Questions about strong acceptance of rebirth? In a nutshell, the Buddha's teaching is:

self-views ("I have a self" and/or "I have no self") must be avoided
craving is a precondition for suffering, thus we must train ourselves to gain control over craving and, finally, to eradicate it
nihilism ("non existence") and/or existentialism ("existence") must be avoided
being spiritual or having spiritual views is better than being materialistic or having materialistic views
extremes must be avoided (middle way)

I'm wondering WHY a strong belief in rebirth does not conform with the above Buddha's teachings? I really want to understand the WHY behind it. WHY a belief in rebirth does not lead to the cessation of suffering? WHY somebody who strongly accepts rebirth (read the below case to see what I mean by "strongly accepting rebirth") can't attain Nibanna?

Please respond to the below questions that I provided and then if you wish give your explanations/answers.

CASE a)

Suppose person X STRONGLY ACCEPTS REBIRTH by claiming: "There's NO WAY that after death there is no life. Life after death doesn't stop. Life after death is real. Life after death can't stop." When asked "Can life after death come to an end for an arahat?" person X would answer: "No. There's NO WAY life after death can come to an end. Life after death does not come to an end for all beings, even if a being is an arahat or attained enlightenment (Nirvana).". When asked "Is there at least any tinyyyy possibility life after death can come to an end for an arahat?" person X would answer: "No. There's NO WAY! I know there's no way! NO WAY.".

Suppose person X is very sturdy and close minded and there's no way person X will change his/her views about life after death, not even if somebody would threaten his/her life and would actually kill him/her.

Questions:

1a. Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of craving? Why?

2a. Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of nihilistic ("non existence") and/or eternalists ("existence") views? Why?

3a. Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of a view regarding self ("I have a self" and/or "I have no self")? Why?

4a. Can an arahat strongly accept rebirth, just like person X in the example above? Why?

The question is basically, why is belief in literal rebirth (reincarnation) a problem. I won't address every OP point here, just make four theses:

Rebirth is self. Self is rebirth. Whenever there is belief in rebirth, there is attachment to self. You can't possibly believe in rebirth without having a notion of entity (identity) that is getting reborn. Having a notion of entity means you don't understand sankharas (assembly of phenomena), which means even your understanding of anicca is superficial, let alone of anatta or shunyata.
Rebirth usually (but not always, see next point) involves dualistic views about some "special" substance that carries on the entity's identity. That substance is imagined to be made from something principally different, a second kind of stuff (first being normal matter/energy) - hence "dual-ism". Whatever you call that stuff, it basically means "soul" - some spiritual supernatural essence.
Even if you define rebirth as arising of the new being on the basis of the previous being's karma (like the old candle transferring its flame to the new candle) - in other words if you define rebirth as transfer of information/causation - if you imagine this process going 1:1 from one previous being to one new being through some mysterious mechanism, you are still creating a cohesive entity where there is just a bunch of disjointed causation chains. The information/causation is transferred all the time, many-to-many, not at the moment of death or birth. So transmigration of sentient beings at large is real, the wheel is continuously in motion rolling in the rut from generation to generation. Karma is real. But individual reincarnation is not.
If you look deep inside you will see that rebirth is a byproduct of a psychological need. What need? A need to have something beyond THIS to look forward to, to hope for, because THIS is unbearable. But denying THIS is denying the first noble truth, it is escapism. No progress on the path can be made until we accept THIS with all its pain. We must fully come to THIS because THIS is where Enlightenment unfolds.

My recommendation is to meditate on the notion of entity. Think about a piece of wood and how it becomes ashes as it burns. Where are the spatial/temporal boundaries of an entity here? Same with ice/water/vapor. Same with an entity called "a river". Same with people, including both body and mind. Where does the mind come from? Where are its boundaries? Is there an entity here?


A seeming contradicion in meditation In Buddhism I have often heard the idea that there is nothing wrong with what you are feeling, thinking and sensing, it is only our relation to those things that define/judge them to be bad.
Well this has me thinking. If there is such a thing as a "wrong relation" to our thoughts, that relation is itself a thought, which would mean that suddenly there is "something wrong" with our thoughts.
So to me this is an apparent contradiction. Either there is something wrong with your thoughts that can be fixed by sitting, or there is not.
If there is nothing wrong with your thoughts, feelings, senses, then why sit at all?
If there IS something wrong with your thoughts or your relation to your thoughts, that seems to go against the whole non-judgemental awareness idea.
In other words, in meditation we say that we are not trying to achieve anything and get anywhere outside the current moment. But getting to that state of mind DOES take effort and training. It IS trying to achieve something. It is moving towards something. It is applying effort in some direction.
I can't seem to reconsile these two thoughts.
It has been bugging me for a while now, I hope you all can help.
Cheers!

Excellent question. You're definitely onto something.
As everyone here said, wrong thoughts are real, these are thoughts that have a nature of conflict: thoughts of wanting more, thoughts of not wanting anymore, thoughts like "it's not supposed to be like this".
Our tactical goal is Peace, a state of mind when there's no inner conflict, no conflicting thoughts. (Our strategic goal, at least in Mahayana, is Enlightenment and full Liberation, but let's not get ahead of ourselves).
To attain that tactical goal, you need to eradicate the conflicting thoughts (of both craving and aversion types). Now, if you were to judge your thoughts as "wrong", you would only create more conflict right then and there. So the trick is to eradicate conflict without creating even more conflict. How is that to be done?
Instead of sitting there and hating yourself or hating your bad thoughts or blaming them or suppressing them - we just don't feed them and let them dissolve. We let our attention naturally move on to other thoughts. Or, if attention keeps getting stuck, we gently move it onto other topics, deliberately.
Depending on where you are in your practice this may require less or more effort. When you are very advanced, you just watch them and they dissolve like the writing on water. When you are a beginner, you may have to speak out loud on some positive topic in order to distract your attention. And everything in between.


Right knowledge and right relase or right release and right knowledge In ten Noble path the sequence is right knowledge and right release. (Samma Nana and samma vimutti)

In SN 12.23 it says:

Dispassion is a vital condition for freedom.

virāgūpanisā vimutti,

Freedom is a vital condition for the knowledge of ending.

vimuttūpanisaṃ khayeñāṇaṃ.

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.23/en/sujato

SN 12.23 says:

Khayeñāṇaṃ (knowledge of destruction of defilements) has freedom (from defilements) as its condition.
Freedom (from defilements) has dispassion, disillusionment & yathābhūtañāṇadassanan (truly knowing and seeing) as its conditions.

Therefore, if following the sequence of dhammas in SN 12.23, "right knowledge" ("samma ñāṇa") in MN 117 would be yathābhūtañāṇadassanan and not khayeñāṇaṃ.


Doing the opposite of not skillfull things Will it helpful to do the opposite of not skillfull things without having deeper knowledge of that thing ?

Ex: I asked a question on Laziness, here. But didn't recived a satisfying answer. So,Can being aware on laziness and being not lazy help to understand laziness ?

Some other similar topic : conceit

MN8 is a notable sutta that has a long list of skillful qualities, forty-four to be exact. Here is the first:

  MN8:13.1: Cunda, I say that even giving rise to the thought of skillful qualities is very helpful, let alone following that path in body and speech.  That’s why you should give rise to the following thoughts. ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’ ...

I have found this list extremely practical and it requires no deeper knowledge. Indeed, the sutta remarkably starts out emphasizing that meditation itself (and therefore the deeper insight thereby gained) is separate from the exercise and practice of the listed qualities, the practice of self-effacement. Ethics, wisdom and immersion are all required. They are the three practices. MN8 directly addresses details of ethics, of skillful qualities.


Can one alter the 6th precept to accommodate one's family or daily routines? My understanding of the 6th precept is that one should only eat between sunrise and noon.

There's another question (What is the purpose of not eating after noon? ) about the purpose of it from monks' point of view. I would like to know about it from the laity's perspective.
My questions are:

Is the purpose of this precept to practice discipline, to renounciate
pleasures and so one can gain more certainty in their ability to be
diligent?  Is it so that one knows hunger and does not act on it?
if one is taking the 8 precepts, they should take all 8, right? There
is no "pick and choose the most convenient"?

This sounds silly when expressed, though I've read statements on Buddhism.SE and in books saying "don't do X if it would cause major conflicts in your life and you don't value X over the absence of conflict", be it child raising, vegetarianism while dependant on ones parents, meditating more at the expense of getting sufficient sleep, etc.
I still eat meat (and dinner) due to family pressures. Is it acceptable to make these allowances?

My concrete example is that I often stay up very late when it is the days surrounding the New Moon, for Astronomical observation. (This is a date that many Thai laypeople commit to the precepts). So leading up to that day, I gradually stay up later and wake up later. Eventually, I am waking at noon.
It is impractical and unhealthy at these days to be eating at sunrise, only to fall asleep, and then fast until I return to sleep the next day.
Should I just fast for the same duration, shifted to healthier hours?

Upasaka Brayton

  My understanding of the 6th precept is that one should only eat between sunrise and noon.

Yes. (if one is very interested, there is a very informative work about the beginning time: When Is Dawn (aruna)? When Is Dawnrise (arunuggamana)? - Bhikkhu Ñāṇadassana for astrological and people interested to be strict and informed)

  My question is twofold.
  Firstly, what is the purpose of it. Is it to practice disciplin, to renunciate pleasures and so one can gain more certainty in their ability to be diligent? Is it so that one knows hunger and does not act upon it?

