How do I refute the claim that the Buddha was actually preaching Vedanta? Some people are obsessed with making a great personality and revolutionary like the Buddha a follower of their own faith by making baseless, historically inaccurate and factually incorrect claims. One such claim is that Buddha was a Hindu Yogi who actually preached Vedanta. How do I refute this claim?

This is a modified version of the answer that I posted on Hinduism.SE comparing the Buddhist Madhyamaka (by Nagarjuna) and the Hindu Advaita Vedanta (by Adi Shankara). Usually, the emptiness in Madhyamaka is equated to Nirguna Brahman (formless attributeless God) in Advaita by Hindu scholars like Prof. Chandradhar Sharma. Prof. Sharma also equated the Eternal Buddha concept (based on the Buddha's Dharma body) to God. I modified this answer for posting here.

First: What did Adi Shankaracharya teach?

We can see this from Adi Shankaracharya's own compositions:

  Brahman is real, the universe is an illusion. The jiva is Brahman
  itself and not different. (Brahmajnanavalimala 20)

  This Atman is a self-cognised entity because It is cognised by Itself.
  Hence the individual soul is itself and directly the Supreme Brahman,
  and nothing else. (Vivekachudamani 216)

  There exists no other material cause of this phenomenal universe
  except Brahman. Hence this whole universe is but Brahman and nothing
  else. (Aparokshanubhuti 45)

  The pot, wall, etc., are all nothing but clay. Likewise, the entire
  universe is nothing but Brahman. (Brahmajnanavalimala 19)

  Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity, pure, supreme,
  self-existent, eternal and indivisible Bliss, not different (in
  reality) from the individual soul, and devoid of interior or exterior.
  It is (ever) triumphant. It is this Supreme Oneness which alone is
  real, since there is nothing else but the Self. Verily, there remains
  no other independent entity in the state of realisation of the highest
  Truth. All this universe which through ignorance appears as of
  diverse forms, is nothing else but Brahman which is absolutely free
  from all the limitations of human thought. A jar, though a
  modification of clay, is not different from it; everywhere the jar is
  essentially the same as the clay. Why then call it a jar ? It is
  fictitious, a fancied name merely. None can demonstrate that the
  essence of a jar is something other than the clay (of which it is
  made). Hence the jar is merely imagined (as separate) through
  delusion, and the component clay alone is the abiding reality in
  respect of it. Similarly, the whole universe, being the effect of
  the real Brahman, is in reality nothing but Brahman. Its essence is
  That, and it does not exist apart from It. He who says it does is
  still under delusion - he babbles like one asleep. This universe is
  verily Brahman - such is the august pronouncement of the Atharva Veda.
  Therefore this universe is nothing but Brahman, for that which is
  superimposed (on something) has no separate existence from its
  substratum.  (Vivekachudamani 225-231)

  Therefore the universe does not exist apart from the Supreme Self; and
  the perception of its separateness is false like the qualities (of
  blueness etc., in the sky). Has a superimposed attribute any meaning
  apart from its substratum? It is the substratum which appears like
  that through delusion.  (Vivekachudamani 235)

  Becoming thyself the self-effulgent Brahman, the substratum of all
  phenomena - as that Reality give up both the macrocosm and the
  microcosm, like two filthy receptacles. (Vivekachudamani 289)

The above quotes clearly show the teaching of eternalism.

Brahman is eternal, infinite, self-existent and transcendental absolute reality. Brahman is the substratum or foundation of the universe. Brahman is the material cause of the universe. Brahman is the only thing that is permanent and ultimately real, while the universe is ultimately an illusion.

The individual soul, which is a self-cognized entity, is ultimately the same as Brahman.

While Brahman is without qualities, it appears as the universe and individuals with qualities, through delusion.

This summarizes the nature of reality according to Advaita Vedanta.

Second: What did the Buddha teach?

We can see this in the Buddha's own words (Buddhavacana), from the Sutta Pitaka in Pali, which is included in the Mahayana Agamas and the Tibetan Kangyur.

It is widely speculated that some Buddhist schools teach annihilationism or nihilism, but this is not true. It is only non-Buddhists who have this wrong impression. The Buddha and 99.9% of Buddhist schools teach the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism. This "middle way" teaching is the unique feature of the Buddha's teachings.

The Buddha rubbished the notion that there is no self of any kind:

  “So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?” - Attakari Sutta

However, the Buddha was very clear in the Ananda Sutta (SN44.10) that rejecting both eternalism and annihilationism,  he teaches that "all phenomena is not self", which means that there is no permanent or eternal standalone entity of a self in all phenomena (sabbe dhamma anatta).

  "Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a
  self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming
  with those brahmins & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism
  [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being
  asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer
  that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmins &
  contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that
  death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by
  Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that
  there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of
  knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

  "No, lord."

  "And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
  self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
  Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used
  to have now not exist?'"

The Buddha instead taught that the self is not eternal and not non-existent, but is dependently originated (Pratītyasamutpāda):

  When the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)" -
  summarized here from Acela Sutta

A summary of dependent origination is that the self arises dependent on the inter-working of the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and consciousness. Please see this answer for further elaboration, including the lute analogy.

He taught that both the views of "I have a self" and "I have no self" are inaccurate in the Sabbasava Sutta. He also taught that the views of one being Nirvana, one being in Nirvana, one being apart from Nirvana, calling Nirvana "mine", and delighting in Nirvana, are inaccurate in the Mulapariyaya Sutta.

The Buddha did teach emptiness, but it is restricted to the nature of the self i.e. all phenomena is empty of a self (see Shunya Sutta). The Buddha did not comment on the nature of all non-sentient things like the universe, besides noting them as being conditioned and impermanent.

The Buddha was not interested in commenting on the nature or origin of the universe, because he considered it to be unimportant to the path to liberation from suffering - see the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow (from MN63). The Buddha was not interested in metaphysical speculations. It was not because he taught the Upanishadic truths through silence, as implied by Prof. Chandradhar Sharma.

Third: What did Nagarjuna teach?

While the Buddha stopped at describing the "middle way" and emptiness with respect to the nature of the self, Nagarjuna expanded these concepts to cover the nature of the universe and all reality. He did this in his magnum opus, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, whose name itself means "Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way". Nagarjuna did not contradict the Buddha's teachings, but rather, expanded it.

The Wikipedia article on Madhyamaka (which contains its own citations) summarized Nagarjuna's teachings very well:

  Central to Madhyamaka philosophy is śūnyatā, "emptiness." The term
  refers to the "emptiness" of inherent existence: all phenomena are
  empty of "substance" or "essence" (Sanskrit: svabhāva) or inherent
  existence, because they are dependently co-arisen. At a conventional
  level, "things" do exist, but ultimately they are "empty" of inherent
  existence. But this "emptiness" itself is also "empty": it does not
  have an existence on its own, nor does it refer to a transcendental
  reality beyond or above phenomenal reality.

  Nagarjuna's critique of the notion of own-nature (svabhāva) argues
  that anything which arises according to conditions, as all phenomena
  do, can have no inherent nature, for what is depends on what
  conditions it. Moreover, if there is nothing with own-nature, there
  can be nothing with 'other-nature' (para-bhāva), i.e. something which
  is dependent for its existence and nature on something else which has
  own-nature. Furthermore, if there is neither own-nature nor
  other-nature, there cannot be anything with a true, substantial
  existent nature (bhāva). If there is no true existent, then there can
  be no non-existent (abhāva).

Rather than the annihilationism that nothing exists or the eternalism that something exists eternally, Nagarjuna taught the "middle way" that all phenomena is empty of its own "inherent existence" or "substance" or "essence" (what he called svabhāva).

If nothing has inherent substance, then nothing can depend on something else for substance, so there is no other inherent substance (para-bhāva).

Nagarjuna's unique philosophy however, is that even this emptiness is empty i.e. this emptiness does not have its own inherent substance. This means that there is no transcendental reality beyond phenomenal reality. This is what is implied by ultimate reality not being absolute reality.

A very nice and simplified explanation of the Madhyamaka emptiness can be found in Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh's writing, "The Fullness of Emptiness".

The only disagreement between Theravada and Madhyamaka is the need to expand the "middle way" and "emptiness" beyond what the Buddha taught. What is common between Theravada and Madhyamaka is that both reject eternalism and annihilationism.

Fourth: Comparing Advaita and Madhyamaka

Comparing what Adi Shankaracharya taught and what Nagarjuna taught, we come to see very clearly that both are not the same and in fact, completely incompatible:

Shankara said Brahman is eternal and absolute. Meanwhile, Nagarjuna said nothing is eternal and absolute.
Shankara's Brahman (clay analogy) implies that it is the only thing that has a true inherent substance (what Nagarjuna called svabhāva). Meanwhile, Nagarjuna says nothing has inherent substance.
Shankara's Brahman is the material cause (again, clay analogy) of the universe. Meanwhile, Nagarjuna's emptiness is not a material cause for anything including itself.
Shankara said that the universe depends on Brahman as its substratum (what Nagarjuna called para-bhāva). Meanwhile, Nagarjuna said there is no other inherent substance (para-bhāva) i.e. no substratum for anything else.
Shankara's Brahman is the Ultimate Reality that is the Transcendental Absolute Reality. Meanwhile, Nagarjuna's Ultimate Reality is an "emptiness of emptiness" that is devoid of transcendental or absolute reality.

What is common between Advaita and Madhyamaka is that both proclaim the non-dualism between the Ultimate Reality and the phenomenal reality. However, Advaita's Ultimate Reality is a Transcendental Absolute Reality, while Madhyamaka's Ultimate Reality is the "emptiness of emptiness" that is devoid of any transcendental or absolute reality.

My conclusion is that Adi Shankaracharya's Nirguna Brahman and Madhyamaka's "emptiness of emptiness" are not the same and in fact, completely incompatible.

