity is developed, what purpose does it serve? The mind is developed. And when the mind is developed, what purpose does it serve? Passion is abandoned.
  "When insight is developed, what purpose does it serve? Discernment is developed. And when discernment is developed, what purpose does it serve? Ignorance is abandoned.
  "Defiled by passion, the mind is not released. Defiled by ignorance, discernment does not develop. Thus from the fading of passion is there awareness-release. From the fading of ignorance is there discernment-release." AN 2.30

About the order of development, it could be in any order:

  "There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquillity...Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight...Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight" AN 4.170


What might be the long therm effects of ignoring ones duties? There are those who not only deny one's faults as a "Dhammic" approach, but  also are very anti-social (absence of gratitude and dutyfullness), with tendencies found in "I don't like people but I like buddhism" and certain answers. This attitude seem common given modern consumerism and individualism, yet ignores the fact that material goods have no goodness but are dependent on people's voluntary or forced sacrifices.

So is it with some "Buddhists". There is no Buddhism without gratitude for people who sacrificed a lot that is not possible to repay. How can such an attitude of "I don't like people but I like 'food'" ever justify itself?

What might be the long term effects for people of such wrong views and trained to consumerism/householder-equanimity?

What will be the bill to pay, sooner or later, for grave wrong view?

(note that this is not given for exchange, trade, stacks or nourishing bonds to the world but for liberation)

In AN6.54 there was an ungrateful monk Dhammika, who craved solitude and was not hospitable to visiting monks. Eventually his kamma caught up with him and:

  Then the local lay followers went up to Venerable Dhammika and said to him:
  “Sir, please leave all seven monasteries in our native land.”
  Then Venerable Dhammika thought:
  “I’ve been banished by the local lay followers from all seven monasteries in my native land.

Because of his lack of gratitude and sense of duty, Dhammika was forsaken by all.

Distressed and woeful, Dhammika went to the Buddha, who scolded him:

  “When someone abuses, annoys, or argues with an ascetic, the ascetic doesn’t abuse, annoy, or argue back at them. That’s how an ascetic stands by an ascetic’s duty.”

And Dhammika acknowledged his fault:

  “I was not standing by an ascetic’s duty when the local lay followers banished me from all seven of the monasteries in my native land.”

The Buddha then directed:

  But someone who abuses and insults a single person accomplished in view with malicious intent makes even more bad karma. Why is that? Brahmin Dhammika, I say that any injury done by those outside of the Buddhist community does not compare with what is done to one’s own spiritual companions. So you should train like this: ‘We will have no malicious intent for those who we want to have as our spiritual companions.’ That is how you should train.

These are some of the long term effects of ignoring ones duties.


The Seven Factors of Enlightenment Are the Seven Factors of Enlightenment understood to happen as specific phases in a linear progression in one's journey or are they understood to happen in a circular manner with ever deepening understanding?

I like to teach them as linear, but it's not really that simple. The Buddha said (SN 46.53) that when the mind is agitated you should cultivate the last three (tranquility, concentration and equanimity), and when the mind is sluggish, the second through fourth(investigation of dhammas, effort and rapture):

"At such times, monks, as the mind is sluggish, that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor[265] of tranquillity, the enlightenment-factor of concentration, the enlightenment-factor of equanimity. What is the reason? A sluggish mind is hard to arouse by these factors.
...
"Monks, when the mind is agitated, that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of investigation-of-states, of energy, of rapture. Why? An agitated mind is hard to calm through these factors.

Mindfulness, the Buddha notes, is to be always cultivated:

"But as for mindfulness, monks, I declare that it is always useful."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/walshe/wheel318.html#passage-58


The Oldest Traditional Buddhist Lineage? In Hinduism the traditional master-disciple relationship in the transmission is very important, which means that a student can go and learn from a teacher whose initiatory lineage goes back directly to Adi Shankara for example.

I would have liked to know if there was such a thing in Buddhism, and if so, what were the oldest lineages still in place? With the master-disciple initiation chain unbroken.

Is there one that can be traced back to the Buddha himself? I hear a lot about the Forest Tradition, but it only dates back to the 20th century.