The reasons are many. Yes, the 8 precepts are to reduce sensual pleasure which is the biggest obstacle for meditation.
While doing so, one is naturally forced to keep mindfulness because otherwise he/she would be overwhelmed by sense desire and could not keep the precepts. That means observing them is already much about sati (mindfulness). The next reason is reducing food which means one does not like to harm for just pleasure. This is the metta and karuna aspect of "fasten". A further aspect is the time aspect. One safes a lot of time which are normally used to search and organize food, prepare earn money ... with all its dangers to break basic precepts.
And yes, it is also to learn about dukkha which one does not know when just eating when hunger arises or sense desire. Yet one also learns to know the different between bodily hunger, hunger after pleasure and also what the body needs.
One more reason is that normal people have the most pleasant food in the evening, so one needs to let go of such as barbecue and dinner and such things with all its other most not so good involvements.

  Secondly, if one is taking the 8 precepts, they should take all 8, right? There is no "pick and choose the most convienient". This sounds silly when expressed, though i've read statements on buddhism.SE and in books saying "don't do X if it would cause major conflicts in your life and you don't value X over the absense of conflict", be it child raising, vegetarianism while dependant on ones parents, meditating more at the expense of getting sufficient sleep, etc.

Silly goes most again clinging on something. There is no such as keeping precepts without giving up and letting go. BUT, it really no problem to start with one precept and step to it and then maybe the next. One would not be called a person who keeps 8 precepts, but that should not be important. Important is that one sticks to his/here resolves. It might be that one has a job where he/she needs to be attractive and is not able to let go of that the specific silas demand in his/her time of work and for now there is no other way. So its really better to make such compromises as to say "I can not keep all". Better 6, 7, 7.5 strict that 8 just literary.

  I still eat meat (and dinner) due to family pressures. Is it acceptable to make these allowances?

Its no fault and not unwholesome to EAT meat. One does good not to demand it, not to speak about bringing people to organize it or even being involved in killing. That is a thing that comes step be step. Even in a family members start to adopt good behavior and will respect if one members does not like to be involved in demanding meat. But again, there is no problem to eat meat. Just do not develop joy when people still stick to it and maybe give them your portion if they can not let go of desire for meat and eventually problems with it.

  My concrete example is that I often stay up very late when it is the days surrounding the New Moon, for Astronomical observation. (This is a date that many Thai laypeople commit to the precepts). So leading up to that day, I gradually stay up later and wake up later. Eventually, I am waking at noon.

If you keep the Uposatha, its usual for mediator to even do not sleep the night before. An its no problem to let go of one night sleep.

Uposatha can be hold (just) on the Uposatha days and Sila days (7 or 8 day after full and half moon) some give it some additional days.

  What are the different categories of observance?

    pakati-uposatha
    pati-jagara-uposatha
    pati-harika-pakkha-uposatha

  The times for keeping the pakati-uposatha are the 5th, 8th, 14th and 15th of the waxing moon and the 5th, 8th, 14th and 15th of the
  waning moon.

  The times for keeping the pati-jagara-uposatha are the five days of the waxing moon, i.e., the 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and the 13th, and
  the six days of the waning moon: the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 12th
  or 13th. That makes eleven days in a month for the observance of this
  type of Uposatha. ... see more: Uposatha Sila

And then there are people who make it akaliko, so with no difference of day, to keep the eight precepts which is normally possible for everyone and most suggested, especially of those who strive for an end of suffering and to go the upward path. No gift is great as this for all being of this world like the gift of silas, the Uposatha-precepts.

Atma has to say that he is not that happy with this very traditional and formal explaining which has adopted much from the Vinaya and much which is out of context. Also Atma is not happy about the factors and many more. So generally its good to stick with the suttas:

Muluposatha Sutta (AN 3.70) — Discourse on the Roots of the Uposatha
Uposatha Sutta (AN 8.41) — Discourse on the Uposatha Observance
Visakhuposatha Sutta (AN 8.43) — Discourse to Visakha on the Uposatha
Sakka Sutta (AN 10.46) — To the Sakyans (on the Uposatha)

Also DN2 give much info about virtue of a eventually yogi. For family life maybe to much.

  It is impractical and unhealthy at these days to be eating at sunrise, only to fall asleep, and then fast until I return to sleep the next day. Should I just fast for the same duration, shifted to healthier hours?

No. If you need that sleep. Eat breakfast, noon. If you than really need to rest, there should be no problem.

More infos Upasaka might find here: Uposatha Observance Days and also a this years calender

If more question arise and certain which for discussions appears, Upasaka and others are always invited to make use of the online monastery sangham which might be in some cases maybe a better place. This environment is certain limited and for some issues not so proper even if most helpful and supportive in many aspects. So it the "invitation" should be not misunderstand.

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)


What are the texts that contain words which can be attributed directly to the Buddha? If I understand correctly, the Buddha never wrote anything but some Buddhist texts quote him by describing meetings or situations where he was present. Is there a comprehensive list of all scripts where he is directly and textually quoted?

The Pāli Canon (Pali: Tipitaka) is the standard collection of scriptures in the Theravada Buddhist tradition, as preserved in the Pāli language. It is the most complete extant early Buddhist canon. It was composed in North India, and preserved orally until it was committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately four hundred and fifty four years after the death of Gautama Buddha.

See Pāli Canon on Wikipedia, also called the Tripiṭaka or Tipitaka, meaning "Three Baskets." I would recommend these books as a good reference to access original Buddhism.
Here is an example from the Mulapariyaya Sutta, Majjima Nikaya section of the Pali Canon.

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Ukkattha, in the shade of a royal Sal tree in the Very Blessed Grove. There he addressed the monks, "Monks!"

  "Yes, lord," the monks responded.

  The Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you the sequence of the root of all phenomena [or: the root sequence of all phenomena]. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

  "As you say, sir," they responded.

This is an example of how each "Sutta" starts.


What are great forty? What are great forty?
What are the great forty according to following Sutta.
I can identify 30.

Noble tenfold path with mundane and supermundane account for 20

Wrong tenfold path account for another 10.

What is the remaining 10?

=============

“Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does right view come first? In one of right view, right intention comes into being; in one of right intention, right speech comes into being; in one of right speech, right action comes into being; in one of right action, right livelihood comes into being; in one of right livelihood, right effort comes into being; in one of right effort, right mindfulness comes into being; in one of right mindfulness, right concentration comes into being; in one of right concentration, right knowledge comes into being; in one of right knowledge, right deliverance comes into being. Thus, bhikkhus, the path of the disciple in higher training possesses eight factors, the arahant possesses ten factors.

https://suttacentral.net/mn117/en/bodhi

In one of (R.1.1) right view, wrong view (W.1.1) is abolished and the many evil unwholesome states (W.1.2) that originate with wrong view as condition are also abolished, and the (R.1.2) many wholesome states that originate with right view as condition come to fulfilment by development .... In one of (R.10.1) right deliverance, wrong deliverance (W.10.1) is abolished, and the many evil unwholesome states (W.10.2) that originate with wrong deliverance as condition are also abolished, and the (R.10.2) many wholesome states that originate with right deliverance as condition come to fulfilment by development.

  Thus, bhikkhus, there are twenty factors on the side of the
  wholesome and twenty factors on the side of the unwholesome.

10 right factors + 10 wholesome states originating from 10 right factors + 10 wrong factors + 10 unwholesome states originating from 10 wrong factors = 40


Trust and Compassion How can I trust someone who lies, manipulates and hurts people?

I know a person who manipulates people and I know I can not trust him but recently, the mother of that person has health problems, and my group of friends want to integrate him. I do not agree and now I have the impression of lacking compassion.

What should I do? Should I be more compassionate?

A person who has these tendencies is suffering greatly. He is causing great harm to himself and other beings by acting on the unwholesome roots of greed, anger and delusion.

It does not really matter if you trust him or not. There is still the possibility that he could use or betray you. One cannot control reality. One is just given a hand of cards. It's up to oneself to find out how to play that hand in the most beneficial and wholesome way.

Let's look at both scenarios.

You place your trust in him and he betrays you or uses you.

All he can do is to impinge on your sense-faculties. Anger can arise, sadness or other negative mind states can arise in you. That is really it. Noone can force you to react to these states of mind.

If you instead just observe them with mindfulness in the present moment then you can use these phenomena to cultivate insight. You can use them as a stepping stone to progress in your path.

You place you trust in him and he does not use or betray you.

This scenario is better for him since he does not create unwholesome kamma for himself since he is not doing those unwholesome actions.

For you it's pretty much the same. If happiness arises in you because of that you can enjoy that happiness without being attached to it. As long as you know it is impermanent and unsatisfactory you can enjoy it without dwelling in it. In the same way you can contemplate the conditioned happiness and see the danger in it if one gets attached to it. Conditioned happiness is dukkha in disguise because when it's exhausted it will leave behind a void leaving one wanting for more. That is if one is attached to the happiness. If not you can again use it for the cultivation of insights.

If you contemplate the situation you might find compassion for him. Why? Because he is dealing with the same "illness" that we are all dealing with, i.e. ignorance of the true nature of reality. We are all in the same boat here. Some beings minds are just clouded in a heavier darkness than others. When thinking about these beings naturally a deep compassion can arise.

We are all in this together. As long as we not enlightened we are all dealing with some level of ignorance meaning that we have a mind that is not fully trained to see reality clearly. Only the Buddhas and Arahants are fully awake.

By knowing that we are all in the same boat we can begin to view the situation in a different way.

I do not know if you are training in meditation at the moment but if you do and if you are practicing insight meditation (vipassana meditation) you will come to experience these things for yourself. By seeing this directly through observation of reality compassion can arise in you.

Buddhist ethics is centered on intentions / volitions. When acting according to the Noble Eightfold Path one should cultivate Right Intention (Samma Sankappa), i.e. intentions of renunciation, good will and harmlessness.