This is supported by Banaras Hindu University Professor T. R. V. Murti's statement (quoted below) in this book chapter: Murti T.R.V. (1973) Saṁvṛti and Paramārtha in Mādhyamika and Advaita Vedānta. In: Sprung M. (eds) The Problem of Two Truths in Buddhism and Vedānta. Springer, Dordrecht

  It has been the fashion to consider that the differences between the
  Madhyamika śūnyatā and Brahman are rather superficial and even verbal,
  and that the two systems of philosophy are almost identical. At least
  Professor Radhakrishnan thinks so, and Stcherbatsky's and Dasgupta's
  views are not very different. I hold a contrary view altogether: that
  in spite of superficial similarities in form and terminology, the
  differences between them are deep and pervasive.

Fifth: Comparing Vedanta and Buddhism

All Vedanta schools accept that Atman (soul) is eternal (according to Bhagavad Gita 2.20), and Brahman is absolute and eternal. This is based on the teachings of the Upanishads.

Meanwhile, the anatman teaching subscribed by all schools of Buddhism, states that there is no eternal self (i.e. no permanent standalone eternal entity) in all phenomena.

A very apt conclusion for this comes from eminent German indologist Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp's essay "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study":

  In the light of these researches, all attempts to give to the Atman a
  place in the Buddhist doctrine, appear to be quite antiquated. We know
  now that all Hinayana (sic) and Mahayana schools are based on the
  anatma-dharma theory. ... Nirvana being a dharma, is likewise anatta,
  just as the transitory, conditioned dharmas ... Nirvana is no
  individual entity which could act independently. For it is the basic
  idea of the entire system that all dharmas are devoid of Atman, and
  without cogent reasons we cannot assume that the Buddha himself has
  thought something different from that which since more than 2000
  years, his followers have considered to be the quintessence of their
  doctrine.

and

  Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
  the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
  concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
  anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
  a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum
  (true substance)," or similarly.


How does a monk address parents and relatives? In Theravada tradition, after one becomes a monk. Does he still call his parents and relatives the same as before he ordains. Or does he call them like everybody else? Does he call his parents "mom" and "dad", his siblings "brother" and "sister",...?

It may depend on the tradition, but in the Pali suttas, the language changes unequivocally to more formal modes of address like "gahapati" (householder), "upaasaka/upaasikaa" (lay follower), etc.

Then the clansman Raṭṭhapāla rose from his seat, and after paying homage to the Blessed One, he departed, keeping him on his right. He went to his parents and told them: “Mother and father, as I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is not easy while living in a home to lead the holy life, utterly perfect and pure as a polished shell. I wish to shave off my hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and go forth from the home life into homelessness. Give me permission to go forth from the home life into homelessness.”

...

Then the venerable Raṭṭhapāla’s former wives clasped his feet and said to him: “What are they like, my lord’s son, the nymphs for whose sake you lead the holy life?”
“We do not lead the holy life for the sake of nymphs, sisters.”
“Our lord’s son Raṭṭhapāla calls us ‘sisters,’” they cried and right there they fainted.
Then the venerable Raṭṭhapāla told his father: “Householder, if there is a meal to be given, then give it. Do not harass us.”

-- (MN 82 - Bodhi, trans)


What is actually Nirvana -- what are some Tripitaka sources? What do you know about the Nirvana?

Most of this community people are from all around the world, and may have different teachers, and level of knowledge may vary.

A brief explanation, with reference to the Tripitaka, is much appreciated.

And, can someone please translate this:

It's from the Abhidhamma Margaya ("Way of Abidhamma") by Ven. Rerukane Chandawimala Thero.

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no
  fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base
  consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of
  nothingness, no base consisting of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another
  world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is
  no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed,
  not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

Ud 8.1

Nibbana is not a conceptually constructed, ideological, 'thing'. It is described as the unconditioned element. As all concepts are conditioned by a mind, it cannot be reached by mental fermentation. It can be approximately described by negation - not impermanent, not unsatisfactory, not self (etc). But even that is still conceptualisation. Better meditate, attain jhana, and find out for yourself.


Call of duty during a Dharmic war : a Buddhist perspective For a good Buddhist , is to always avoid any cause that will create bad effect, as we can see clearly in the 4 noble truths for example.
What is the Buddhist perspective during an hypotetic moment of tension ,  where antagonist religions that serve a demiurgic  god for temporal power  or maybe from a blind communist regime ,  will decide to  manipulate and force pratictioners to not follow the Dharma anymore , closing monasteries , destroying sources , texts and deport and killing people in the name of an evil faith? (Look for example what the christians did in Europe in the last 1000 years or the muslim in the Kashmir region, chinese in Tibet and Jews in Palestine)
Fight or get killed?
I would like to have direct answers , not political nor mellifuous / hypocrite one.

While violence and destruction is strongly discouraged in Buddhism, it is ok for a ruler or government of a country that adheres to Buddhist principles, to establish police and armed forces to:

protect and guard the people
ensure peace
ensure that justice prevails

Please see Pali sutta quotes below.
However, what about the hypothetical case of Buddhists being persecuted in non-Buddhist lands? Buddhists in this case, should not bear arms and become freedom fighters or terrorists, as that is against the first precept and also other teachings e.g. removing mental aversion.
In this case, persecuted Buddhists should either leave the country (as what the 14th Dalai Lama had done in March 1959) or pursue peaceful legal means of action (as what Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King had done) which could include petitions and letters to government officials and elected representatives, statements on media etc.
From DN 16:

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
be expected, not their decline."

From DN 26:

‘But sire, what are the noble duties of a wheel-turning monarch?’
‘Well then, my dear, relying only on principle—honoring, respecting,
and venerating principle, having principle as your flag, banner, and
authority — provide just protection and security for your court, troops,
aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of town and
country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds. Do not let injustice
prevail in the realm. Pay money to the penniless in the realm.


Was The Buddha only human, or was he super-human? Before Siddhartha Gautama attained Enlightenment, did he have a normal human body with normal human attributes? Or was his body anatomically different or superior to yours and mine in its physical attributes? If different, in what ways was it different?

Before Enlightenment, did Siddhartha Gautama have a mind (or mental/spiritual capabilities) that was different from a normal human mind? If his mind differed from yours and mine, in what ways did it differ?

What do scriptural writings and recent gurus say about this? What are your own thoughts about this?

Yes, Gautama Buddha had 32 major qualities, as do all Buddhas a.k.a. one who has attained the dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, as well as the nirmanakaya--the latter two of which correspond to the physical attainments.

These physical attainments progress according to the Taoist timeline of physical transformation of jing, chi, shen transformation but in Buddhism, which focuses on Wisdom, it is not necessary to focus on the physical aspect because this occurs automatically when one's mind is in the right place (Four Noble Truths, Right Samadhi, 8 + 2 Eightfold Path).

His mind is a mind free from the skandhas.

As for atman... He experientially discovered that there is no atman, that it is a causation illusion via the aggregates/skandhas, that we are the an ocean of interdependence... of Self and thus paradoxically, he attained the true Atman, the dharmakaya, becoming free from birth-and-death and forever serving ourself as a Buddha because such a perfectly compassionate immortal has nothing better to do with their time... this didn't happen at once and occured in a step-wise progression through the Four Noble Truths (which includes letting go of the things that bind one to Atman).

The above idea would be a Mahayana and Tibetan idea... less a Theravadin idea which insists on "annihilation" of self... (which in a sense is the same meaning because one annihilates oneself into the Buddhahood of serving others manifesting limitless skillful means and having uprooted one's poisons and afflictions already...)


What are the benefits of keeping the lay precepts, if you're not a bodhisattva? What are the benefits of keeping the lay precepts, if you're not a bodhisattva? I'm asking about doing so in a liberal (no infidelity or drug addictions) and to a conservative (no sex or glass of wine) way.
Apologies if I've misunderstood them and there is a complete consensus on what the lay precepts are to be interpreted as. I thought that the point was to use them as a guide, so making up your own mind. Precept

a general rule intended to regulate behaviour or thought.

Surely "general" here means incomplete not in the sense that we can break them, but not completely defined.

Is it not obvious that murder is wrong, whereas the evil of eating meat is more moot: so that - even if wrong - it is a lesser breaking of the precepts.

Precepts serve two purposes:
Purpose One is training the mind by changing your behavioral/emotional habits.
Purpose Two is improving one's karma by not creating turmoil in one's future that comes from the misdeeds.
In the long run One and Two help each other to get stronger. Together they gradually propel one further and further into Liberation.
Even if you take a liberal interpretation of the precepts you will train your mind and improve your karma.
In any case you should start from the most coarse offenses creating the biggest problems before proceeding to the subtle mental habits and misdeeds creating more subtle forms of trouble and suffering.
For example, being easily irritated and getting into fights all the time is a source of coarser and more obvious problems than killing mosquitoes or eating chicken and fish. So you should start with the first.
For example, craving sex to the point of rapping someone or seducing someone's spouse and breaking their family is a source of far coarser and more obvious problems than indulging in observing people of the opposite gender at a beach, so again it makes sense to start with the coarser one.
For example having a fragile ego and pathologically lying to cover up one's mistakes is a source of coarser and more obvious problems than not phrasing one's statements precisely enough to make sure they are absolutely true.
And as you correctly assumed, having a complex emotional trauma leading to a drug or an alcohol addiction is a source of much coarser and more obvious trouble than intoxicating one's mind with videogames, not to speak of indulging in an occasional beer.
From this it should be obvious that Buddhist path should be approached from coarse to gradually more subtle - by anyone and everyone, monk or lay.
If you think about it, the Eightfold Path gets into more subtle matters than mere Five Precepts, and the Four Jhanas get into more subtle matters than the Eightfold Path (i know they are included but you get the point). Within the four jhanas, the first jhana deals with coarse issues the second is more subtle etc. Entire Path is structured like that.
Obviously, someone who professionally pursues Anuttara-Samyak-Sambodhi is more likely to go all the way to perfection of practice, while someone engaging with Buddhism casually among other things will probably stop at preventing the most obvious troubles. How far to go is entirely up to an individual. The benefit is proportional to implementation, to whatever degree one eradicates potential causes of dukkha - to that degree one is liberated from it.
To summarize, it's not about liberal vs strict implementation of precepts, it's about coarse vs subtle causes of dukkha - similar concepts but not the same.