Every "official" Chan/Zen master (that is, a master recognized and authorized by an older master) keeps a list of his ancestral teachers going back all the way to the Buddha Shakyamuni. I have such list for my Zen Master for example.

Every Tibetan lineage keeps a list of teachers that goes to a Buddha (not necessarily Shakyamuni). Many Tibetan texts begin by listing the lineage of the author.

The question is moot, because every school will say its teaching is best and the most traditional.


I am a buddhist, and i have a harm OCD i need guidance for a problem that i have for 5 years. I have a harm ocd, i keep having this extremely bad imaginations about killing family/holy beings and destroying holy stuff. The thing is, i REALLY REALLY do not want to do any of this, i love my family, i feel blessed knowing about dharma and stuff. But somehow, this dark bad repetitive imagination keep playing on my head. There is even this 'inner voice' who keep voicing things like "I want to kill X" even if I REALLY dont want to. Is this counted as bad karma? And what should i do? Just let it pass or maybe i should keep hurting myself so it will stop? Sorry if this sounds weird. May all of you have a great day ahead. Thank you

First, it seems like you’re suffering, and I’m sorry to read that. I sincerely hope you find release from your troubles.
Having said that, I will attempt to put your worries to rest by pointing out that the Buddha repeatedly states that Kamma arises from performing action with intention. There are a variety of canonical sources exploring the relationship between Kamma and intention, and I would encourage you to search for those. If we look at those sources, we might conclude that since you do not intend to perform those harmful actions, those thoughts do not generate bad Kamma.
On a more personal note, I would encourage you to seek psychiatric help. I myself suffer from generalized anxiety disorder, and there is hope. If you find a psychiatrist, and you supplement your practice with medical help, your progress on the path might become easier.
All the best.


Sutta Reference - Sound and musical instruments metaphors in the Suttas I am looking for a specific sutta wherein the conditionality and insubstantiality of the existential process of a sentient being, or consciousness, is made plain by use of the simile of a resonating musical instrument being struck by the player's hand, the sound of which, resonating for awhile, then slowly fades away.

Any references, anyone ?

Thanks :)

This is a partial index of the similes and metaphors that appear in the suttas available at Access to Insight (/ZzE). Only the imagery that illustrates points of Dhamma is included here; imagery that serves primarily a literary or narrative function is not included (e.g., Ambapali's description of her long-lost youthful beauty). The subject of each image is given in the braces {}. The tilde (~) stands for the head-word in a given entry... Index of Similes

Tuning a stringed instrument:
{right effort} AN 6.55

Meta-ontopic-Drum:

  "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves." - Ani Sutta: The Peg/Drum

In reagard of the meaning behind in proper context:

Painting of a woman or man:
{not-self} SN 22.100; {nutriment} SN 12.64

May it be of the origins use for you, Fabien


Who were the first followers of the Buddha? I've read that the Buddha's mother Maya became the first Buddhist. Who were the first followers of the Buddha other than his mother?

A Sketch of the Buddha's Life quotes
MN 26,
which includes the following passage:

He wonders: To whom should I teach this Dhamma first?
Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'They were very helpful to me, the group of five monks who attended to me when I was resolute in exertion. What if I were to teach them the Dhamma first?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'Where are the group of five monks staying now?' And with the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human, I saw that they were staying near Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana.

Later, that same MN 26 describes his meeting them and talking with those five, and eventually says,

"And so I was able to convince them. I would teach two monks while three went for alms, and we six lived off what the three brought back from their alms round. Then I would teach three monks while two went for alms, and we six lived off what the two brought back from their alms round. Then the group of five monks — thus exhorted, thus instructed by me — being subject themselves to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being subject themselves to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, they reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in them: 'Unprovoked is our release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'

SN 56.11 starts with,

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks

SN 56.11 is the story of his giving his first sermon, and it is to that same group of five ascetics (and who were subsequently enlightened when he gave his second sermon, at the end of SN 22.59).
The end of SN 56.11 mentions the name of one of these five, i.e. "Kondañña" (further references here and here).
Wikipedia (which is referencing Encyclopaedia of Buddhism by the Government of Ceylon, pp. 696–698) gives the names of the other four:

Koṇḍañña, along with Bhaddiya, Vappa, Mahanama and Assaji, variously described as four of the other scholars who had read Siddhartha's future or the sons of those scholars, followed him into the ascetic life, with the approval of Suddhodana, who was worried about Siddhartha's safety. They were known as "the group of five" or "the group of five fortunate ones".