It is not your job to fix him or other people. By working on ourselves and purifying ourselves from defilements we can be good examples for other beings. Naturally people want to be around a person that is honest, wise, calm and peaceful.


Critique on Kalama Sutta: Is Buddhism bad for Buddhism? Kalama Sutta is a key part of the Buddhist teaching that tells you to question everything, not to blindly follow any dogma or teacher. This is one of the features that make this religion/philosophy so special
however this view seems to be contradictory in many Buddhist circles.
Many monks and Buddhists shave their heads and wear mallahs to identify themselves more with the doctrine (ego and attachment) or perhaps to fit in better within the "Buddhist gang" as if this dogma was the ultimate truth and they may get offended when you "dare" to question their "faith" or their idolized masters.

They rarely question the Sangha with psychology, existential philosophy, other religions and they seem to fall in love with it following this process of dependency by illusionment/attachment/joy and ultimately doubt disillusionment/detachment/sadness which is clearly explained in the Buddhist sutra itself.

Osel Hita (a Spaniard who has appointed by the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of lama Yeshe) quit Buddhism and complained about how much suffering he had to endure during his childhood nevertheless this is rarely debated within Buddhist circles. In some Buddhist countries children are indoctrinated in the dogma therefore they see it as truth and don't question it therefore it is used as a political tool for the masses.

It is true that the Sangha may have saved some peoples lives and so has the army, Scientology and the Christian Church but this has to do with psychology, purpose in life and mental health and it doesn't make Buddhism any better.

Meditation has been proven by the World Health Organization to be beneficial for mental health nevertheless you don't hear much from monks that you don't really need to be a Buddhist to meditate.

Some features of the dogma such us Bardos, Rebirth or (reincarnation), Samsara or even Enlightenment have vague definitions or are impossible to double check because they are based of the subjective experiences of masters or monks and it's up to the practitioner to believe them or not and have the same credibility has "original sin, virgin birth, Heaven, etc." and even less than the Simulation Hypothesis. Some people left Buddhism because their views on the oneness of consciousness or karma were not compatible with the view shared by the particular sect (Zen, Chan, Tibetan, etc).

Siddhārtha Gautama was a dissident of believes the vedas to attain enlightenment and escape the wheel so Samsara so was Jesus Christ, and Lao Tse and the main spiritual figures in human history. Isn't Kalama Sutta encouraging you to do just that? Isn't Kalama Sutta telling you that it's better to be a free-thinker than a Buddhist, at least in some cases? Isn't it Buddhistic to go beyond Buddhism?

This question is an adaptation of the Reptilian Conspiracy vs Buddhism question which was not accepted in this forum and Criticism on the Buddhism from Wikipedia and both articles here and here.

  “A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he
  generally believes to be true.“ Demosthenes  384-322 BC

  “Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want
  their illusions destroyed.” Friedrich Nietzsche

  “You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not
  based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”  Carl
  Sagan

  “If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at
  least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” ―
  René Descartes

  “My religion is based on truth and non-violence. Truth is my God.
  Non-violence is the means of realising Him.“ Mahatma Gandhi

  John 8:32 “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you
  free.”

  “There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: not
  going all the way, and not starting.” Buddha? (or not...doesn't
  matter)

Since the Kalamas were confused in what they should or not believe, The Buddha instructed that they should be pragmatic and adopt only views and conduct which would lead to their well-being and peace of mind insted of keep bothering themselves with unverifiable competing doctrines which would lead to nowhere but to stressful mind states.

This is unrelated to the examples you give regarding the traditional customs of the monks and the Sangha because the customs are not harmful per se, they may be actually a source of joy, which serves to propel the practice. It all comes to how you relate to it, as long as there is Right View, there is no harm.

The monks would be sabotaging themselves if they start raise against traditional customs just because their wrong personal view (disregarding the issue of dukkha) say so
(which is conceit, ingratitude and cling to self-view). The practice delineated by the Buddha intend to end all stress building up the proper conditions, and to do so, is necessary to settle the attention to the proper frame of reference. Any other preoccupation is merely the mind being dragged by its passion over sensory phenomena.

  This world is in bondage to attachments, clingings [sustenances], &
  biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to
  these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases,  or
  obsessions; nor is he resolved on ‘my self.’ He has no uncertainty or
  doubt that mere stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing
  away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is  independent of
  others. It’s to this extent, Kaccāna, that there is right view.

  SN 12:15

For complementary explanantion of why clinging to personal views are nothing more than fuel to the fetters, See: AN 10:93 and MN 63

Regarding the rebirth doctrine as it is decribed, it's  a attempt to explain a insight of  the Buddha himself. So it's suppose, for those who follows the Buddha's footsteps, to have such  experience (whatever it may be) as well at some point.
No one is demanding you to believe in it. However, aside of the feeling of samvega (disenchantment due the briefness nature of the sensory phenomena), having conviction in rebirth, will turn the
practioner much more eager to go forth.


Trouble understanding the path factor of Right Effort The path factor Right Effort in the noble eight-fold path contains 4 steps which are;

Prevent the unwholesome that has not yet arisen in oneself.
Let go of the unwholesome that has arisen in oneself.
Bring up the wholesome that has not yet arisen in oneself.
Maintain the wholesome that has arisen in oneself.

I understand 1, 3 and 4 but have trouble understanding no 2 - "Let go of unwholesome that has arisen in oneself".

Is that done by using the noting-technique and then observing and noting the phenomena until it disappears?

Or is it that when e.g. anger has arisen and other techniques dont work then one uses Metta meditation as an anti-dote?

Thank you for your time.

Lanka

There're different antidotes to the different unwholesome states that arise. Ven. Bodhi in his "The Noble Eightfold Path"'s Chapter 5 wrote:

  For desire a remedy of general application is the meditation on impermanence, which knocks away the underlying prop of clinging, the implicit assumption that the objects clung to are stable and durable. For desire in the specific form of sensual lust the most potent antidote is the contemplation of the unattractive nature of the body, to be dealt with at greater length in the next chapter. Ill will meets its proper remedy in the meditation on loving-kindness (metta), which banishes all traces of hatred and anger through the methodical radiation of the altruistic wish that all beings be well and happy. The dispelling of dullness and drowsiness calls for a special effort to arouse energy, for which several methods are suggested: the visualization of a brilliant ball of light, getting up and doing a period of brisk walking meditation, reflection on death, or simply making a firm determination to continue striving. Restlessness and worry are most effectively countered by turning the mind to a simple object that tends to calm it down; the method usually recommended is mindfulness of breathing, attention to the in-and-out flow of the breath. In the case of doubt the special remedy is investigation: to make inquiries, ask questions, and study the teachings until the obscure points become clear.


How to mitigate the negative karmic effect of killing I'm a graduate student studying plant-insect interactions. My research, necessary for my degree, requires me to collect (kill) a few hundred insects. Are there any suttas, or general Buddhist recommendations, for how a lay person can best approach this? Are there ways to make up for the bad karma incurred by this action?

Wanting to become a degree holder is Bhava-tanha or craving to become. That craving is causing you to break the first precept. See how dependant origination is at play here.

You can either look for insects that are already dead or tell your professor that you cannot kill as a Buddhist.


Buddhist architecture - Stupa/Chorten Stupa/Chorten, Pagoda, Vihara are places to achieve peace. But I never thought  that those places are graves. I found  this, Symbolism of the Stupa/Chrten:

  The perfect proportions of the Buddha’s body corresponds to the design of religious monuments. Its architecture developed from the pre-Buddhist Indian grave-mound. Under these mounds the saintly ascetic were buried; their bodies were seated on the ground and covered with earth. These dome-shaped graves, or tumuli, of the saints were regarded as holy places. And were destinations for pilgrimage for the devotional and places of practice for meditators.

The right side of figure shows stages: Void, Wind, Fire, Earth.

Does that mean all those monuments are explaining life (body and soul)?

The Buddha said this about the body of living being (quoting the 7th point at the bottom of page 131 of The Buddha and His Dhamma by Dr B. R. Ambedkar):

  The body of a living being consists of the combination of four great elements, viz., earth, water,
  fire and air, and when this combination is resolved into the four component elements,
  dissolution ensues.

What is shown is A STUPA, usually housing the cremated remains or possessions that are considered sacred. In Sri Lanka we call it “The dagaba” (from Sanskrit dhatu- element, component, or relic + garbha - storehouse or repository). Dagaba is of pre-buddhistic era in origin, and is a  deeply respected or admiration for symbol of the Buddhist creed.  In the Sri Lankan version (the first pic. In the OP) it is covered with pure white lime plaster (It is not the ‘white’ achieved by mixing Rickette’ blue). As Buddhism was introduced in different regions, the basic architectural features of stupas were transformed into a variety of shapes reflecting the artistic expressions of those cultures. In Sri Lanka there are five shapes that are most prominent.

Of all the Stupa / Dagaba of this world, the most revered Dagaba is the Ruwanweli-Saya, found in the Historic City of Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. It is also known as Mahathupa, Swarnamali Chaitya, Suvarnamali Mahaceti (in Pali) and Rathnamali Dagaba. After The Buddha's Parinibbāna, His relics were enshrined and worshipped in stupas.  This pinnacle for Buddhists all round the world, the Ruwanweli-Saya, contains the largest portion of relics from the pyre of the sacred body of the Buddha. According to the ancient chronicle Dhatuwamsa, one eighth of the whole-body-relics of the Buddha has been deposited in the Stupa making it one of the treasured places of worship for Buddhists.