Concentration as a Trait I have a simple question. Concentration occurs in the context of samatha meditation, but does the regular practice of samatha generate a trait-like concentration in daily life?

In other words, is there such a thing as being always more concentrated, more focused, outside of samadhi? Or, is concentration mostly restricted to samadhi in formal meditation?

Thank you.

I'm not certain it can be said that jhāna itself extends to daily life after meditation, with all the different interpretations of jhāna going around.
At the same time, consider the following excerpt from AN 3.63:

“Here, brahmin [...], I collect some grass or leaves that I find there into a pile and then sit down. Having folded my legs crosswise and straightened my body, I establish mindfulness in front of me. Then, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhāna, which consists of rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by thought and examination. With the subsiding of thought and examination, I enter and dwell in the second jhāna [...] I enter and dwell in the third jhāna [...] I enter and dwell in the fourth jhāna [...].
“Then, brahmin, when I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion my walking back and forth is celestial. If I am standing, on that occasion my standing is celestial. If I am sitting, on that occasion my sitting is celestial. If I lie down, on that occasion this is my celestial high and luxurious bed”

So, the Buddha is describing a certain quality persisting after the meditation, referring to it as "celestial" (dibba). This might be the trait your are asking about.
Note also that, if after samatha meditation one were "just like before the meditation", then for every single meditation, the difficulty to practice samatha would be the same. However, it's expected that it gets easier with time and practice.
I would claim it gets easier because the mind acquires the qualities of samadhi, even though arguably these qualities may not be in their most potent state -- say, during jhāna.
This might not be surprising from a neurological point of view, since the chemistry and behavior patterns of the brain are bound to change with any kind of repeated practice.


Your mind accusing you How do I deal with my mind accusing me of something I’m not doing?
For example, if you are walking, and your mind tells you that you are killing insects or bacteria, how do you deal with it?
Or
For example, if your skin gets itchy and you want to scratch but your mind tells you that you are killing ants or bacteria that might be causing your skin to be itchy. Your original intention was to scratch your skin because it’s itchy but your mind tells you that you are going to kill insects or bacteria that might be on your skin, you don’t listen to your mind and scratch your skin anyway. Is this bad karma?
Sorry if this is hard to understand. I try to make it clear.

Bacteria do not appear to be "breathing creatures" therefore appear excluded from the 1st precept.
The 1st precept is about intentional killing therefore excludes non-intentional killing of insects.


irrational fear of hell and damnation and spiralling, please help me? I've posted on this Q&A site before when my grandmother just passed away, and some of the answers here really helped me feel a lot better and eased my fear enough for me to go back to my normal life with a better understanding of the teaching, but man it was really short-lived.

Today, during the 49th day of my grandmother's passing, part of the rites we were carrying out involved sitting down and reciting the Ksitigarbha sutra and again, all the talk about all the different kinds of hells really got me feeling so irrationally scared. It took me back to the whole deal where I feel like if I lived like a normal human being, even if I'm not really hurting anyone intentionally, I'm being imperfect and sinful for wanting nice things, cracking dark jokes and just generally living my best life as a city girl. (I explained my fear in depth in my previous post)

There was this one part that jumped out at me particularly this time--I'm not sure if I intepreted it right but it's something along the lines of, I might think something isn't a big deal (maybe something like a white lie or getting angry/annoyed/impatient in the moment), but I will pay for it in the afterlife or something? And immediately my brain just goes to thoughts of all the hells and damnation I've landed myself into for being well...an imperfect human because that's just how the whole cycle works. And again, I'm tossed into this crippling fear of hell and damnation. I feel so worried and scared I can feel everyone around me getting annoyed with me because I always try to slide the topic into conversations in hopes that someone would call me out for being dumb and tell me I'm completely wrong.

If anyone is familiar with the sutra and teachings, could you please enlighten me? I was born into a culturally Chinese Buddhist family. I'd really, really appreciate it.

I'm really spiralling right now as I do more research on my own, like how having a drink (alcohol) and wanting to let my hair down is being mindless and thus will bring suffering and damnation, how desire is the root of all suffering and will also bring damnation and so on. I really, really want to live my life to the fullest and have no regrets. I want to build a nice career, strive for the stars, own a nice (even fancy) house and have a drink and party now and then but it's scaring me so much right now my hands and feet feel cold and I can't think of anything else.

It feels like everything and anything I want to do for myself is considered an unwholesome/bad/selfish and will cause me to go to hell and so on and it's literally terrifying me so much. I'm only 22 and I used to feel so excited and full of life and hungry for the adventure and love and fun life brings but now I have so much of this fear and thoughts I can't seem to be or love myself. It's gotten me feeling that self-love is bad too and I'm just gravely afraid of everything and I feel so crippled and helpless just being myself.

I really feel like I can't be myself without feeling like I'm going to wander to hell after I've lived out my life. I'm so scared and desperate. I used to never want to settle for the ordinary, always wanting to live my life out to the fullest and working for all the pretty and nice things in life (without intentionally hurting other people) and just living a cosy, carefree and happy life as a vibrant, free-spirited girl but now I have so many reservations and I feel so, so scared.

Please be rational and gentle with me, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Nothing in what the Buddha taught says that one is not to enjoy righteously earned pleasures. One gives up the world at one's own pace. But the whole world recognizes (if it doesn't practice) the corrupting nature of lies, harm, theft and unrestrained self indulgence. The key idea there is 'righteously earned'. You need to develop a sense of where the line is drawn between activities that create bad kamma and those that create good kamma. One does not go to Hell practicing only good deeds. That is basic training:

Create good kamma: Practice generosity. Find a vihara and make gifts to the bhikkhus.

Avoid bad kamma:

Train yourself to refrain from saying things that are not true.
Train yourself to refrain from activities that cause harm to breathing things.
Trin yourself to refrain from taking things that are not givin to you.

That is 'train yourself'. You are not expected to reach perfect behavior over night, the important thing is the direction you are headed. Your fear is rational; right now you are headed in the wrong direction. You do a 180 by taking the first step.

If you have a good bank account of good kamma and are cultivating a life that avoids making bad kamma what pleasures come to you can be enjoyed without fear and the bad stuff you have already created or newly create will be experienced in an over-all environment of progress towards the good.

If you want to understand this system more deeply I suggest this over-view, which is based on Ananda's Gradual Course:

http://buddhadust.net/dhammatalk/the_pali_line/course/table_of_contents.htm


Does Theravadin analysis distinguish between implicative and absolute negations? In Beacon of Certainty (tr. Pettit), Mipham Rinpoche addresses key questions about how to practice based on Madhyamaka philosophy. The first question has to do with distinguishing absolute negation from implicative negation.

An affirming negative (or “implicative negation”) “expresses the absence of one predicate while implying some other.” (Pettit 109)
In short, this is not a good way to conceive how appearances are empty of any true and inherent existence: because the implied object has to somehow stand apart and have some kind of inherent existence that is immune from further analysis.

A non-affirming negative (or “absolute negation”) “simply excludes something, without implying anything else.” (Pettit 109)
This is a much more fruitful stance because it does not hold some kind of appearance as standing separate from emptiness; and therefore it can serve as a conceptual segue to meditative experience of the coalescence of emptiness and appearance.

I think this distinction is a very powerful tool in overcoming the tendency to take appearances as concrete realities that somehow have emptiness within them; and to understand how appearance and emptiness coalesce. Is there a similar distinction within Theravadin buddhism? It seems like this would be a useful distinction when exploring the 3 Dharma seals, particularly that of not-self (sabbe dhammā anattā). But I've never encountered such an analysis when reading in the Pali Canon or Theravadin commentaries.

From a practicing (non-academic) Theravada perspective philosophical analysis/speculation of this form would be simply considered playing with vaci-sankhara (verbal formations). Realization of anattā for a Theravadin comes from meditative practice alone. No amount of fiddling around with words or expertise in the written Pali scriptures or associated philosophical intricacies brings one any closer to the goal. Any and all thoughts one has about anattā are merely formations based on craving (tanha) which must be let go before one can actually realize anattā. There is a feeling associated with every sense object that comes in contact with the senses. Based on this feeling one perceives the object as good, bad, or neither and then one's intellect explores this object as a source of happiness, unhappiness, or neither respectively. In this case one's mind comes into contact with an idea about anattā and it evokes some feeling. If this feeling is positive then one will be attracted to the idea (as a source of happiness) and will attempt to further justify this idea with the intellect. Similarly, if the idea evokes a negative feeling then the intellect will attempt to refute this idea as it perceived the idea as a source of unhappiness. The irony is that both of these explorations about anattā (really intellectual exploration about any subject) are psychologically based on self-view (sakkaya-ditti). The intellect is always biased by the fundamental perceptions one has about the object that are based on nothing more than feelings. In order to realize the truth about anything these thoughts (explorations of the intellect) must be abandoned.


Why are exceptionally tall statues of the Buddha and Guanyin built? When I read this article on the tallest statues in the world, I was struct by how many of them were of important Buddhist figures: of the fifteen tallest statues six are of Guanyin (Kannon/Avalokiteśvara), five of the Buddha, and one of Kṣitigarbha, for a total of twelve out of the top fifteen!