See also this question which has several useful answers about the chronological sequence of suttas.


How did monks time their practice? How did monks traditionally time their practice before the age of timers?
Any sutta references would be greatly appreciated.
I'm looking for an organic way to time my sittings.

To refer to the traditional way that time is kept:

  "The best way I've heard to a) keep track of time b) without a clock
  (or timer) was related to me by my 91-year-old teacher who said in the
  old days they used to use incense sticks; once the incense stick was
  finished, they would switch from walking to sitting. For shorter
  sessions, you could cut the sticks in half, etc. Of course, it still
  means you need to open your eyes every so often during sitting."
  --this answer

The act of not timing your sitting is a profound one. It's not like the Buddha timed his sittings when he attained Enlightenment!
After nourishing himself the Buddha himself literally said "I will not get up from this Bodhi tree until I attain Awakening! Let my bones break and my flesh rot before I shall arise."
And then he entered the 1st jhana, 2nd jhana all the way to 4th and then experienced the 4 formless absorptions one by one and then attained Awakening.

He did not time his sittings except taking a bit of a break when he was truly exhausted and he opened his eyes to look at the night sky to take a bit of a rest.
And like magic, right then, he Awakened.

[Similarly Zen practitioners and other "hardcore" practitioners do not time their sittings... and they tended to Awaken when they took a bit of a rest and their Buddha Nature spotaneously opened to them, their skandhas dropping away giving them a strong taste of Awakening.]

Thus, the ultimate "inorganic" method is your own physical exhaustion, your own body telling you it is time to take a break from your arduous efforts!

Nonetheless, You can use other similar methods that are "organic" and do not use digital devices: tea kettle boiling, the birds starting to chirp in the morning as you push your meditation on in the early morning, etc.

Also your question is an important question because we all need to do an electromagnetic detox! We are all heavily dependent on our devices and are sleeping, reading, and practicing in a pool of EMR. I definitely notice a huge difference when I wear my crystals than when I am not.
Many of us experienced times when we go to a garden or some greenspace, far away from wifi connections and our mind completely clears and it feels the bliss of concentration is close at hand. It is also much easier to think about one's own life and contemplate in such an environment, also due to having less electronic devices subconsciously yelling and calling us in hundreds of ways.


Is there a way to wipe out ones Karma? I am 34 and I was brought up in this mad rat race of trying to become 'someone' and be somebody successful. I come from a Hindu background and up until I have been introduced to Buddhism I have only asked god in temples for fulfilment of worldly desires. I was a high achieving and hard working person and as a  consequence of my lifestyle, I got into severe clinical depression in 2015. My entire life turned upside down, I had to quit my job and since then I am at home.

Luckily few Buddhist books fell into my hand and I started reading books about Buddhism. I read Ajahn Brahma, Thich nhat hanh, Jet-Sunma Palmo, Alan Watts,  Bhikku Bodhi...After that, I went to a couple of Vipassana retreats and a Zen Shessin retreat. I also practise Zazen.

But after my mental health partially recovered and with new find solace and wisdom in Buddhism, I contemplated my life and I am filled with Guilt, Regret and Shame to have behaved in an egoistic way with so many people and having hurt and got hurt from so many people.

Intellectually I understand to practise loving-kindness and gratitude but this pain that I feel in my heart never goes away. I feel guilt and regrets. I believe this is result of my own karma and may be karma of my past lives.

I want to ask is there any way to wipe out ones Karma or work or meditate somehow that the Karmic fruits can be dissolved? I dont want to feel bad about my life anymore.

You are asking not about how to eliminate kamma, but about how to escape the results of kamma.