There is a great power generated from this Stupa and it is visible to this date. The energy radiating from within it is linked up with those meditating around the Maha-thupa. There is a legend that says that at the time when the Dhamma that He preached cease to be heard,  all relics of the world will come to the Maha-thupa and perform a coming together of the body-form. – a kind of ‘Yama Maha Pelahara’. BTW…  ‘Yama Maha Pelahara’ – is a twin miracle, a power said to have been possessed by the Buddha to cause a stream of fire to issue from one part of His body and a stream of water from another at the same time, which is a power to issue such streams together from eyes, ears and nostrils.

The Ruwanweli Mahathupa is unique among all others because: a ‘dona’ (One of eights parts) of the Buddha’s relics is enshrined within; the site was dedicated especially and consecrated many generations before by Arahant Mahinda; the only stupa recorded to have a Bodhi tree embodied within; the particular use of many materials not found in other stupas, such as crystal, metals; the particular and deliberate design of the base layers, and of the relic chamber; and the function of the crystal on the pinnacle as a beacon.

All dagaba / Stupa found in the world is meant to imitate a passage from the confusion of the world, through stage after stage of awakening, to a breakthrough into the ‘pure region’ of the transcendent. The dageba (Stupa) consists of six main parts.

Pinnacle  (Kotha)
This symbolizes Enlightenment. This is usually a pinnacle made of metal on top of which is a precious crystal or gemstone (chudamanikya).

Parasol / Conical Spire (Kothkerella)
This symbolizes the Nine levels of the Dhamma – the 8 stages of the Path plus the Nibbhana (Navalokottara Sri Dhammaskanda). This is built on the Devatha Kotuwa. A crystal (chudamanikya) on a pinnacle made of metal is placed at the top of the spire to adorn it.

The Gods Enclosure (Devatha Kotuva)
This is a Cylindrical neck built on the ‘Hatharas Kotuwa’. Figures of deities are usually carved on the surface. The word  means a place for the Gods to stay.

Square Enclosure (Hatares kotuwa)
This symbolizes the four noble truths. Relics are enshrined in this part too.

Hemispherical dome  (Gharbaya)
This symbolizes the whole of the  Dhamma.   The hemispherical dome is constructed on the three berms. In the middle of the dagaba was built a relic chamber (Dhathu garbhaya). The Buddha's relics are enshrined there. In the centre of the Relic Chamber was placed a bo-tree made of precious metals, and an image of the Buddha round which were groups of figures representing various events in the life of the Buddha.

Octagonal foundation  (Atapattama)
This symbolizes the 8 noble path. This form is found in some Stupas only.

The Three Berms or Terraces (Pesa valalu)
This symbolizes the Seela, Samadhi, Pannna. A stupa consists of three such berms at its base. The three berms rising from the base gradually reduce in size.
Upper Terrace (Uda maluva) represents the bhikku, the Arahant
Middle Terrace  (Deveni maluva)  represents  Lay Disciples (upasaka / Upasika)
Lower Terrace (Veli maluva) represents the Devotees who have not yet come to the Path.

The Buddhist temple is not complete without the following:
Stupa /dageba;
the actual vihara / image house;
a bodhi maluva or platform, with or without alters;
a ‘pansala’ or priests’ residence.
The ‘bana maduva’ or preaching hall is usually separate from the vihara itself.


Question about how to generate more motivation to meditate. I just wanted to hopefully get some ideas on how some of the fellow users of this site motivate themselves to meditate on a more frequent basis. What ultimately motivates each one of you to continue meditating? The good feelings of samadhi or the tranquility of insight? I'm struggling with staying with the object of meditation as my mind is extremely restless. Anyways, this is my first time here so I'll leave it at that. Thanks in advance!

It's really important to do wise and healthy things even if they take a bit of effort to get the ball rolling.  Very fortunately, we can use habit to overcome our habits, which is something very beautiful.

Personally, on days when I do not formally sit I cultivate many aspirations and cast the thought (joyously) "How good it would be to sit and meditate, to cultivate wisdom and insight, to perfect samadhi."

Meditation is not the only branch of the Eightfold path as was historically presented by Shakyamuni Buddha, so keeping all the folds in balance will help with your meditation, and vice versa.

The purpose of meditation is to uncover these enlightened qualities that are within us all.

On a mundane, physical level meditation strengthens the density of the cortical structure of the brain.

Please read about the methods of calm abiding, insight, and the altruistic motivation, because knowing what those are can really help nudge our patterned-ways into open ways.  In general, reflecting on the many benefits and really making a strong wish to spend more time and regular time meditating will be great.

It has been taught that beings should seek enlightenment like trying to put out a fire on their heads.  It's true!  Based on how well we can see the value of our present condition (!) and how well we understand what we can accomplish through practice, the more clear it will be the need for meditation in our daily life, until the blurry edge between formal and off-the-cushion becomes such a natural and melodious flow that we will wonder why we had not been doing it this way the whole time.


Can the mind be trained to maintain equanimity in the face of compulsive urges/cravings (without giving in / acting out)? Are there any practices or habits that one can employ, either frequently or on a daily basis, to train one's mind to remain still and equanimous in the face of compulsive urges or cravings, without giving in to them / acting them out?
Can this skill be developed in a general sense, applicable to all types of urges/cravings, or does one need to train a different, tailored technique to handle each type of urge/craving individually?

Please refer to my answer on "How can I forget my old girlfriend?"

Urges and cravings come up because we seek sources of external energy. We assume that these things can give us something: make us happier, elevate us, entertain us. So all these cravings even though they seem different are really cravings for one thing - energy. However, if you look at them really carefully you will see that obtaining these things does not give large amounts of energy for a long time. It's like browsing Facebook: we hope we will see a post that will be interesting, educating, motivating, and will improve our day - but most of the time we just keep scrolling and scrolling, and most of the posts don't give us more than a few seconds of joy, so the entire experience is very frustrating. But we still keep craving, funny huh? Because we are so confused!

The real source of energy is only our own strength. Giving in to the urges will never give enough energy. Only authentic challenges that we really believe in can give us what we are looking for. So the only way to obtain that energy that we crave for is to sit down, meditate, and see what we really want deep inside. Which personal weakness we want to overcome to get something we dream about. Then go ahead and overcome that weakness and achieve that goal. That will give you energy that will be real, and all small urges and cravings will be so obviously hollow comparing to that, that they will all subside by themselves.


How are expectations and responsibilities seen in Buddhism? These two things seem to be closely knitted together, sometimes contradictory and can be found especially in a professional setting. For example when a group of people work in a project, They have responsibilities - targets to achieve, deadlines to finish, works to do. They have roles to play.

Thus, it seems like a normal occurrence for the members to have expectations towards each other. It's a team work. The team cannot finish the project if the members don't do their jobs properly.

From the point of view of Buddhism, how does one should see/deal with this? In a teamwork, if you don't expect people to do their responsibilities and be content, the team might stall and it would impact everyone negatively. But if you expect, you are becoming attached to the person, wanting something from him/her.

Thanks!

Buddhism has two types of teachings: (i) worldly teachings; and (ii) non-worldly teachings. In the worldly teachings, a worker should do their job to the best of their abilities. In other words, Buddhism places expectations upon workers; just as monks must fulfil the expectations of their livelihood. The scriptures say:

  The servants and employees thus ministered to as the Nadir by their
  master show their compassion to him in five ways:

  (i) they rise before him,

  (ii) they go to sleep after him,

  (iii) they take only what is given,

  (iv) they perform their duties well,

  (v) they uphold his good name and fame.

  DN 31

One meaning of the word 'dhamma' is 'duty' or 'practice'.


Buddhism and political correctness I stumbled upon a question about the danger in lying and Andrei's answer caught my attention. He claims that '...key qualities of good character are: Honesty, Integrity, Responsibility'. Then it made me wonder - is being politically correct an obstacle on the way to enlightenment?
By the term political correctness I understand 'enforced language, ideas, or policies that address perceived discrimination against political, social or economical groups ("protected classes")'.

It seems that:
Lots of public figures no longer say what they really think but they mince their words so as not to offend any of the groups.
Media doesn't report certain facts/events/results of studies in fear of offending groups which won't feel comfortable with certain facts/events/results.
Most of the time it is not based on honesty.
Clearly this leads to violated integrity.
In everyday life we also seem to be forced into political correctness.
Challenging someone's views can be perceived as an attack and more and more jokes are perceived as offending (although it used to be a great virtue to be able to laugh at oneself).

I would be mostly interested in what contemporary Buddhist teachers and masters think about this topic.
Please refrain from sharing personal opinion if it's not based on specific teachings. I am looking for advice from Buddhist masters and texts mostly.

This sounds like an issue best analyzed according to the Buddha's teachings on right speech. The Buddha famously expounded how he personally determined how to decide on what to say in the Abhaya Sutta, saying:

  [1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

  [2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.

  [3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.

  [4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.

  [5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.

  [6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html

In essence, one should consider four factors of truth, benefit, agreeability, and timeliness. The relevant point here is that even if one might say something that is true, if there is no real benefit to be gained from it, then you shouldn't say it. Certainly not all cases of political correctness fall into this, but it isn't dishonest to hold back from saying something if it will lead to no good.


Is there an Orthodox Buddhism? Orthodoxy in Christianity is the holding to the oldest beliefs.  It is of course impossible for the religion not to evolve at all as new questions and there answer have to addressed. The "Orthodox" version is often considered to be the least evolved sect of a religion.  Does the concept of Orthodox apply in Buddhism?

Well, Theravada is often argued to hew most closely to the original teachings of the Buddha. See, e.g. "Two Main Schools of Buddhism" for a very brief overview of this.

As I understand it, this has much to do with the fact that Theravada is the oldest of the extant Buddhist schools of thought, predating Mahayana by a few centuries. Theravada practice is also more localized to geographic regions nearer the birthplace of Buddhism (that is, Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia), and never strayed far from it; this is thought to have contributed to the "orthodoxy" of the school - it mixed less with other intellectual and spiritual traditions.