Why are such tall statues built? What significance does the height of these statues have in the religious lives of Buddhist adherents?

Or are these statues not built for true religious purposes, but as an unofficial competition between nations, just like they compete over the tallest skyscraper? Nine out of the fifteen were built in the 21th century. Who commissions these statues? Statues of this size would be beyond the budgets of most temples.

See also: this question on why precious metals are used for Buddhist statues.

OP: Why are such tall statues built?

Why do people have statues for the Buddha?
From DN16, the Buddha explained to Ananda, why it is beneficial to have a stupa for a Tathagata (a Buddha):

And why, Ananda, is a Tathagata, an Arahant, a Fully Enlightened One
worthy of a stupa? Because, Ananda, at the thought: 'This is the stupa
of that Blessed One, Arahant, Fully Enlightened One!' the hearts of
many people will be calmed and made happy; and so calmed and with
their minds established in faith therein, at the breaking up of the
body, after death, they will be reborn in a realm of heavenly
happiness. And so also at the thought: 'This is the stupa of that
Paccekabuddha!' or 'This is the stupa of a disciple of that Tathagata,
Arahant, Fully Enlightened One!' or 'This is the stupa of that
righteous monarch who ruled according to Dhamma!' — the hearts of many
people are calmed and made happy; and so calmed and with their minds
established in faith therein, at the breaking up of the body, after
death, they will be reborn in a realm of heavenly happiness. And it is
because of this, Ananda, that these four persons are worthy of a
stupa.

I would therefore extrapolate that the purpose of the statue of the Buddha is similar to the purpose of the stupa of a Buddha, which is, to be an inspiration for peace of mind and happiness.
Today, people in USA remember Martin Luther King, people in India remember Mahatma Gandhi and people in South Africa remember Nelson Mandela. They may have photos or statues of these revered persons put up in public places and treated in a respectable way. The statue of the Buddha is no different. They are there to serve as icons of inspiration.
The Buddha, at least from a Theravada perspective, is no more supernaturally reachable through prayers and rituals, than King, Gandhi or Mandela.

OP: What significance does the height of these statues have in the religious lives of Buddhist adherents?

Now, how was the stupa of a universal monarch or a Buddha built?
From the same sutta:

"But how, venerable Ananda, do they act respecting the body of a
universal monarch?"
"The body of a universal monarch, Vasetthas, is first wrapped round
with new linen, and then with teased cotton wool. And again it is
wrapped round with new linen, and again with teased cotton wool, and
so it is done up to five hundred layers of linen and five
hundred of cotton wool. When that is done, the body of the universal
monarch is placed in an iron oil-vessel, which is enclosed in
another iron vessel and a funeral pyre is built of all kinds of
perfumed woods, and so the body of the universal monarch is burned. And at a crossroads a stupa is raised for the universal
monarch. So it is done, Vasetthas, with the body of a universal
monarch.
"And even, Vasetthas, as with the body of a universal monarch, so
should it be done with the body of the Tathagata; and at a crossroads
also a stupa should be raised for the Tathagata. And whoever shall
bring to that place garlands or incense or sandalwood
paste, or pay reverence, and whose mind becomes calm there — it will
be to his well being and happiness for a long time."

So, the Buddha stupa was not a simple tomb. Rather, it was a very grand memorial shrine.
Similarly, I extrapolate that the purpose of the great height of the statues of the Buddha is to function as a grand memorial.
It's no different to the giant 38m tall statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro or the giant statue of Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.
Doesn't the giant 24m tall statue of the Buddha (the Great Buddha in Bodh Gaya, India) below make you think "this is the statue of that Blessed One, Arahant, Fully Enlightened One!" Doesn't it inspire you and fill you with awe?
Around 2.5km away from this statue, you can visit the Mahabodhi Temple and the Bodhi Tree, the exact location where the Buddha was said to have attained enlightenment. More places of inspiration.
The Great Buddha in meditation pose:


What is the common understanding of all enlightened people? There are many sutras and they are on different topics. Many people got enlightened by asking different sutras. Ven. Saripuththa thero got sothapanna by asking to cause and effect. Ven. Kondanna thero got sothapanna by asking to middle path and kamma. So, What is the core teaching of all the suttas ? What wisdom all they have in common ?

Edit: I think all people have some understanding of the world. Lord Buddha recognized those and help them to complete their understandigs. Ex: When Ven. Sariputhta thero hearing to the Cause and effect, He already have the understanding of Impermanance. (Because of that, He started to find the truth).

As others have already answered, the four noble truths are the wisdom held in common by the teachings of the Buddha that lead to enlightenment. As the Buddha said in his first discourse,

"As long as my knowing and seeing how things are, was not quite purified in these twelve aspects, in these three phases of each of the four noble truths, I did not claim in the world with its gods, its Maras and high divinities, in this generation with its monks and brahmans, with its princes and men to have discovered the full awakening that is supreme.
(Nyanamoli, trans.)

Sariputta's attainment of sotapanna is a good example of how the four noble truths are both necessary and sufficient for enlightenment, as what you call cause and effect is actually a concise teaching on the truths, as the commentary relates:

ye dhammā hetuppabhavāti hetuppabhavā nāma pañcakkhandhā; tenassa dukkhasaccaṃ dasseti.
"Those dhammas that arise based on a cause": Those things that arise based on a cause are the five aggregates. By that he showed the truth of suffering to him.
tesaṃ hetuṃ tathāgato āhāti tesaṃ hetu nāma samudayasaccaṃ; tañca tathāgato āhāti dasseti.
"The cause of them was told by the Tathagata": the cause of them is the truth of the origin of suffering. "And the Tathagata spoke that," he caused him to see.
tesañca yo nirodhoti tesaṃ ubhinnampi saccānaṃ yo appavattinirodho; tañca tathāgato āhāti attho. tenassa nirodhasaccaṃ dasseti.
"And the cessation of them": the cessation by non-manifestation of both those two truths - "And the Tathagata spoke that," is the meaning. By that he showed him the truth of cessation.
maggasaccaṃ panettha sarūpato adassitampi nayato dassitaṃ hoti, nirodhe hi vutte tassa sampāpako maggo vuttova hoti. atha vā tesañca yo nirodhoti ettha tesaṃ yo nirodho ca nirodhupāyo cāti evaṃ dvepi saccāni dassitāni hontīti.
But here the truth of the path is not explicitly shown; it is however shown implicitly. For when cessation was said, the path leading to it was also said. Either that or: "And the cessation of those" here means "the cessation of those and the means to cessation," thus the two truths are both shown.

Good evidence of the need to teach the four noble truths to attain enlightenment exists in the Dhānañjāni Sutta (MN 97), where Sariputta fails to teach the four noble truths and the listener goes to be reborn in the Brahma world. As the commentary says:

kālaṅkato ca sāriputtāti idaṃ bhagavā “tatrassa gantvā desehī”ti adhippāyena theramāha. theropi taṃkhaṇaṃyeva gantvā mahābrahmuno dhammaṃ desesi, tato paṭṭhāya cātuppadikaṃ gāthaṃ kathentopi catusaccavimuttaṃ nāma na kathesīti.
"And he has made an end to time [i.e. died], Sariputta": this the Blessed One said to the elder with the intention, "having gone there, teach him." And the elder, at that very moment having gone, taught the dhamma to the great brahma. From that moment on, even when teaching a four line verse, he never again taught anything devoid of the four truths.


What is (so special) different about Dzogchen? In relation to the comment in this answer '... regular Buddhism is college - Dzogchen is like a PhD.' Also, Sam Harris seems to endorse Dzogchen.

I am reading online like the wiki page etc. Does not seem to be any massive difference or something out of ordinary.

Can somebody please explain.

Dzogchen teaches a non-dualistic state of one's own primordial nature, with nothing to reject or accept, that is pure from the beginning in the nature of a light body. -- Khenpo Palden

In simple words:

Original Buddhism introduced many new concepts to describe 1) the unenlightened state of mind, and 2) practice leading to Liberation. Theravada's approach is to preserve these teachings as closely as possible without alterations. From Theravada's perspective it is the student that must adapt to the Teaching - not the other way around. So the student is expected to learn the exact original definitions, ideally in the Pali language. However, for many students this approach makes it difficult to see the forest behind the trees.

Mahayana Buddhism prefers to stay away from repeating the rigid concepts from Pali suttas and instead tries to re-tell the same meaning in its own words. This is why Mahayana often prefered writing new texts instead of quoting original suttas. So Mahayana's approach is more focused on conveying the "point" of the Teaching, rather then the "letter". In Mahayana, the teaching adapts to the spirit of times and places, to explain Dharma in the way the students can relate to. Still, just like Theravada, Mahayana Buddhism is mostly about 1) the unenlightened state of mind, and 2) practice leading to Liberation. But this is not all there is to Dharma, it also has the third part: Result!

In Dzogchen speak, the three parts are called Ground, Path, and Fruition - and Dzogchen focuses 100% on the third. Truth be told, some parts of Mahayana like Madhyamaka do approach Fruition in their teaching about Emptiness - but they mostly try to explain it conceptually, in terms understandable to the unenlightened mind. In contrast to that, Dzogchen directly teaches how the Enlightened mind sees and acts. Dzogchen focuses directly on what it feels like to be Enlightened or to be in Nirvana. After all the teachings of Theravada and Mahayana are learned, and all the practices fulfilled - after the Raft has been used to cross over to the other side and left behind - what remains at that point? That's what Dzogchen is about.

So Dzogchen is even more "to the point" than Mahayana - in its purest form it throws away all those teachings and explanations, and goes: "here is what Enlightened mind is like, now you do it". This is what makes it so radically different from everything else.