There is no escape from the experience of the results of kamma. What there is is modification of the subjective experience of those results. This modification takes place as a result of changing your mental set.

The simile is: Imagine a small cup of water into which is placed a large spoonful of salt. It would taste salty. Then imagine placing that large spoonful of salt into River Gangha. It would affect the water but hardly noticably.

So your job, escaping the results of kamma, is to create a river Gangha of good deeds.

Make a practice of Giving with the intent that the consequences be directed at relief from your depressive mental state.

Do the same thing with the good wishes of the Brahma Viharas: Wishing all beings in all realms of being friendly vibrations, sympathetic understanding, empathy with other's situations and objective detachment.

And any and every other good deed you can think of for as long as it takes.

Guilt and remorse are, by the way, themselves bad kamma. They are willful self-indulgences. You may not like the sound of that, but it is your salvation here in that it being self-made, it can be self-corrected. You should make a conscious effort at the impulse to dwell in misery to change your mental state. Again this is easily and rapidly done with doing good deeds.

Finally: If your interest is in escaping kamma (doing intentional deeds of thought, word and body), you need to ask that as a separate question. Hint: learn from your experiences by examining them objectively, not emotionally, and alter your behavior in the ways suggested by the Ariya Atthangika Magga: High Working Hypothesis, high principles, high talk, high works, high lifestyle, high self-control, high mind, high serenity, high vision and high detachment.


How does one become a "Māra"? I am not asking for an explanation on the whole "What is a Mara?" question. What i'm asking about is the being mentioned in Buddhism who has the command over all normal beings, the one who came personally to challenge,frighten lord Buddha.

Is there an explanation to why or how a person become's a "Mara"?

Abhisankhāra-māra - The Karmic force

  Kleśa-māra, or Ma̋ra as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions.

  Mṛtyu-māra, or Māra as death, in the sense of the ceaseless round of
  birth and death.

  Skandha-māra, or Māra as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned
  existence.

  Devaputra-māra, or Māra the son of a deva (god), that is, Māra as an
  objectively existent being rather than as a metaphor.

Apart from your internal mara and metaphysical maras. The Mara as existent beings are essentially gods with Wrong Views and Wrong Intentions. The Mara that tempted Buddha in particular, was a god from one of the highest heavens Paranimmita-vasavatti, the devas with the power over other's creations. That is not only can they create anything to fulfill their desires, but other create it for them to worship them. Seeing that the Desire Realm was so enjoyable and pleasurable, why should anyone seek to leave it and so try to oppose the Buddha.

So how did such a being came about? Through their former karmic merit. Like gods who attain heaven but then squander their merits, maras went further by obstructing others in their search for virtue and truth.

Unlike the Christian devil, Maras are not rulers of Hell. But in a sense they are 'fallen' in spirit, though not in power. Eventually such a being use up their good karma and fall possibly even the the hells themselves. Of course they are not unredeemable either, if they repent and support the truth, the label 'Mara' would not apply to them.

There is a saying in Chinese Buddhism, to cultivate karmic rewards without cultivating wisdom is the Way of Mara. That is your good karma could bring you high up in the the heaven or as a ruler (or someone in position of power), but without wisdom - and therefore ethics, you could easily abuse your powers, causing suffering on others and ultimately yourself.

So as you can see, you could be your own Mara, you could be a Mara to others and discourage them from doing good deeds.


Sudden enlightenment & knowledge of the Abhidhamma In the Mahayana tradition, there is the notion of sudden enlightenment. I am not asking whether sudden enlightenment is possible or not. I would like to know if Mahayanists see acquisition of knowledge of the abhidhamma as part of or as a side effect of sudden enlightenment, or if sudden enlightenment is considered a lighter version of fully fledged englightenment?