Additionally, Theravada Buddhists draw primarily on the Pali Canon (the Tripitaka), whereas Mahayana Buddhists draw primarily on Chinese sources. These Chinese sources are relatively more distant from the original teachings of the Buddha in terms of both time and language. As a byproduct of this, the Pali texts are often more "authentic".1

That said, the term "Orthodox" has no specific meaning in the context of Buddhism, i.e. there is no such school as "Orthodox Buddhism". There are only lowercase-o "orthodox schools of Buddhism", and what counts as "orthodox" will probably differ depending on who you ask. I should add that pre-sectarian Buddhism is almost definitionally the most "orthodox" school of Buddhist thought. The only problem is that, well, it doesn't exist anymore.

1 See, e.g. Rupert Gethin's The Foundations of Buddhism, p. 44: "it is likely that [it] is generally the case [...] that the traditions [the Pali recension] preserves are [...] the oldest and most authentic available to us" (elisions/etc because the original sentence was inverted)


Does Pa Auk Has A Plan To Translate Tipitaka Pali To English? I have known about the other translation's versions.

However, I need to know the possibility of translation project especially from Pa Auk.

I also want to know, if it is possible to know, the reason that they do not start the pali to english translation project.

I am not sure if there is any Tipitaka translation project at the Pa Auk monastery when the Ven. Sayadaws book Nibbānagāminipaṭipadā remains still to be translated into English.


Is there a gradation of proper and improper deeds? When somebody asks if it's OK for a Buddhist to do this or that, different answers may be given:

It goes against n'th precept
It is an unwholesome action
It will produce bad kamma
It will cause rebirth in hell
Anything else? If there is something more, please let me know.

Other possible answers may include:

It does not break any precepts
It is a wholesome action
It will produce good kamma
It will cause rebirth in heaven
It will lead to nibbana/enlightenment
Anything else? If there is something more, please let me know.

I wonder which of these things are completely equivalent (e.g. is an unwholesome action exacly the same as an action that produces bad kamma?), and if there is a gradation of these things (e.g. is breaking a precept worse than an unwholesome action that doesn't break a precept?).

I don't think there is a gradation where the quality of the action itself is concerned. All actions are always either kusala or akusala.

kusala: skillful, wholesome, good, meritorious
akusala: unskillful, unwholesome, bad, demeritorious

As people, though, we will always feel compelled to judge and compare actions. Stealing from the cookie jar is not as bad a stealing a car. Killing a fly is not as bad as killing a bird. But these distinctions are mind-made: in the end there is just kusala and akusala.

Now, whether there is a gradation tied to the kamma produced by any given action is an entirely different question (to which I have no answer, but I'd guess that there is a correlation between kamma and quality of the action).

  is an unwholesome action exacly the same as an action that produces bad kamma?

Yes. Without mincing words, both of these are two sides of the same coin.

(Also, in your two sample lists, you could also mention that an action could go with or against the Noble Eightfold Path.)


How best to accelerate vast accumulation of merits? If the requisites for attaining the path of a stream-enterer is to accumulate merits and having favourable conditions, what are the best ways to gain merits and having all the necessary conditions to achieve this?

Ways to earn merits:

Practice the Buddha's teaching.
Practice Dana.
Practice daily meditation and share the merits with all beings.
Support the Sangha or better yet, become a Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuni.

With every wholesome deed one gets closer to Nibbana.

With every unwholesome deed one gains distance to Nibbana.


In what ways the Way removes the craving? Buddha says the Way of Eightfold path removes the craving. I am looking for a short summary of ways the Way removes the craving.
My question is : In which ways does the Way removes the craving ? How does the Way removes the craving ? ( For example if the answer is by holding right view then I would like to know How does holding right view removes craving ?)

For example if the answer is by holding right view then I would like to know How does holding right view removes craving ?

It's no coincidence that Right View is mentioned first in the Noble Eightfold Path (N8P).

We crave because of Wrong View: where one of its manifestation is the Four Perversions (seeing impermanent things as permanent, dukkha as pleasure, not-Self as self, and un-attractive as attractive).

But even with Right View, one still needs other limbs of the N8P to reinforce/strengthen one's practice toward a complete abandonment of craving, through the 3 gateways of moral virtues/mental discipline/wisdom (i.e. cultivate Sila/moral virtues thru Right Speech, Right Livelihood, etc.; cultivate mental discipline thru Right Effort, Right Concentration, etc.).

For a thorough analysis on the purpose of the N8P, see Ven. Bodhi's excellent "Noble Eightfold Path"


When will Maitreya Buddha come according to the Manimekalai? According to Buddhism, Maitreya Buddha is a Buddha who will come some time in the future.  Some sources say he will come hundreds of thousands of years from now, but the Manimekalai, a 6th century Buddhist epic poem written in the language Tamil, seems to suggest an earlier timeframe.  Here is what chapter 12 of the Manimekalai says:

  That dharma, people in this world do not know.  But within the circuit of this universe, the devas understand it and at their request the Deva will come down again to this world from the Tushita Heaven in the year 1616. Then everyone in this world will feel impelled to practice the doctrine or mercy.

My question is, what is this year "1616" that the Manimekalai identifies as the year when Maitreya Buddha will come?  What calendar is it using?  It's clearly not the Gregorian calendar, since that wasn't in vogue in 6th century India.

Let's bear in mind that according to the sources referenced in the Wikipedia page Manimekalai, this book was written either before the 5th century CE, in the 6th century CE or latest 950 CE according to different experts.

Anne E. Monius is a Professor of South Asian Religions at Harvard University and "a historian of religion specializing in the religious traditions of India. Her research interests lie in examining the practices and products of literary culture to reconstruct the history of religions in South Asia." She wrote the book "Imagining a Place for Buddhism: Literary Culture and Religious Community in Tamil-Speaking South India".

She talks about the book Manimekalai and 1616 prediction in this book, for which you can find the excerpt here. Please pay attention to the last paragraph on page 94, and the next two pages.

Her best guess is that since the Buddhist calendar usually starts counting from the final passing (parinirvana) of the Buddha (also see this answer), this refers to the year 1616 on that calendar. She is not sure about how this number was derived.

From the Wikipedia page on the Buddha, the date of the passing away of the Buddha is given as either 483 BCE or 400 BCE. That puts 1616 at 1133 CE or 1216 CE. This is definitely centuries after the authorship of the Manimekalai. So, that's quite sensible. Prof. Monius stated that this is more specific and substantially earlier than the estimates given in the Pali sources, for the coming of the next Buddha.

According to accesstoinsight.org's page on the Chronology of Theravada Buddhism:

  Year 1 of the Buddhist Era calendar is the year of the Buddha's
  Parinibbana (death and final release), which occurred in the Buddha's
  eightieth year (480 BCE according to the "historical" timeline; 544
  BCE by tradition).

If we use 544 BCE as the year of the Buddha's parinirvana, then 1616 would be 1072 CE, which is still centuries after the authorship of the Manimekalai (if we assume that it was authored in the 6th century CE).

Also interesting is this excerpt from the book by Monius (on pages 95 - 96):

  In fact, if one looks beyond, or more appropriately before, the Pali
  literature that obviously concerns itself with the future Buddha,
  scattered bits of evidence can be found to suggest that the
  Manimekalai was not alone in the sixth century in imagining the
  arrival of a living Buddha within centuries rather than billions of
  years. In the various renditions of the life of Buddhaghosa, for
  example, it is reported that the monks of the Mahavihara greeted the
  composition of the Visuddhimagga by crying out to its author, "Without
  doubt he is Metteyya!" (nissamsayam sa metteyo). Although such a
  statement might easily be interpreted, on the one hand, as hyperbolic
  praise, likening only rhetorically the genius of Buddhaghosa to
  the wisdom of the future Buddha, on the other hand, such an
  identification might well depend on the expectation, like that of the
  ascetics confused by the miraculous events accompanying Aputtiran's
  rebirth in the Manimekalai (xv.23-35), that Metteyya's arrival on earth
  can happen at any moment. Such scattered phrases are certainly
  difficult to evaluate. Much more interesting and potentially useful
  for the consideration of the Manimekalai's vision of the future, given
  the central place of the wondrous almsbowl, Amutacurapi, in the text,
  is a story told by the fifth-century Chinese pilgrim to India and Sri
  Lanka, Faxian (Fa-hsien), concerning the begging bowl of the Buddha
  and the coming of Metteyya/Maitreya to earth.

You can read on in the same section, the story of Faxian, and how he obtained the story of the Buddha's almsbowl from an Indian monk.

Monius writes further on pages 96 - 97:

  Faxian's story of the Buddha's almsbowl and its intimate connection to
  the  coming of Maitreya provides a potentially enlightening parallel
  to the narrative of the bowl and the coming of the Buddha found in the
  Manimekalai. Such a parallel, especially given the relative proximity
  to the time and place of the Manimekalai's composition, of Faxian and
  the Indian monk who tells the story at the Sri Lankan Mahavihara, may
  help to illumine the Tamil text's vision of the future and the
  community to form around the coming Buddha.

Based on this, I would guess that the Manimekalai is a literary work of fiction, based on Faxian's story that came not long before the authorship of the Manimekalai. While it is unknown how Manimekalai's author derived the number "1616", we can speculate that he intended his readers to look forward to the coming of the future Buddha within a few centuries, perhaps to motivate the Tamil-speaking Buddhist community at the time, and also to kindle the interest of the non-Buddhist Tamil-speaking people, in Buddhism.