Can we say cause/causes behind the world is/are eternal? There is one reality which is eternal and that is Nirvana. Nirvana had no beginning nor has an end yet it exists.
Nirvana and the world are closely linked up. The one who is in the world can attain Nirvana.
If we say world has a beginning then Nirvana predates that beginning. Only Nirvana existed and then world came into existence. Which means World came from Nirvana as world is not unconditioned and before world there was only Nirvana.Which means world must have come out from state of Nirvana. But that is impossible.

Therefore can we at least conclude that cause or causes behind the world are without beginning?

update: I knew Buddha has said that it is undeclared whether whether world is eternal or not ,but people in this forum and elsewhere have declared Nirvana to be eternal.If Nirvana is eternal and permanent then we can say something existed for an infinite time in the past. Clearly Nirvana provides an eternal timeline to discuss upon. for example : In the infinite time in the past when Nirvana was there did world exist or not? Now  @ChrisW asked what did I mean by world ? By world I mean any reality in which experience of suffering can arise.
So to rephrase my question : Was there any point in the past when there was no suffering at all or has the suffering existed forever like Nirvana ? I know the gravity of this question as Buddha chose not to answer it. I dare to take up the question in order to provide some new insight to my fellow Buddhist men who think in order to believe in Buddha or Dhamma or Sangha one doesn't need to blindly believe in Buddha or Dhamma or Sangha. I believe I will also ultimately conclude that one should left such questions undeclared but I would like give one last try based upon the conclusion we have made so far like Nirvana is eternal. Given the infinite timelime ,if Suffering (or the world ) had a  beginning then what was before that beginning ? It was Nirvana. What was the cause of the suffering to arise at the beginning? Since Suffering is always conditioned and before beginning there was only Nirvana , clearly it means Nirvana was the cause of arising of suffering. But that is impossible. Because that would mean Nirvana is unstable, Nirvana is impermanent. Therefore conditioned suffering existed infinitely in the past independent of Nirvana. The cause of suffering (or the world) was impermanent but was/is a permanent feature of the world or existence or suffering which appears to be permanent. I can assure you that this question is not meant to lead you astray from the path but make us understand why we are not concluding what Buddha concluded, to know what is incorrect in our line of thinking.

Nibbana is an ultimate reality, but the 'world' is a concept. What you call the world is merely seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking. These are just experiences. There is no arising of experiences in Nibbana.

  If we say world has a beginning

But we cannot say this as it has no basis in reality. So any conclusions or questions you come up with based on this assumption will only take you away from the reality. It is not in the spirit of Buddhism to entertain such questions.

Be mindful of the questions arising in the mind that only serve to please your imagination. They will lead you astray from the Buddhist path.


What are Gandhari Charm and Manika Charm told by Buddha? In the Kevatta Sutta, Buddha is explaining to Kevatta why he doesn't use miraculous powers for his teaching. And while telling about psychic power he tells:

  Then the person without faith, without conviction, would say to the person with faith and with conviction: 'Sir, there is a charm called the Gandhari charm by which the monk wielded manifold psychic powers...exercising influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.'

And while telling about telepathic power Buddha says:

  "Then the person without faith, without conviction, would say to the person with faith and with conviction: 'Sir, there is a charm called the Manika charm by which the monk read the minds...of other beings...' What do you think, Kevatta -- isn't that what the man without faith, without conviction, would say to the man with faith and with conviction?" "Yes, venerable sir, that's just what he would say."

So it seems that it is possible to gain psychic power through Gandhari charm and mind reading power through Manika charm. I want to know what these charms are. Are they Mantras? Do any Buddhist scriptures describe it? I'm well aware that Buddhist scripture do not focus in attaining these powers and Buddhism is related with ending of suffering.

But as those charm names are spoken by Buddha himself, maybe it's possible to get knowledge about those charms. Also if there is some ancient commentaries of Kevatta Sutta, then maybe some information is avaliable there.

The sutta exemplifies how a wordling would interpret miraculous powers of a monk, by saying that it was not the monk who did it by his concentrated mind but he used charm X.

Now the wordling wants some quick fix charm and not work on his silā and samādhi.


What are false unchanging entities? I am having trouble with the concept of "unchanging entities which exist on their own".

  Attachment to the false view of self means belief in the presence of unchanging entities which exist on their own...
  The Miracle of Mindfulness p. 48

Questions:

What are some examples of "false ideas" of "unchanging entities that exist on their own"?
How do they contribute to the false view of self?

Thank you all for your time.

The page you quoted from talks about mentions "the assembly of the five aggregates".

It's standard doctrine that there's no such thing as a permanent (not impermanent), independent (not "dependently originated") self: that's the so-called anatta doctrine, see for example What is the precise meaning of anatta?

The "five aggregates" are things like "form" (perhaps "body"), "feeling", "consciousness", etc. -- which, apparently, people mistake to be themselves -- e.g. "I am this body" (or "I have this body"), "I am (or I have) this consciousness", and so on. Buddhism teaches that these things (these aggregates, skandhas) aren't permanent; that taking them to be "self" is a cause of suffering, and not a good theory (or "right view") to hold or attach to.

Given that Thich Nhat Hanh is Vietnamese/Mahayana, and talking on the same page about Bodhisattvas and peace workers, I think that what he's aiming towards is a view of selflessness (i.e. not selfishness) and interdependence (i.e. not independence). I think that's obvious when you turn the page and read "We have to strip away all the barriers" and so on.

I think that both Thich Nhat Hanh, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama, write "popular" books intended to benefit a Western audience.

Anyway, to answer your question, I think the only false view of of "an unchanging entity that exists on its own", that he's talking about here, is the "self" (or "a false view of self"). For example this (my invention, this isn't quoting anyone else) might be one of these false views:

  I'm me; and I'll remain 'me' until I die. And I remain me regardless of what other people do or even regardless of what I do.

I think that Thich Nhat Hanh's view is that we (people) are highly interdependent; we exist together, we affect each other; everything I have (a name, a body, an education) comes from other people. In practice there's little or no sense in which anyone is independent, and to imagine we are "sealed off like that not only isn't living, it isn't possible".

I suppose an example of how people aren't "independent" comes from this (non-Buddhist) doctrine, which was once semi-famous as a doctrine for Early Childhood Educators:

  CHILDREN LEARN WHAT THEY LIVE by Dorothy Law Nolte

  If a child lives with criticism,
  he learns to condemn.

  If a child lives with hostility,
  he learns to fight.

  [etc.]...

  If a child lives with encouragement,
  he learns to be confident.

  If a child lives with tolerance,
  he learns to be patient.

  [etc.]...

  If you live with serenity,
  your child will live with peace of mind.

  With what is your child living?


Why is the 16th Karmapa visualized rather than the 17th Karmapa in Karma Kagyu? From what I have seen observing Kagyu ceremonies, the 17th Karmapa (either of them, actually) is treated with great awe, respect and reverence. However in their daily rituals, Kagyu buddhists usually visualize the late 16th Karmapa. I assume this is the result of a certain prescription within Karma Kagyu but I was unable to find explanations of this on the Internet.

So, why do Kagyu followers visualize the late instead of the current holders of the Karmapa office? Does this have to do with the status of the late living Buddha as opposed to the living living Buddha?

No, it is not true that it is done by the prescription of the Kagyu. I asked one of the senior students at the Dagpo Kagyu Ling center near me, who is very close to the head of that center, so he is in a position to know the answer. He told me that people can choose who they visualize during their practice, either the 17th Karmapa, Thaye Dorje, or the 16th Karmapa, Rangdrung Rigpe Dorje. What is true, is that there exists a special Guru Yoga practice text for the 16th Karmapa and not yet a formal Guru Yoga practice text for the 17th Karmapa.


Source of quotation from Buddhaghosa about Buddha being trackless Radhakrishnan's edition of The Dhammapada provides the following quotation from Buddhaghosa as a commentary on Verse 179 (Chapt, 14, 1 Buddhavagga) where the Buddha is described as apadam trackless/signless:

  "The man who is possessed of even a single one of such conditions as
  raga, attachment, &c., him ye can lead forward; but the Buddha has not even one condition or basis of renewed existence, and therefore by
  what track will you lead this unconditioned Buddha?"

Could anyone tell me the source of this quotation and also provide me with the Pali?

Radhakrishnan is not a wholly reliable guide to the Dhammapada. One must read him with care. The Pāḷi is

  Kena padenāti yassa hi rāgapadādīsu ekapadampi atthi, taṃ tumhe tena
  padena nessatha. Buddhassa pana ekapadampi natthi, taṃ apadaṃ buddhaṃ tumhe kena padena nessatha. Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā, 3.196.

It's from Buddhaghosa's commentary on the Dhammapada (Dhammapada Aṭṭhakathā). This section comments on the words "by what pada" (kena padena). My rough translation is:

  If he has even one from amongst the padas such as desire (rāga), then he can be led by that pada. But the Buddha has not even one of them, the Buddha is without a pada, there is no pada by which you can lead him.

The question then is what pada means here. If we read this along with Dhp 180 then it becomes clear that pada means desire etc (rāgapadādi). And it seems to me that "track" is a poor translation of pada here. It does not convey that in this context pada is referring to desire etc. I suggest that "sign" is somewhat better, but that even this is less than entirely satisfactory. Only the context can help us in this case.

In what sense craving is a "path" or a "track" or even a "sign" is moot. But then these verses are rather esoteric and a simple answer might be misleading anyway.


Does Vajrayana accept the idea that Buddha placed Lord Yama (a supposed Bodhisattva) in charge of the hell realms to ensure karmic retribution? In reading this answer to another question I came across this link which is seemingly a Tibetan Buddhist site proclaiming the following:

  In Buddhism the two beings that are often confused with the Christian
  concept of the devil, Yama and Mara, are also Bodhisattvas. Lord
  Yama’s job is to make sure beings receive the appropriate karmic
  retribution in the appropriate hell realm.