I already asked the permission from the question starter to answer this question.
According to reciting study system (Mukkhapātha), there is no actual sudden enlightenment in Theravada tradition.
The sudden enlightenment without practice is almost impossible in reciting study system. If enlightenment is easy like that, people must can enlighten without the Buddha. Actually, although the outsider Jhāna master before Buddha time can't enlighten by themselves. The outsider Jhāna mastes meditate more than 12 hours per day not a year but entire their life like Ārālatāpaso, etc.
But why there are many sudden enlightenment in Tipitaka and Commentary?
No, there aren't in reciting study system. Actually they were study and practice very hard before, but the stories were cut into other suttas or commentary to avoid of reciting too much long or to fit the Sutta for the target listener (who will enlighten at that moment).
Sutta was separated into many tiny sutta in Buddha's time because of human's memorizing ability. However, every Ariya try to append Sutta more and more through the time. Every Arahanta in KN. Thera-therī-gāthā attained 6 Abhiññā. Even Kassapa, Ānanda, or Moggallāna still go to study Sutta from Sārīpalutta in MN. MahāgosingasālaSutta.
So when people nowadays read  Tipitaka, they don't know how to connect (Sandhi;Anusandhi;PubbāparaSandhi) the various tiny Sutta and commentary together. Then these weird thinking are going inside you such as "we should cut Abhidhamma off", "we can enlighten immediately without practice", etc. These all sound weird because it's not compatible with Karma when people did uncountable times Karmas before, then all is purged in a moment without any practice. It's impossible.
Sariputta was a priest before meeting Assaji and enlighten. Aññākondañña practice with Siddhartha many years before enlighten in DhammajakkappavattanaSutta.
This is why there are many story Canons in KN and Commentaries. We tried to avoid suddenly enlightenment without practice.
If you recite Abhidhamma commentary, you'll see that they mentioned 24 Buddha in the past to show how hard  it was when Bodhisatta practice to enlighten by himself. The hardest part is about the reasons, relation, of everything. If Bodhisatta can't understand the reason of everything  as it is, truth. He will couldn't enlighten by himself, too.
It must happen to every practitioner as well (however there are various styles depending on each one's abilities, skill experiences, past attention, etc.) If the practitioner doesn't understand the relation of elements as it is, truth, he can't enlighten because 3 characteristics appearing when seeing the truth, right relations of 5 aggregate elements.


Did Buddha practice group meditation with bhikkhus, bhikkhunis and laymen, just like in today's meditation center? In today's meditation center, practitioners meditate with others in group sitting. After an hour or so of meditation, the practitioners may proceed to seek advices from the teacher on their progress.

Did Buddha practice group meditation with bhikkhus, bhikkhunis and laymen, and then they may seek advice from Buddha? Is there any such event described in the Sutta?

Yes, it seems he did. For example in DN 2:

10. And when King Ajatasattu came near the mango-grove he felt fear and terror, and his hair stood on end. And feeling [50] this fear and the rising of the hairs, the King said to Jīvaka: ‘Friend Jivaka, you are not deceiving me? You are not tricking me? You are not delivering me up to an enemy? How is it that from this great number of twelve hundred and fifty monks not a sneeze, a cough or a shout is to be heard?’
‘Have no fear, Your Majesty, I would not deceive you or trick you or deliver you up to an enemy. Approach, Sire, approach. There are the lights burning in the round pavilion.’
11. So King Ajatasattu, having ridden on his elephant as far as the ground would permit, alighted and continued on foot to the door of the round pavilion. Then he said: ‘Jivaka, where is the Lord?’ ‘That is the Lord, Sire. That is the Lord sitting against the middle column with his order of monks in front of him.’
12. Then King Ajātasattu went up to the Lord and stood to one side, and standing there to one side the King observed how the order of monks continued in silence like a clear lake, and he exclaimed: ‘If only Prince Udāyabhadda were possessed of such calm as this order of monks!’
(Walshe, trans)


How can I find a teacher who is a stream entrant? How can I find a teacher who is a stream entrant?

Any suggestions? Recommendations?

Into the Stream -- A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening
and The Power of Judgment might help.
It's all a matter of having done what leads to blessings -- and "dwelling" in borderlands:

A monastery, traditional Wat (pi: vatta) is an outwardly borderland ...
A "borderland" is a "state" between home and homelessness, outer lands and noble domain ...