Why is Vipassana centred around the breath, when it's meant to be a state of observing sensations? I can't seem to reconcile the two ideas that Vipassana meditation involves both concentrating completely on the breath while at the same time observing bodily sensations. Aren't these two mutually exclusive? How can one concentrate on the breath while being open to new sensations?

When you watch your breath, seeing the quality or character of each in-breath and out-breath allows you to really see your feelings (not sensations, that's a bad translation). Breath is the best pointer at your emotional state.


Could the Buddha have touched goal and gems in the 7 weeks after enlightenment Lord Buddha and other 'rahath'  priests are prohibited to touch any jewels. So how could Lord Buddha stay inside the ruwan ge, which is totally made with gems?

For example, Main places to honor and pay homage in Deva Hela (Janbudveepa) says,

  The stone chamber and the stone seat (length 6.5 feet width 3 feet) made and offered to Buddha by King Muchalinda using the highest technology prevailed to that date are still exist there. Earlier it was called Ruwan Geya[29].

The footnote translates this as

  [29] The house or the chamber of gems.

Essentially what you are asking is can / will a Buddha do something in contradiction to the Vinaya.
In the olden days the King is not under the law he imposes. Likewise, after forbidding miracles, the Buddha announced the he will perform the Twin Miracle. A King asked you just put a rule not to display miracles and you are just going to perform one. Then the Buddha pointed out like the King being exempt from his own rules the Buddha is exempt from the Vinaya rules, i.e., Vinaya rules are only for the disciples.
Assuming you are from Sri Lanka, this is there in the old syllabus Buddhism curriculum (which was in effect in the school leaving year of 1997). I forget what year, and the exact details, but likely year 10 text book.
In this context, though a monk cannot be in a chamber of gems the Buddha can. Having said this, the chamber of gems is also not real, as it is mind made through psychic powers. In such a case I do not think there is an issue for a monk prior to the forbidding of psychic power display. As in this case there were not witnesses hence, if a does this, in private it will still not break the rule of touching gold (it is not real - it is just a mind projected image). This is just my opinion, there might be other vinaya rules in play.

In addition this is not the traditional account:

The stone chamber and the stone seat (length 6.5 feet width 3 feet) made and offered to Buddha by King Muchalinda using the highest technology prevailed to that date are still exist there. Earlier it was called Ruwan Geya

More orthodox account of it is:

The Golden Bridge
In the third week, the Buddha saw through his mind’s eye that the devas in the heavens were not sure whether he had attained enlightenment or not. To prove his enlightenment the Buddha created a golden bridge in the air and walked up and down it for a whole week.
The Jewelled Chamber
In the fourth week, he created a beautiful jewelled chamber and sitting inside it meditated on what was later known as the "Detailed Teaching" (Abhidhamma). His mind and body were so purified that six coloured rays came out of his body — blue, yellow, red, white, orange and a mixture of these five. Today these six colours make up the Buddhist flag. Each colour represented one noble quality of the Buddha: yellow for holiness, white for purity, blue for confidence, red for wisdom and orange for desirelessness. The mixed colour represented all these noble qualities.
...
The Mucalinda Tree
The Buddha then went and meditated at the foot of a mucalinda tree. It began to rain heavily and a huge king cobra came out and coiled his body seven times around the Buddha to keep him warm and placed his hood over the Buddha’s head to protect him from the rain. After seven days the rain stopped and the snake changed into a young man who paid his respects to the Buddha. The Buddha then said:
"Happy are they who are contented. Happiness is for those who hear and know the truth. Happy are they who have good will in this world towards all sentient beings. Happy are they who have no attachments and have passed beyond sense-desires. The disappearance of the word "I AM " is indeed the highest happiness."

Life of the Buddha - Chapter 18: Seven Weeks After Enlightenment
The Jewelle Chamber is separate from the time under the Mucalinda Tree.


Was something done by me? All happenings are phenomenon. Happenings are Anatta. Therefore I am not happening neither happening is myself nor am I the owner of happening.

Give the above fact , is it true that I need to abandon the view that I am doing something or something was done by me or I am the work done or I am happening?

In short , was something ever done by me?

In short , was something ever done by me?

Conventionally speaking, yes.

Ultimately speaking, no.

Be aware that no matter how hard you try to understand this intellectually, it will never happen.

Anatta can only be grasped truly and completely through the practice of Vipassana meditation.


what separates us from our identity to another person I am indian.

You are Americans .

Our identity  divide human beings?

I am hindu.

You are muslim.

Our identity divide human beings?

I am buddhist monk.

I am ordinary human.

I am hindu.

I am muslim.

Hindu  hates Muslim  beacuse   i am hindu .

Muslim hate hindu  beacuse you are muslim.

Indian hate pakistan beacuse I am indian.

Pakistan hate indian beacuse he is pakistan.

Every one carry identity.

Identity create conflict
Conflict create war

Hindu hates Muslim beacuse i am hindu .
Muslim hate hindu beacuse you are muslim.
Indian hate pakistan beacuse I am indian.
Pakistan hate indian beacuse he is pakistan.
Every one carry identity.
Identity create conflict

Identity doesn't create conflict, clinging to a sense of self-identity does. It's a subtle difference, but it's an important difference nonetheless. If it was true that "identity creates conflict", there would be absolutely zero Hindu who loves Muslims, zero Muslim who loves Hindus, zero Indian who loves Pakistanis, etc. But quite the contrary, any "self-identified" Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, etc. who sincerely and honestly practices their faith would treat one another like brothers and sisters in the same family.


Simplest version of anapanasati Anapanasati is usually described as "mindfulness of breathing" but I've seen a member of this site describing it as "mindfulness with breathing".

Sati or mindfulness (as seen in the parable of the bowl filled to the brim with oil, of SN 47.20) is keeping the mind on the task, and not allowing the mind to become distracted.

What is the simplest version of anapanasati?

I found a very simple instruction set in SN 54.3 (quoted below). There may be other suttas too. But I find this description from SN 54.3 insufficient and requires elaboration.

While breathing, what is it that one is mindful of? Is one mindful of the breath, or mindful of something else?

The sutta states: "They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe in observing letting go.’ They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe out observing letting go.’"

What does "breathe in observing letting go" and "breathe out observing letting go" mean? Letting go of what? Do you let go, or do you observe the letting go? How do you observe the letting go (rather than letting go)?

What is the simplest instruction for the practice of anapanasati? Especially for people who are not well-versed in the teachings and maybe even non-Buddhist? Such people may not have the patience for lengthy and complicated instructions.

From SN 54.3:

  “Mendicants, when mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated
  it’s very fruitful and beneficial. And how is mindfulness of breathing
  developed and cultivated to be very fruitful and beneficial?

  It’s when a mendicant has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a
  tree, or to an empty hut. They sit down cross-legged, with their body
  straight, and establish mindfulness right there.

  Just mindful, they breathe in. Mindful, they breathe out. …

  They practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe in observing letting go.’ They
  practice like this: ‘I’ll breathe out observing letting go.’

  Mindfulness of breathing, when developed and cultivated in this way,
  is very fruitful and beneficial.”

The SN 54.3 linked is not a "simple version". The link is merely abbreviated because the 16 stages are listed in previous suttas.

If per SN 47.20, mindfulness is keeping the mind on the task, since the body breathes automatically via its own nature, how can breathing be a ‘task’ to keep the mind on? There can be no such thing as mindfulness ‘of’ breathing.

As for Sujato’s translation of “letting go”, this is the 16th step. Letting go of the 16th step is a result of 13th step experiencing impermanence. The simultaneous knowing of breathing occurs in the background.

The Pali here is paṭinissaggā. When impermanence & not-self is clearly experienced at 13th step, the 16th step is paṭinissaggā, which means to give up viewing anything as self. Ajahn Buddhadasa translates it as throwing or tossing back.

Paṭinissaggā above is the final step of practice. However, the type of letting go that serves as the initial step of practice is called vossagga. MN 118 at the end says each factor of enlightenment matures as vossagga. SN 48.9 & 10 say jhana is reached by making  vossagga the meditation object.

Vossagga is letting go of craving & ambition. This is the supramundane meditation object or task of mindfulness.

If you try to focus on the breathing, the progress will be very limited. The focus is on vossagga. The task is vossagga. Mindfulness is mindful of vossagga.

When there is mindfulness of vossagga, the knowing of the breathing will occur automatically, without an act of will (AN 11.2). This is why anapanasati means mindfulness with breathing.


What do you think would be a good way to explain death to a child, from a Buddhist perspective? When a young child hears that someone died, it's natural for him to wonder whether he'll die too, or whether those who are most dear to him too die quite unexpectedly. So what kind of a response should one give in keeping with a Theravada Buddhist Perspective?

Use a tree as an example. Show the various stages of a tree from seed to plant to fully grown tree to an old leafless tree and explain the ageing and impermanence. Then show a decayed/dead tree that is on the ground to make him understand that everything that begins must end. You can use pictures for this. Then explain the life of an animal in the same way. And then explain how humans are the same way.

Finally, show a seed of the dead tree and show how a new plant comes from it. Use that to explain rebirth.


How do monks transcend the desire for relationships & sex? Being a 'genuine' monk means a certain kind of dispassion towards the world.

How is sexuality & 'relationship craving' effectively dealt within a monk?

I am pretty sure a lot of monks struggle with it although they never speak of it. That's probably why many monks disrobe because they can't get the fruits of the noble path.

Is it with metta towards the opposite sex or just seeing the unattractiveness of it that craving reduces?

Is it with metta towards the opposite sex or just seeing the unattractiveness of it that craving reduces?

I think it's both of those -- with "unattractive" meaning:

Something like graveyard meditation
Seeing it as dissatisfactory (dukkha) or "not permanently satisfying"
Seeing consequences

I get the impression from watching some of Ven. Yuttadhammo's videos that it's also a matter of developing some dispassion towards "feeling".