Which strikes me as completely antithetical to Buddhism, the Dharma, the Bodhisattva way of life, and well in just about every sense wrong and even dangerous idea about how karma works. This is certainly never been taught to me in the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism and I would be quite shocked if any of my teachers (in the lineage of His Holiness the Dalai Lama) accepted any of this.

As a student of Tibetan Buddhism, but not specifically the Vajrayana I would like to know if there is any defense of this from the viewpoint of Vajrayana? Does anyone follow this way of thinking?

Personally, I would file this under don't believe everything you read purporting to be Buddha Dharma on the internet. There are ignorant people out there making all kinds of bellicose claims and surrounding themselves in the iconography and material trappings of Tibetan Buddhist culture all the while being shockingly ignorant of Buddha Dharma. This seems to me to be one of them.

Yama is a known God of the lower realm in all forms of Buddhism, I am not knowledgeable about particularly Vajrayana, but I guess they do accept him, there is no reason why not, when he mentioned in all of the sutras
Yama is the God that humans meets when they die, because he rules Karma
I am not sure whats your issue with that
Hope this help


Why is meditation making me more angry? Can someone tell me what's wrong?

I am extremely new to the art of meditation in general.

My mind, in general, is always cluttered with either office worries or personal worries.

When I remove my worries slowly via meditation (i.e. emptying my thoughts), I tend to be peaceful.

But, during this state, if I encounter a situation that irks or annoys me, my reaction is much rasher or blunt than if I don't empty my mind.

For example, after emptying my mind, I saw my son standing in front of the TV, then I grabbed his arm and brushed him aside. I would not have done this if I had not emptied my mind.

Also, I noticed that my attention and concentration is much stronger after emptying my mind, but my compassion or empathy also gets reduced proportionately.

Can someone help?

As one Tibetan lama explained in one lecture I attended, this type of anger comes from attachment to a certain form of clarity.

Because in meditation you experience clarity born of unification of mind (lack of inner conflict), when in post-meditation a conflict between "is" and "should" arises, attachment to clarity leads to suffering, rejection of which then manifests as anger.

Read up on tanha (craving) and the second noble truth, then watch yourself carefully millisecond-by-millisecond and try to catch the moment just before the anger arises. For this to be possible you may have to establish mindfulness of body first.

More broadly, a usual problem with beginning meditators is so-called "spiritual materialism". If one sees oneself as (secretly) superior to others, one's practice becomes a (secret) way to confirm one's superiority. This leads to irritation due to (projected) imperfections of others. This is likely why your empathy is reduced. You should be stalking and murdering your ego, instead of feeding it.

Unfortunately with increased popularity of direct methods in the West, like meditation and chakras/energy-yoga, problems like yours are bound to get more common. Opening the floodgate of Emptiness without having built a strong foundation of Discipline can only lead to Rudrahood. I personally am a big proponent of at least 5 years of Sila practice before one is introduced to meditation or energy-yoga.


Mahasi Sayadaw Noting Method (mostly as taught by Yuttadhammo Bhikku): Help with mindfulness during daily activities? I'm having immense troubles with maintaining mindfulness during the day. Is it really as simple as noting whatever is prominent? Do I just need to stick with it?

Generally, I'm confused as to what exactly to note / not note. For example....

When I'm walking around at my job, I see people whom I have a desire for to like me. Others, I don't care so much, and sometimes there is some disdain for these people.

In these times I feel like if I focus on and note the walking or movements of the body or tension in the body, I'm neglecting my attachment / aversion to the person I'm seeing, the unwholesome thoughts and feelings that have arisen, etc.- and vise versa! When I note the thoughts/feelings/tension etc, I feel like maybe I'm just making a stink out of stuff and causing more stress than is beneficial, but maybe I'm wrong.

These times sometimes seem like an endless stream of physical tension / mental anguish / restlessness, and it causes a lot of dysfunction and anxiety in me, and sometimes I just give up and ditch mindfulness until my next formal session, or at least until I get away from these people.

I'll admit that I've seemed to have had success with noting in these moments one time, the other day. Anxiety left me alone for a bit and I was able to joke around with some of these people who I tend to so desperately want to like me. I felt free of that desperate want for them to like me for a bit. That's certainly a step up from feeling paralyzed by anxiety, even if it is mostly just worldly pleasure.

But I still have so much doubt and hopelessness built up that I really would love to hear some other's experiences in these situations, hopefully someone who also practices Mahasi Sayadaw's noting method. Again I'd like to ask, because maybe I just need a kick in the pants, do I just need to stick with it? I've watched a video on how Yuttadhammo dealt with anxiety and he basically said "stick with it even though your body might be freaking out and it might even be obvious to those around you, and maybe you'll be having a terrible time. Eventually you'll get a handle on it". I'm very much paraphrasing. :)

Thanks in advance.

I'm not familiar with Yuttadhammo Bhikku, but from a short look at his teaching I believe the key is that one should not be noting things; one should be noting mind movements. For instance, looking at the discussion of vipassana on his website, he says this:

  The Four Foundations of Mindfulness are:

  Body: Noting the body while prostrating, walking, and sitting.
  Feelings: Noting pain as “pain”, happiness as “happy” and calm as
  “calm”.
  Mind: Noting thoughts about past or future – both good and bad – as
     “thinking”.
  Dhammas: Noting hindrances as:

  “liking”
  “disliking”
  “drowsiness”
  “distraction”
  “doubt”

Now, this is within the context of meditation, but notice the focus. He doesn't want you to notice (say) that you like the color of the head monk's robe; he wants you to notice that a feeling of 'liking' has arisen in you, without necessarily paying attention to the external focus of that feeling. You notice it arise, you notice it persist, you notice it fade...

Translate this to walking through your office: If you encounter a person whom you wish would like you, notice the desire to be liked rise in you. If you encounter a person you dislike, notice the disdain rise. If you have a moment of anxiety, notice the anxiety. You don't need to do anything other than notice. When you bring these large movements of the mind into conscious focus they will start to shift and dissolve of their own accord. Then you do it with more subtle mind-movements, and even more subtle ones, until your mind is perfectly calm and still.

Try to keep in mind that the people and things that you encounter do not cause the movements of your mind. You make them, when you form attachments to what these people and things represent to you, and those attachments drag through your mind like a rope pulled through water. Unless you notice the movement, you won't be able to see the attachment.


Why do ignorance and intention have something to do with rebirth? I have a lot of trouble dealing with rebirth, mostly because of my previous "skeptic" past. However, buddhism has helped me a lot to open my mind and to get detached from any point of view that might be incompatible with the wisdom shown by the practice of the Dhamma.

This aperture to new perspectives has made me reconsider the possibility of rebirth. Thus, my question.

From the point of view of paticcasamuppada, ignorance and craving are prerequisites for rebecoming.

But why would the universe and its underlying mechanisms and laws care about our ignorance, intentions and desires?
Isn't this a kind of anthopocentric view?
Why does uprooting ignorance and craving stop the rebirth process?

Let me introduce you to the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article):

  In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
  bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
  describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
  “consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
  has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
  monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
  back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
  physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
  served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
  lethal.

The monkey needs to let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice. He got stuck in the trap in the first place due to his craving for rice.

But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance about how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would be free from his suffering.

  OP: But why would the universe and its underlying mechanisms and laws care about our ignorance, intentions and desires? Isn't this a
  kind of anthropocentric view? Why does uprooting ignorance and craving
  stop the rebirth process?

Back to my analogy, does the coconut or the rice care about the monkey and its intentions, desires and ignorance? Not at all. In no way is this a anthropocentric view.

Rather, as Andrei stated in his answer, it's an information-centric or representation-centric view. I also think of it as a conceptuality-centric view. The suffering and its release are based on the mental concepts or ideas of the monkey with regards to its identity, desires and relationship to its environment.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)


How to lose identification with my body and physical appearance Ever since I was a child I was very look concious. I took pride from my looks and took shame from them as well. I'm at a point where my sense of worth is mainly derived from such an unstable, diminishing and limited resource and this inconsistency is causing me a lot of suffering.
How to lose identification with my body?

On one practical side: be mindful. Meditate daily. Understand that the suffering and joy derived from your appearance is impermanent and doesn’t matter much. It is wise that you seek to reduce this attachment, but don’t do it from a place of aversion and anxiety. Accept your current way of thinking, and be patient and compassionate with your self about making a change.

On a deeper side: reflect on the fact that you are a bag of meat and organs. There’s a great talk from the Buddha about this, see if you can find it. Try to see things more clearly, more objectively. Understand that your body will gradually deteriorate and decay. Be ready for that. Of course you can take care of it, but understand that the body is not YOU, but a mere vessel with an expiration date.

Priding yourself of your body is no different than doing it with your car or house. It’s just a mere accessory.

This answer doesn’t have a clear solution but hopefully will point you to the right direction to find a solution yourself. :)


Is it a sin to organize liqour & meat on cutomer request as a prt of my job? I'm interested in Event planning & if I take up that job I'll have to make necessary arrangements for liqour & meat to be served at events upon client request.

I'd like to know if that is considered as a sin according to Buddhism?

Thank you,
May the nobel triple gem bless you!

Karma is a state of mind. If you intentionally order animals to be slaughtered, it breaks the first precept. If you order meat(dead animal bodies), it does not break the first precept. Serving liquor to clients does not break the fifth precept.

But both serving liquor and selling meat can come under Micca Ajiva(wrong livelihood)as you are doing it to make a living.