[DD, post not given for trade or any wordily exchange]


Why doesn't a person cease to exist as soon as becoming an arahant? From what I know body and mind are two separate entities. Body cannot survive without a mind but is not the same case for a mind from what I know. When a person completely rids himself/herself of all the delusion and desire he/she becomes an arahant. An arahant ceases to exist when he/she passes away and nothing goes on or lingers and there are no more births. I am curious to know why this cannot happen as soon as becoming an arahant. Why does an arahant only cease to exist after death? How come the mind or sansara is extended to the point of which the body dies? Why doesn't the mind cease to exist as soon as attaining nirvana?

The mind cannot exist without a body except in the Arupa Brahma realms.
Arahanths have no desire to die. So becoming enlightened does not imply that they have to immediately die. It's like when you are driving a car, if it runs out of fuel, it's not going to stop immediately. The momentum will take it some distance before stopping.


Did Buddha ever think about himself? After attaining Nibbana, Buddha had realized that there is no self. However due to practical difficulties of communication, he had to use personal pronouns like 'I' , 'me' , 'myself' many times during conversation.
My question is: whether Buddha ever thought about himself? Because if he thought about himself then he must have had a self.
You can not think of yourself and simultaneously claim that there is no self.
In the book, Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spence , it is written how Buddha thought about himself.
From p 181 :

After the repetition of these stanzas, Budha thought thus : " I have
attained the Budhaship ; I have overcome Mara ; all evil desire is
destroyed ; I am lord of the three worlds ; I will therefore remain
longer at this place, which has been to me so propitious." Thus
reflecting, he remained in a sitting posture upon the throne for the
space of seven days.

It is clear from the above translation that Buddha had a self because his thoughts bore witness to the self and declare that "I have attained Budhaship".
This proves that personal pronouns used by Buddha were not just used for convenience but were honestly projecting the reality that there is a self.
In thoughts there was no necessity to fake self for sake of communication.

Thế self Buddha mentioned in “ No self “ is a unchanged , everlasting , pẻmanent self . Thế self everybody are clinging is a temporary self . We have many lifetime , for each lifetime we have each self . So via many lifetime we have many different self depending on our past karma , our background of that life .
Self is delusion , we have been reborn because we attache to our self . Immediately after enlightenment , the Buddha uttered this pane of joy :
Through many a birth , I wandered in samsara ,
Seeking but not finding , the builder of the House
Sorrowful it is to be born again and again

The architect was craving or attachment ( tanHà ), A sẽ
Self- created force , a latent element in all . The rafters of this self-created house is defilement ( kilesa ) - the ridge pole that support the rafters is ignorance ( avijjà) , thế root cause of all defilements . The shattering of the ridge-pole of ignorance by wisdom results in complete demolition of the house . With the demolition of the house , the mind attains the uncondition which is Nibbãna

Oh house builder ! Thou art seen -
Thou shall build no house again ,
All thy rafter aérea broken .
Thy ridge - pole is shattered

My mind has attained the unconditioned .
Achieved is the end of Craving .


What does Buddhism add to a Stoic? Is there any thing that Buddhism can add to a Stoic Pursuit?

Below is a friendly laid-back discourse between a Stoic and a Buddhist, which could be used as a guide to what I’m trying to compare.

Buddhist:  Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering; separation from the loved is suffering; not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.

Stoic: Yes, if you attach yourself to what is not given you will sure suffer. These five aggregates you counted must have been something not in your power. Have you nothing which is in your own power, which depends on yourself only and cannot be taken from you, or have you any thing of the kind?

Buddhist: what do you mean, there are only five aggregates there is no I or mine

Stoic: what? Is any man able to make you assent to that which is false or compel you to desire what you do not wish?

Buddhist: No

Stoic: In the matter of assent and desire then you are free from hindrance and obstruction?

Buddhist: Yes

Stoic: So, if we let go of the body which is subject to revolution of the whole and withdraw from externals, turns to our will to exercise it and to improve it by labor, so as to make it conformable to nature, elevated, free, unrestrained, unimpeded, faithful, modest, and virtuous will we not achieve tranquility and avoid suffering.