And I think perhaps it's a matter of discipline (e.g. the vinaya) as an alternative to pursuing sensuality.

Another example of that, for a monk, is feeling hungry and yet not eating (except properly).

I suppose it's also a matter of habit, changing or attenuating existing habits (if any), and avoiding causes or occasions (e.g. being alone with a woman).


Technique for Concentrative Meditation I'm wondering whether when people refer to concentration meditation such as shamatha, they mean that there is still conceptual thought or its absence.

For example, I am capable of meditating upon an object, e.g. breath, and focus with an intensity that no thoughts or very few emerge. However, I am also capable of simply paying attention to the object while thoughts emerge, but I redirect attention to the object when thoughts have done so.

I am basically asking whether genuine concentration is more like the first or the second. What exactly is referred to by absence of thought, or the fact thought helps meditation until the jhanas. Do we mean gross thought, such as sentences and ideas, or do we mean the intelligence of awareness, discernment?

If possible, can anyone relate this with calm abiding and special insight, and what is meant by these terms?

Thank you

The term 'shamatha' means 'tranquility' or 'calm abiding' rather 'concentration' ('collectedness'; non-distraction). 'Shamatha' is a fruit of concentration rather than concentration itself.

It does not matter if you are also capable of simply paying attention to the object while thoughts emerge & can redirect attention to the object when thoughts have done so. The very fact that thoughts are emerging is a loss of concentration, however momentary.

Generally, the kinds of thoughts that help meditation are wise thoughts used to counter unwise thoughts and the very subtle thought (intention) of giving up (letting go) or non-attachment.

Some subtle thoughts can serve as objects of insight (vipassana) into impermanence but there is generally no need to deliberately cultivate such thoughts.


Why work on one thing at a time? Why work on one thing at a time according to the buddhism ? Did Lord Buddha advise us to do that ?

Are there any deep desires in multi-tasking ? (Like wanting to gain more in short amount of time)

Edit:  I mean by "doing one thing at a time" is working on 2 different subjects at the same time(Without finishing the first work) . Ex: practising samatha and vipassana together, learning maths and arts at the same time.

Edit: Example for "not doing one thing at a time" : Started to write a book yesterday. Whithout finishing it, starting to write an another book today.

The instruction to do "one thing at a time" is implied by the Buddha's praise of Sāriputta's practice, which was intense, deep and accomplished methodically one by one:

  MN111:1.6: The Buddha said this: “Sāriputta is astute, mendicants. He has great wisdom,  widespread wisdom,  laughing wisdom, swift wisdom,  sharp wisdom,  and penetrating wisdom. For a fortnight he practiced discernment of phenomena one by one.

That fortnight was critical for Sariputta because it made him an arahant.

  MN111:21.1: And if there’s anyone of whom it may be rightly said that they have attained mastery and perfection in noble ethics, immersion, wisdom, and freedom, it’s Sāriputta. And if there’s anyone of whom it may be rightly said that they’re the Buddha’s true-born child, born from his mouth, born of the teaching, created by the teaching, heir to the teaching, not the heir in material things, it’s Sāriputta.

Multi-tasking entails that one momentarily averts attention from one task in order to attend to other things in rapid succession. Clearly, driving while listening to the radio and thinking about what we want for dinner isn't practicing "one by one". Instead, conventional multi-tasking normally manifests as intermittent aversion to the unpleasant necessities while intermittently attending to the pleasant. The delusion that multi-tasking is effective is what makes it necessary to have laws that forbid dangerous multi-tasking such as texting and driving. Multi-tasking is therefore unskillful.

Practicing one by one is skillful.


How sexual relations with multiple partners affect us? What are after effects of promiscuity? I want to know how promiscuity affects us? How it binds? What are the after affects of making many sexual partners?

In his 1st sermon, the Lord Buddha taught:

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

Therefore, the more sexual partners, which is interactions based on lust, the more suffering.

Buddhism teaches to relate to people with non-harming (ahimsa), loving-kindness (metta) & compassion (karuna). Therefore, there is absolutely no place in Buddhism for the recommendation or endorsement of sexual promiscuity, because sexual promiscuity is a behaviour (kamma) rooted in lust.

MN 9, which is about Right View, states:

  And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed (lust) is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root
  of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.

The Dhammapada states:

  Verse 202: There is no fire like lust.

In Buddhism, if a person needs to have sex due to strong natural urges, a person should establish a relationship based on loving-kindness & compassion.

In the Pali suttas, there are no teachings about how to engage in sex because all of the teachings are about how husbands & wives should behave in the more important compassionate & loving ways. For example, in AN 4.55, it is taught when a husband & wife are complete with virtue & love towards each other, they will naturally enjoy whatever sexual pleasures they desire.

In conclusion, Buddhism describes the world of promiscuity as the 'animal world', as follows:

  ... the world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals. AN 2.9

Therefore, Buddhists that tell other people that sexual promiscuity is "OK" are teaching the path (magga) leading to animal birth (tiracchāna-yoni-gamanīyā), as follows:

  And what is the cause of defilements? Ignorance is the cause of defilements.

  And what is the diversity in defilements? There are defilements that lead to hell, those that lead to the animal womb (tiracchānayonigamanīyā), those that lead to
  the realm of the hungry shades, those that lead to the human world,
  those that lead to the world of the devas. This is called the
  diversity in defilements.

  And what is the cause of kamma? Contact is the cause of kamma.

  And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals (tiracchānayonivedanīyaṃ), kamma
  to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be
  experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world
  of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.

  https://suttacentral.net/en/an6.63


Can I meditate while lying on my back? Is lying flat on my back an acceptable meditation posture?  Why or why not?

You can, but it's not recommended.  Many people come to meditation with the notion that it is a relaxation exercise.  With that preconception, it's no surprise that so many wonder why we just don't meditate lying down or in an arm chair.  There may be some kind of benefit to this sort of mediation.  Whatever the benefits, however, they do detract from the kind of meditation taught by the Buddha.

There is a very strong connection between the body and the mind.  The condition of one really determines the state of the other.  To meditate properly (from a Buddhist standpoint), it is very important for the body to be in an upright and invigorated position.  When we lay down or sit in a comfortable chair, it is all too easy for our minds to go slack and lazy.  These sorts of positions effect our concentration and makes it all too easy to fall into sloth and torpor.  You don't want that.  To hold the body upright is to hold the mind upright.  What you want is a state where you are as awake (from a physiological standpoint) as you are going to get.  Discomfort, even a little pain (note - little!), is very conducive to raising your attention and applying it on the meditation object.


Personal relationships and properly ending them Upasaka Karl mentioned in an answer:

Relationships have a beginning. And because they have a beginning, they also have an end. Thoughtless endings, ghosting and worse, hurt both parties. It is sad to treat each other like an Amazon shopping experience. We become each other's dismissable clickbait. Yet perhaps a thoughtless ending was matched by a thoughtless beginning. Perhaps we can consider and nurture relationships that matter.

Isn't it merely the case that personal relationships never really end, that some of the debts remain forever? That one actually stays bonded forever, even after ending of a relationship...

What are the valid reasons for ending a personal relationship?

How to end a relationship properly?

Which (as it were) "relationship" can't be ended, once gotten into?

What's the effect of denying being in a personal relationship and consuming outside of it, thinking "I am free" or "this is my right"?

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades and relation-misuse but to escape toward]

Personal ("sexual") relationship is a fiction, a hallucination. To paraphrase my Zen master, what worldly people call "love" is an obsession, a disease of the mind. Ownership of people is slavery and so is the owning relationships between people.
As said in the prophecy of Maitreya in the Maitreyavyākaraṇa:

[Gods, people, and other sentient beings] will lose their doubts, and the torrents of their cravings will be cut off: free from all misery they will manage to cross the ocean of becoming; and, as a result of Maitreya's teachings, they will lead a holy life. No longer will they regard anything as their own, they will have no possession, no gold or silver, no home, no relatives! But they will lead the holy life of oneness under Maitreya's guidance.


Monastery or Temple in California Hope you all doing excellent!
Would like to know if there's any monastery or Theravada temple in San Francisco, OC or LA?
I know there's one in Redwood Valley, but it's a lil too far off.
Pls share, if you happen to know any nearby.
Thanks.

There is nothing specific to Theravada nearby (other than what you found in Redwood Valley, which I'm guessing is Abhayagiri), but just in case it is helpful, here are some other monasteries and temples that are somewhat close:

Berkeley Buddhist Monastery
Buddha Gate Monastery
Wat Mongkolratanaram, a Thai Buddhist temple
Berkeley Buddhist Temple

Also less than an hour away is also the Insight Meditation Center, which is neither a monastery nor a temple, but is very much rooted in Theravada teachings (so maybe worth mentioning).


So what is left? It is the true realization of Śūnyatā, or Ultimate Truth, a realm in which “reason is used to destroy itself” The above is a quote from 'Humphreys, Christmas.  Buddhism: An Introduction and Guide'p145.

Is it true that the main aim of Buddhism (Mahayana) is for reason to destroy itself?

That really sound too colorful and worst than nihilism itself

Good question. That's a rather crude statement, albeit a nice first approximation.

More precisely I would say, the aim is to clearly see the Value, the Limitations, and the Danger of having subjective experience entirely subsumed within a framework made of models and concepts (taken at their face values as being the reality itself, aka "reified"), to see how this mistake is universal, inevitable, and intrinsic part of sentient life, to see the mechanisms behind arising of said conceptually conditioned experience, and finally to master the practical means of manipulating said mechanisms towards liberation from the confines of said framework to the reality of authentic suchness.