What are the differences between "Nirvana" in Buddhism and "Moksha" in Hinduism? A few days ago, I came across an article on Buddhism primarily about "Nirvana."
 After I read the article, I started to wonder because "Nirvana" sounds similar to Hinduism's "Moksha."  Does anyone know about possible parallels between the two concepts?  Are "Moksha" and "Nirvana" essentially the same?  If they are not similar, what are the differences between the two religious teachings?

The question was already asked on the Hinduism Stack Exchange Site, but it is not currently receiving any positive responses.

Moksha and Nirvana are the same in that:

The cycle of live, death and rebirth is broken
once attained, one is free from Samsara
It's attainable through practise
Meditation techniques are employed in attaining both

They differ in that:

Moksha tends to explained as a merger with Atman, or Brahma which Buddhist don't believe.

Their main philosophical difference is found in the wiki quote:

  Nirvana, a concept common in Buddhism, is the realization that there
  is no self nor consciousness; while moksha, a concept common in many
  schools of Hinduism, is acceptance of Self, realization of liberating
  knowledge, the consciousness of Oneness with all existence and
  understanding the whole universe as the Self. Nirvana starts with
  the premise that there is no Self, moksha on the other hand, starts
  with the premise that everything is the Self; there is no
  consciousness in the state of nirvana, but everything is One unified
  consciousness in the state of moksha.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha


How buddhist meditation leads to liberation? Buddha taught meditation to develop concentration, calm of the mind to finally experience nibbana.

Other religions (Hindu yoga, etc) also taught meditation.

So in which way Buddhist meditation is different? and leads to end of suffering?
If I'm not wrong, if someone is absorbed in concentration, whatever religion does not matter. since there is no thought during absorption.

Please explain if possible in terms of 7 factors of awakening, 8 foldpath, etc...

The essential difference is that in Buddhist meditation, at some point one uses one's mind to actively examine and investigate one's direct experience and to realize it's nature that way. This is the seventh factor of the Noble Eightfold path, Right Mindfulness, Samma-Sati. It is described in the Sattipatthana Sutta like this:

"There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, >alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains >focused on feelings... mind... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & >mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.
...
In this way he remains focused internally on the body etc... in & of itself, or >externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & >of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the >body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of >origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a >body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, >unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains >focused on the body in & of itself."

(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html )
The result of which is that the mediator begins to discern that reality is impermanent, unsatisfying, and non-self. As one realizes this more deeply, one is lead to liberation. This process is described in many places in the Suttas, most famously in the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta like this:

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with >form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with >fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. >Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, >'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task >done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

(Source http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html )
Non-Buddhist systems of meditation often focus on just developing concentration without this process of analyzing direct experience, and so end up attaining other things, such as mastery of the Jhanas, rebirth into the Brahma worlds etc... There is nothing wrong with these other things, and they can also be a part of Buddhist practice, but they aren't the goal.


If you were going to explain Dharmakāya to someone who has never encountered the topic prior, where would you begin? Dharmakāya is tricky business to explain.

If you were to explain it to someone who has never heard of the concept where would you begin?

How does it fit in with attraction and aversion?

At the same time the explainer would have to make sure to cover the different ways the word Dharmanakaya has been used.

Although the notion appears in all sorts of philosophical treatises, as well as in tenets, it is explained at length in texts expounding 'buddha nature' (tathagatagarbha). I would recommend in particular the study of Maitreya's
Uttaratantra Shastra (Treatise on the Sublime Continuum). Although it is called 'uttara-tantra' it is included within the perfection vehicle (sutra). Maitreya's Sublime Continuum has been commented upon by various scholars of different traditions, and so there are various interpretations.

From the point of view of the cause, the general presentation is that from the accumulation of merit, one achieves the form body (rupakaya) of a buddha that fulfill others' wishes, while one obtains the truth body (dharmakaya) from the accumulation of wisdom. The truth body fulfill one's wishes. The form body is divided into the one that is so subtle that it is not seen by ordinary beings (the enjoyment body) and a grosser one that ordinary beings can see (the emanation body). It is said that Shakyamuni Buddha was a supreme emanation body (a division of emanation body) endowed with the marks and signs. As this position no longer holds when we divide the bodies of a buddha (into three, four, or five as you will see bellow), it is merely the general presentation.

From the point of view of the result, the nature truth body (part of the dharmakya) results from the naturally abiding linage while the wisdom truth body (part of the dharmakaya) results from the developmental linage. Although we say that the nature truth body (suchness without defilements) results from the naturally abiding linage (suchness with defilements), it is not caused because suchness is permanent. Suchness with defilements is not an actual cause but a terminological division.

From the point of view of the nature, the general presentation identifies 'emptiness with defilements' to the tathagatagarbha and 'emptiness without defilements' to the dharmakaya. In this context, dharmakaya refers only to the nature truth body. Both are permanent and uncompounded. In Gyaltsab Je's commentary [to Maitreya], dharmakaya sometimes refer solely to the wisdom truth body or the nature truth body. It is where divisions are important. We can divide the bodies of a buddha in three ways:

The two bodies of a buddha
1. dharmakaya (truth body)
2. rupakaya (form body)
The three bodies of a buddha (it is referred  to as Trikaya)
1. dharmakaya
2. rupakaya divided in two:
--- 1. emanation body
--- 2. enjoyment body
The four bodies of a buddha
1. dharmakya divided into two:
--- 1. nature truth body
--- 2. wisdom truth body
2. rupakaya divided into two:
--- 1. emanation body
--- 2. enjoyment body
The five bodies of a buddha
1. dharmakaya divided into two:
--- 1. nature truth body
--- 2. wisdom truth body divided into two:
-------- 1. the omnscient mind that distinguishes conventionalities
-------- 2. the one that distinguishes the ultimate
2. the form body divided into two


Consciousness in Nibbana In the Abhidhamma, it makes mention to 89 and 121 states of consciousness. It says there are four ultimate realities namely

Consciousness
Mental Factors
Matter
Nibbana.
The first three are conditioned, nirvana is unconditioned.

According the Abhidhamma, It states that persons who've attained nirvana no longer have consciousness. What does this mean exactly?

In the Mundane, sense-sphere, rootless consciousness, it says that “body consciousness, accompanied by pain” is the result of unwholesome karma. Does this mean that enlightened beings such as a Buddha or an arahant don't feel pain when they touch something hot?

There are two types of nirvana: saupādisesa-nibbāna (nirvana with remainder) and anupādisesa-nibbāna (nirvana without remainder) (Iti. 44).

It is true that for one who has attained anupādisesa-nibbāna there will be no more consciousness. This is because someone who has attained anupādisesa-nibbāna is dead*. It is the equivalent to the more familiar parinibbāna - "complete" nirvāna. For one who has attained saupādisesa-nibbāna, there is still the physical and mental formations that have been created as a result of being born as a human that need to work themselves out, including consciousness.

* Conventionally speaking; technically, they have become free from death, since they have become free from birth (arising).


My thoughts don't happen to other people so why are they 'not mine'? Considering the five aggregates and the sense in which they are all not-self. Thoughts (samskāra) are one of the five aggregates so they too are 'not me' or 'not mine'. In one sense this is a statement which accords with my own experience while on and off the meditation cushion. They display an impermanence and often they arising unbidden (or as part of a web of causal relationships that I don't control). In another sense however this doesn't accord with my experience. My thoughts don't happen to anyone else. They are thoughts in my head happening to me.

I know (well I think I know) the second statement is a wrong view. So why are thoughts not mine if they never happen to other people.

When speaking in conventional terms, i.e. "my, mine, they, others, people etc." we are dealing with conventional reality. Here concepts such as "a man, woman, an animal, a Self" etc. exist.

When instead we turn to ultimate reality we realize that there is no such thing as concepts. They are not findable in ultimate reality. They have no real point of reference. We realize that the question arose out of having wrong view, as you also mention.

The reason why "your" thoughts do not happen to "other people" is because they are concepts.

If we instead construct the sentence in another way it might make more sense. The new sentence could be:

Thoughts arise and cease. Mental formations arise and cease. They do not belong to anyone or anything. That is a mental formation itself and it itself is impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self. There is no thinker behind the thought. There is no "owner" of phenomena. There is no experiencing entity. There are just physical and mental phenomena arising and ceasing.

I hope this shed some light onto it. If i may give an advice from personal practice, then do not think too much about these things. Instead keep doing insight meditation as you also mention you do. The experiental knowledge you gain will cast away all illusions and concepts and lay bare the true nature of reality.

Lastly, i would like to point you to this dhamma talk by Ajahn Punnadhammo. Its called "Anatta". Very good talk.

I have attached a picture to illustrate what happens when we are "trapped" in conventional reality. The bottom of the picture is when one is without insight knowledge into the 3 signs of existence and thereby thinking one has a Self. When one begins practicing the path and gains insights then the breaking away of illusions and concepts happen like in the top of the picture. We become free from wrong view and gain right view.


Infinite rebirth, finite kamma? If we have been transmigrating in samsara infinitely via rebirths, then doesn't that mean that kamma which we have earned too is infinite? And if so, doesn't that imply that enlightenment is imposible to reach since it would take one infinite amount of time to reach? I know this is classified as something that is unconjecturable and drives one insane, but this one is driving me curious. Any takers on this?

According to this Jainpedia page on Jain teachings on karma:

The karmas accrued over a lifetime trap the soul in the cycle of
births. The karmas mature by affecting the soul or the physical body
of its next lifetime or birth. When the body dies, the soul is born in
a different body, which is shaped by karmas from the previous birth
and the ones before that. The condition of the soul in that lifetime
is also influenced by karmas from previous incarnations. This cycle of
birth, death and life repeats endlessly while the soul has karmas
attached to it.
The soul yearns to fulfil its true nature, which it cannot do while it
is imprisoned within the cycle of rebirth. Only a soul without karma
can be liberated from the cycle of birth, reaching self-realisation.
Following the teachings of the Jinas and developing spiritually lead
to the prevention of new karmas entering the soul – saṃvara – and the
removal of existing karmas. ....
Destroying karmas that are attached to the soul requires ascetic
practices such as fasting, meditation and denying bodily needs and
comforts.