Buddhist:  Well said, training an act of will is a noble did, but until you learn that there is no “I or my-self” you would remain in cycle of rebirth.

Stoic: what do you mean?

Buddhist: But what is that you call my-self or I?

Stoic: Sir, it’s my soul. If you ask me what is a soul I can’t say this or that, but I have just told you an attribute of mine which is not bound by suffering. Will you be kind enough to show me that my act of will is not mine?

Buddhist: If that you call mine is the volitional formation you should know that it has ignorance as conditions and he who assume volition to be the self will surely be afflicted in mind.

Stoic: I do not understand, you seem to me to be talking very obscure, you surly do not mean that the all wise will not act?

Buddhist: No, I’m saying you should not say volition is mine.

Stoic: Why?

Buddhist: Perhaps you will understand if you look at it from another angle. Answer my question, by acting virtuously and by wisdom you are training the will towards the good?

Stoic: Yes

Buddhist: When the will become all virtuous, all wise and attain the good with no trace of ignorance will you claim that all wise will to be yours.

Stoic: Far from it, there is but only one wise. If at all possible to reach of what you speak without quitting the body then the act of will be one with the one.

HE

Stoicism says that if you are suffering it is within your power to change your internal interpretation of the situation. I don't know much about Buddhism, but if most of life is suffering, then there is the opportunity to adjust your perspective in most of your life.


What is the self cherishing attitude? And to whom does it arise?

As spoken about by Dr. Berzin?

Listen to Seven Point Mind Training by Study Buddhism on #SoundCloud
https://soundcloud.com/studybuddhism/7-point-mind-training

It's described in a couple of pages of The Complete Foundation: The Systematic Approach to Training the Mind by HH the Dalai Lama.

I paraphrase:

  It is the one object of all blame -- the source of all miseries therefore the only object to be blamed for all misfortune.
  Normally we blame others because we are self-righteous
  Problems come from the kind of body we assume, which is contaminated and a product of actions -- we possess that body because of attachment to self -- therefore it's attachment to self that gives rise to suffering.
  "The self-cherishing and self-grasping attitudes abide strongly fortified in the mind, we have never been able to shake the in the least."
  It leads to wars (globally) and problems within the family.
  It also leads to arguments between people with one assuming they have more truth than the other.
  The chronic disease of cherishing myself
  is the cause of unwanted suffering
  Perceiving this, may I be inspired
  To blame, begrudge, and destroy
  This self-cherishing demon.

When I read a bit of https://www.google.com/search?q=%22self-cherishing+attitude%22 it seems to include both what Theravada calls "conceit" (e.g. "I am better than you") and other vices, e.g. attachments (and I don't know about comfort-seeking too ... and presumably "becoming" and "birth" and so too).

It possibly doesn't include "the view of a real personal identity" which (as in Theravada) might be stated as a separate problem.

"Bodhicitta" is maybe meant to be the antidote, to the "self-cherishing attitude". I've also seen on video his holiness say that he sees himself as "not special" and "just, like everyone else" -- because otherwise he would be/feel imprisoned (in/by his identity).

Combining the last two paragraphs above, I wonder if sunyata rather than Bodhicitta is the antidote to "the view of a real personal identity" -- but sunyata (without Bodhicitta) isn't enough by itself to get rid of the "self-cherishing attitude".


Is buddha's paths corrupt as no one attains the goal nowadays? (or are they?) Anyone reaching nirvana in recent years?

People practise buddhism for many years but no one achieves nirvana. No one reaches anātman (pali: anattā). The only theories Buddhism offers are anātman, nirvana, and the five aggregates, so my question is this: Is the Buddha's path corrupt, because no one achieves the goal?

Since many do not talk about attainments it is difficult to ascertain who has reached Nirvana, but there those who have practised fully would have realised it. This is a conjecture on can reach by taking the 1st few steps one reaches certain milestones in the path.

If you consider more milestones than the final goal itself there would be many more people who have reacht it.

Some milestones one would encounter are as follows:

(Ekādasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan

(Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta Introduction by Piya Tan

Ones own practise will reveal to you what as further one practices more milestones are reached.