Why not kill animals to hasten their rebirth? This may be primarily for the Tibetan style practitioners. Also, my question assumes that "rebirth" etc are not metaphors.

Since non-human animal existence is lower down in the six realms, why wouldn't killing them (painlessly) be considered a good thing, since it then allows the being rebirth and maybe it will be reborn as a human? For example, in "Seven Years in Tibet", earthworms were saved from death. Isn't that in some sense cruel, since saving an animal prolongs the time it has to spend as an animal?

I think I know the answer; namely, that karmic effects need to be worked out and if we kill an animal prior to that point, then it's simply going to be reborn as another animal until it's paid whatever "karmic debt" is involved. Therefore, killing an animal doesn't serve to give it a chance of a higher rebirth.

But that's a guess. Any ideas? (And again, I know some people think the whole "rebirth" thing is just a metaphor. Fine. But this question is predicated on that not being the case, so in this particular case, please keep yer metaphors to yerself :-) )

What makes you think that they will even be born at least as animals again? It's very difficult to get into higher realms once you go down. An animal can very rarely have a thought devoid of craving/lust, aversion and ignorance. So whether you kill an animal or let it die naturally, there's very little chance for it to get a better birth. There's a reason why the hells are called the great houses of Sansara. Once a being sinks below the human realm, it usually keeps sinking further down as it'll be mostly creating bad karma. Unless some good deed from a past life comes forward at the time of death, there's very little chance for it to escape hells. There are also rare instances of some animals listening to the Dhamma and being able to be born in higher realms. So if you are really interested in helping them, make them listen to the Dhamma and hope at least 1 in a million would be able to make use of it.

Breaking the 1st precept with such a false belief would probably make you join them instead of saving them :)


Arhat Culapanthaka's display of psychic powers to a layman (DP Verse 25) In DP Verse 25, we read about Arhat Culapanthaka displaying psychic powers (appearing as many) to possibly a lay person, i.e. the messenger:

  When the messenger from the house of Jivaka arrived at the monastery he found not only one bhikkhu, but a thousand identical bhikkhus.

Now it's popularly known that according to the Vinaya, Bhikkhu are prohibited from displaying psychic powers to lay persons (Kevatta Sutta DN 11). If so, was this display by Arhat Culapanthaka,

before the vinaya prohibiting such displays,
performed unaware of such a rule,
exempt from the rule,
not exempt from the rule, but the intention and effect due to the display of such powers, was of greater benefit than non display.
other

It was not a show for people, that's the first thing you have missed. Here is how it went and what you missed,

The function in doctor Jeewaka's house was attended by the monks of the temple and Ven. Arhat Culapanthaka was at the temple/monastery. As Ven.Arhat Culapanthaka was alone and there was work to be done multiple bodies were used to clean the temple,to sweep it and do some other petty tasks. This is when the messenger from Doc.Jeevaka's house came and saw this.

Sometimes when arahats feel that more harm can come to a society or a person by not revealing his true status the Arahat does some suitable task to prove him that. This was first done by Lord Buddha to tame the ego of "Jatila sages" who thought they are Arahat and Lord Buddha was not. It was done again to tame the ego of the "Shakya cast" who were is relatives of prince siddhartha.

What we need to understand is that Arahat does not break "Vinaya (laws & guidelines of Buddhism)" no matter what. And that has been clearly stated in Buddhism. So there is no point in Scrutinizing the "Seela" or the conviction of an Arahat because it is not up to petty beings like us. Like always it has happened it should happen by the hands of another Arahat.


'Dukkha': What is the difference between 'suffering' & 'unsatisfactoriness'? In Buddhism, the English words 'suffering' & 'unsatisfactoriness' are often used as translations of the Pali word 'dukkha'. What is the difference between 'suffering' & 'unsatisfactoriness'?

'Unsatisfactoriness' is one of the Three Characteristics. 'Unsatisfactoriness' refers to an inherent quality of all (conditioned) material & mental things.

The cause of unsatisfactoriness is impermanence. Due to impermanence, all (conditioned) mental & material cannot be relied upon for lasting true happiness. Therefore, all impermanent things have a quality of unsatisfactoriness, be it major or minor.

A Buddha or fully enlightened person cannot eradicate unsatisfactoriness because every conditioned phenomena in the universe, including stars & planets & the body & mind of a Buddha, contains the characteristic of unsatisfactoriness. A Buddha experiences unsatisfactorines in everything they see, hear, smell, taste, touch & cognize (except Nirvana. Nirvana is satisfactory because it is the unconditioned peace experienced from letting go of craving).

  Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death? Thus asked, I would answer, ‘Form
  is impermanent… Feeling… Perception… Fabrications… Consciousness is
  impermanent. That which is impermanent is unsatisfactory. That which
  is unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to its end. Very good, my friend
  Yamaka. Very good. SN 22.85

~~~

  Now I am frail, Ananda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ananda, is
  held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tathagata is
  kept going only with supports. It is, Ananda, only when the Tathagata,
  disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings,
  attains to and abides in the signless concentration of mind, that his
  body is more comfortable. DN 16

Experiencing unsatisfactoriness is the cause of eradicating craving & suffering. When conditioned things are seen with wisdom as unsatisfactory, those conditioned things cease to be desirable. Thus, when desire (craving) ends, suffering ends.

  Seeing (impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self) 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.' SN 22.59

Therefore, unsatisfactoriness & suffering are not the same thing because experiencing unsatisfactoriness results in not experiencing suffering.

  "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
  purification. Dhammapada 278

Below are pictures of unsatisfactoriness; i.e, undesirable things that cannot bring true lasting permanent happiness.


Schopenhauer’s inexplicable disturbance in the heavenly calm of Nirvana? Arthur Schopenhauer on his famed work titled “On the suffering of the world” relate as quoted below as to how he think Buddhism's doctrine describe how the world of suffering came into being.

Are there any proper Buddhist reference to support his claims? Is in Samsara beginning-less cycle? And can there be any inexplicable disturbance in Nirvana?

  According to the doctrines of Buddhism, the world came into being as
  the result of some inexplicable disturbance in the heavenly calm of
  Nirvana, that blessed state obtained by expiation, which had endured
  so long a time — the change taking place by a kind of fatality.

Studies in Pessimism,On the Sufferings of the World

There is a similar question here: What is the starting of Samsara?.

I would be surprised if there was any Buddhist reference supporting Schopenhauer's claim that "the world came into being as a result of some disturbance in the heavenly calm of Nirvana." To me, this statement even sounds "plain weird."

Samsara refers to two phenomena:

A place
The contaminated aggregates

In Buddhism, the expression "the world" might refer to either, depending on the context -- see What does the word “world” mean in the Buddhist context? In either case, although it is said that the world is produced due to karma and afflictions, it is usually said to be without beginning. There are countless traditional texts and authoritative teachings establishing this statement. Here are a few:

In Cutting the Root of Samsara, Lama Zopa Rinpoche says:

  [Suffering] comes from the past karma created by the self-cherishing
  thought and it is also dependent on our present-life attitude as well.
  From beginningless rebirth, it's been like this.

The Abhidharma Sutra says:

  It is said: "Though beginningless, it entails an end -  What is
  naturally pure and consists of permanent dharmas  Is not seen, since
  it is obscured by a beginningless cocoon[...]

The third Karmapa's commentary to it reads:

  Consequently, though samsara is beginningless, once the reality[...]

There are four types of nirvana. Without going in details, nirvana is the final analytical cessation achieved in dependence upon a union of calm abiding (shamata) and special insight (actual vipassana) directly apprehending the nature of reality, emptiness. According to Mahayana, abiding nirvana is the complete and definitive abandonment of afflictive obscurations while non-abiding nirvana is the complete and definitive abandonment of afflictive and knowledge obscurations. There is no disturbance "in" nirvana.

It is definitely not like we ever abided in nirvana and subsequently "fell" from it. There is no such "genesis" in Buddhism.


Self-Worth and Engaging in Detrimental Behaviour I've long felt that some people engage in unskillful behaviour as a consequence of not valuing themselves. For example, they engage in drugs to numb or detrimental sexuality, seemingly because they feel unworthy or undeserving.

Would Buddhism link such a behaviour to self-compassion or self-esteem? Is there such a thing in Buddhism as instincts of self-harm?

Or, even, can such self-impeding behaviour be linked to some other cause, such as not seeing the consequence of actions or something of the like?

Thank you

The origin of detrimental behavior is the "self" itself. Because self is ultimately an illusion and doesn't exists, and people's belief and identification to self makes them trapped in the cycle of suffering. The "self" can never feel worthy, because it is an illusion and an illusion is always incomplete and insecure. That's why the people who have deep narcissistic personality disorder always need to cause trouble for themselves and others because their identity is always based on the "self", which means their identity is always based on an illusion. Also the identification of the self always makes people have lack of awareness and most of the people are acting their conditioning from their birth to death. So most people literally don't know what they are doing and they are completely under control of the thoughts, emotions and feelings.

The only way to become free from this never-ending cycle is to become free from the self itself. Trying to build a self esteem can temporarily work but it would collapse sooner or later because a sand castle can't live that long. A person who becomes free from the belief of the self and completely becomes free from the identification from it would have great peace and contentment and would not identified with the thoughts, emotions and feelings again so it would be impossible for him/her to act as an ordinary egotistical person again.

That being said, denying the identification with the self is not beneficial either because until a person completely becomes free from identification with the self-which happens in the once-returner stage-the identification with the self would continue for a person. So even that the self is ultimately an illusion, the nature of being a human is being identified to this illusion. That's why Buddhism gives the humanity the roadmap to become free from this illusion. And the core of this roadmap is mindfulness and staying away from the unwholesome actions.