In MN 101, the Buddha debunked the following teachings of the Jains:

All the happens to a person is due to past karma
Elimination of past karma is possible by penance
Elimination of karma is possible by not accumulating new karma
With emptying of all past bad and good karma, suffering would end

In other words, the Jain way is emptying the karma account in order to end the cycle of rebirth, which is suffering.
The Buddha's path is that of the purification of the mind to end suffering, and not emptying of the karma account.
The Jain idea is that suffering is sustained by karmic balance. The Buddhist teaching is that suffering is sustained by craving and ignorance.
From MN 101:

“Mendicants, there are some ascetics and brahmins who have this
doctrine and view: ‘Everything this individual
experiences—pleasurable, painful, or neutral—is because of past deeds.
So, due to eliminating past deeds by mortification, and not doing any
new deeds, there’s nothing to come up in the future. With nothing to
come up in the future, deeds end. With the ending of deeds, suffering
ends. With the ending of suffering, feeling ends. And with the ending
of feeling, all suffering will have been worn away.’ Such is the
doctrine of the Jain ascetics.
I’ve gone up to the Jain ascetics who say this and said, ‘Is it really
true that this is the venerables’ view?’ They admitted that it is. ...
But since you don’t know any of these things, it’s not appropriate for
the Jain venerables to declare this.’  ...
Such is the doctrine of the Jain ascetics. Saying this, the Jain
ascetics deserve rebuke and criticism on ten legitimate grounds.


Could dhammanupassana be to remember satipatthana? Could the 4th satipatthana or dhammanupassana be, among other things,  to remember Satipatthana in both heart and mind? Shouldn't viriya  be focused on the focus towards satipatthana when  worldly matters have distracted one down a wrong turn on the path? Do anything Buddhist scriptures talk about this?

Your question is about the 'goal' of dhammanupassana. You are rightly careful to not think of it as the only 'benefit' of dhammanupassana.

Establishment of sati, is fourfold. Fourfold establishment means that sati is perfected when sati (awareness) is established over the 4 categorized mind-body phenomenon. That is to say, mind-body phenomenon is viewed in terms of the 4 categories, awareness of body (kayanupassana), awareness of sensations (vedanupassana), awarenesss of mind  (cittanupassana) and awareness of the nature/law of mental-contents (dhammanupassana). Pefrection of sati is gradual and happens in all 4 categories (since there are no 'categories' as such, but the term is used conventionally to make sense of mind-body phenomenon). Of course, establishing awareness of body is easier than the rest, nonetheless, perfection (perfect establishing of sati) which is to say , complete awareness happens only when progress is made on all '4' categories.

I do no unedrstand what you mean by heart in this context. Memory is a mental phenomenon and so perfection of dhammanupassana, of course, results in sharper and clearer memory (only as an off-shoot; not the main goal(or even an intended goal) of dhammanupassana).
As to the question about 'viriya', while in a subtle (and indeed profound) sense, viriya specifically implies for the meditation period, in a superficial sense (very usefull and certainly not wrong) it also implies to right effort in one's everyday life.

But to answer your question in the simplest way, in the context of meditation, certainly viriya must be applied to get back on the path as one strays and becomes aware that one has strayed. Just dont stop with viriya there!

References-
You may refer to Sattipathana sutta and Mahasattipathana sutta for  better understanding based on your own reading.

NOTE-

I have used 'awareness' as the english translation for sati. 'Mind-fullness' works equally well in this case.
I have used 'effort' as the english translation for viriya. 'Energy' would be an equally goood translation in this case.


Where in the Pali Canon are there Discussions on Reanimated Corpse? I have heard about are couple of places in the Vinaya which discusses situations involving reanimated corpses. I want to find the exact locations and reference. Also are there any other in the Tipitaka and / or Commentaries this appear?

In addition,  p252, THE IMPERIAL GAZETTEER OF INDIA THE INDIAN EMPIRE VOL II HISTORICAL mentions:

  A collection of pretty and ingenious fairy-tales is the Vetala pancha vimsati,
  or ' Twenty-five Tales of the Goblin,' stories
  supposed to be told to king Vikrama of Ujjayini by a demon
  inhabiting a corpse. They are known to English readers from
  Sir Richard Burton's Vikram and the Vampire. Another
  collection of fairy-tales is the Simhasana-dvatrimsika, or ' Thirty two
  Stories of the Lion-seat,' supposed to be told to king
  Vikrama by his throne. Both these works are of Buddhistic
  origin. To the same class belongs the Suka-saptati, or
  ' Seventy Stories of a Parrot,' represented as narrated to a wife
  whose husband is away on his travels.

In which Buddhist text does this appear?

Particularly is there references to such in the Vinaya and commentaries or sub commentaries.

The following appears in the Patika Sutta, DN 24:1.7-10 (iii 8-10) (Walshe, Long Discourses of the Buddha, pp. 373f):

  "The Buddha invites Sunakkhatta to verify this [referring to Korakkhattiya's rebirth as an asura) for himself, which he
  does by performing an act of what amounts to necromancy—the magical
  art of divining using corpses—with the corpse of Korakkhattiya, which
  he finds thrown aside on a heap of grass in a charnel ground. Striking
  the body three times with his hand, Sunakkhatta cries out, “Friend
  Korakkhattiya, do you know your fate?” The corpse sits up, rubs his
  back with his hand, and says, “Friend Sunakkhatta, I know my fate. I
  have been reborn among the Kalakanja asuras.” The corpse then falls
  back, dead once more. This type of divination was reputedly performed
  by witches and sorcerers in Europe during the Middle Ages, and is
  clearly a universal archetype. Afterward, the Buddha reminds
  Sunakkhatta of his complaint that the Buddha has not performed a
  miracle. Sunakkhatta admits that he has, and leaves the sangha in
  disgrace." (Duncan, Conversations with the Buddha, pp. 268f.).


Why is "I have no self" a wrong view? In the Sabbasava Sutta (MN2), the view that "I have no self" is listed as one of the six wrong views and one who holds this view will not be freed from suffering.

Questions:

Why is "I have no self" a wrong view?
Why is this not a contradiction to anatta?

  "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
  arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
  established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is
  precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is
  precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view
  It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very
  self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the
  ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant,
  everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it
  is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of
  views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.
  Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is
  not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &
  stress.

It is wrong view because of the "I" (bolded): "I have no self". This view still believes in self. It thinks: "myself has no self". This is the wrong view of the befuddled wanderer Vacchagotta in SN 44.10.

This wrong view is similar to the nihilistic view in MN 102, where it states:

  Just as a dog bound by a leash tied to a post or pillar keeps running and circling around that same post or pillar; so too those through
  fear of identity & disgust with identity keep running and circling
  around that same identity.

Right view is: "The five aggregates have no self".


What is Anuloma-nana? How does this insight works? What is anuloma-nana and how does this adaptation-knowledge makes the switch from the mundane to the supramundane world?

Ñānadassana-visuddhi - 'purification of knowledge and vision', is the last of the 7 purifications and a name for path-knowledge, maggañāna i.e. the penetrating realization of the path of Stream-winning, Once-returning, Non-returning or Arahatship.  The Knowledge of Adaptation (anuloma-ñana) comes under this seventh purification.

The only sutta that fully explains the seven purifications is Rathavinita Sutta. It explains in full the seven purifications (SAPTHA VISUDDHI) taught by the Buddha. The Ratha-vinita Sutta: Relay Chariots  (MN 24; M.I,145). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.024.than.html

The only place in the Canon where these 7 kinds of purification are mentioned is M. 24,, The Simile of the Stage-coach; There it is said that the real and ultimate goal does not consist in purification of morality, or of mind, or of view, etc., but in total deliverance and ceasing. Now, just as one mounts the first coach and travels to the second coach, then mounts the second coach and travels with it to the third coach, etc.,
in exactly the same way the goal of (I) the purification of morality (sila-visuddhi) is  (II) the purification of mind (citta-visuddhi)
its goal: (III) the purification of view (ditthi-visuddhi)
its goal: (IV) the purification by overcoming doubt kankhāvitarana-visuddhi
its goal: (V) the purification by knowledge and vision of what is path and not-path (maggāmagga-ñānadassana-visuddhi)
its goal: (VI) the purification by knowledge and vision of the path-progress  (patipadā-ñānadassana-visuddhi);
its goal: (VII) the purification of knowledge and vision (ñānadassana-visuddhi)
but the goal of this purification is deliverance freed from all clinging.

By the purification of knowledge are here meant the following, which are freed from defilements, follow the right process, and are considered as insight, namely:

knowledge consisting in contemplation of rise and fall (udayabbayānupassanā-ñāna),
in contemplation of dissolution (bhangānupassanā-ñāna),
in awareness of terror (or the fearful) (bhayatūpatthānā-ñāna),
in contemplation of misery (ādīnavānupassanā-ñāna),
in contemplation of aversion (nibbidānupassanā-ñāna),
in the desire for deliverance (muccitu-kamyatā-ñāna),
in reflecting contemplation (patisankhānupassanā-ñāna),
in equanimity regarding all formations of existence (sankhārupekkhā-ñāna) - which is followed by
in adaptation to truth (saccānulomika-ñāna) ie. anuloma-nana.

So there is a very long way for you and I to go in this Path before coming to this anuloma-nana. Wisdom derived from the preliminary nanas, the ones before it. This Anuloma nana has the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta. In the anuloma nana, the Four Noble Truths appear clearly and distinctly.