What is the best way to forget bad choices in the past? We all have done bad karma,so if something is bugging my mind constantly

(Like killing some mosquito)

what is the solution for me,what can i do to overcome it/or to forget it?

Short answer is, you should not forget bad choices. You should learn from bad choices.

Long answer:

  Kukucca is characterized by regret. It's function is to grieve about what has or what has not been done. It manifests as remorse. It should be regarded as
  slavery.

--from Visuddhimagga XIV, 174

  The Dalai Lama was working with an American psychiatrist who was interviewing him for a book on happiness. The subject of remorse was broached: His Holiness explained that one time an elderly Buddhist man came to see him to ask for instructions on how to do a very difficult Yoga pose. The Dalai Lama told the man that he was too old and should not attempt the pose as it would be too dangerous. The old man thanked the Dalai Lama, went home and killed himself so he could be reincarnated as a younger, healthier man who could attempt the pose. After hearing the news, the Dalai lama was overcome with guilt at being the reason for another man’s death.

  “So how did you deal with that?” asked the interviewer. “How did you get rid of the remorse.”

  The Dalai Lama sat there in silence for a minute or two, thinking hard about the question.

  “I didn’t get rid of it” the Dalai Lama explained. “It’s still with me every day. I just continue to live with my heart open.”

-- from http://toryshulman.com/how-to-live-with-remorse-efficiently

So, what does it mean, "to live with one's heart open"? It means to see it like so: "What was done in the past cannot be changed. Thinking about it will not help me undo it. Now I have learned my lesson and will not make exactly the same mistake. I don't know what will happen in the future, but if similar situation comes up, or even a completely different situation -- I will do my best!"


Why do Buddhists cremate instead of burying? A Buddhist, when dead, is most of the time cremated and not buried. Does this have to do with anything in the teachings of the Buddha? As far as I know, burying a body is more Eco-friendly than cremation. I share with you one of the best answers given by the legendary Neil deGrasse Tyson :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afGkv0IT4dU

That answer in the video has a parallel in Sky burial where the body is exposed in the wilderness to be eaten by birds and animals.

That practice is unpopular (and, more to the point, illegal) in countries which don't have enough wilderness etc.

Cremation is a standard practice in India and, apparently, was the practice in the Buddha's time. The Maha-parinibbana Sutta ends with the monks telling the local society to do as they see fit (which included cremation).

I think there is a "religious" aspect to it: a Christian might believe in resurrection of the body and therefore want their body buried instead of destroyed. A Buddhist is more likely to see the body as impermanent and not-self (on the other hand Buddhists do collect relics, see e.g. here and here).

As for ecology I suppose that burial is more carbon-neutral, but it takes land, cemeteries run out of space.


What determines whether actions are good or bad? In a large number of religions, 'good' and 'bad' are defined by some all-powerful diety who either sends a representative or himself to tell us about what exactly they want us mortals to do.

In Buddhism, instead an enlightened individual basically worked it all out.

So the basic question is - why does that happen? What decided that killing (even if your intentions are good*1) will cause something negative ? What about the other actions? There is no 'final judge' to confirm or deny we've followed a particular path - so why does the universe (?) act this way? And what makes us sure that we're correct?

*1 - It's an impression I got from reading some other answers, if I'm wrong on this please do correct me)

In Buddhism, the concepts of good and evil do not exist as in other religions (no being is inherently good or evil). No deity tells you what to do. There are the teachings of the Buddha, that we can make use of, as opposed to believing in a doctrine (such as "Ithe authority tells you this, therefore you should obey*").

However, there is still a distinction between the helpful and harmful, skillful and unskillful - in the context of the path (to liberation, nirvāṇa, nibbāna). In terms of karma (actions, kamma), there are the wholesome and unwholesome, but these are useful in terms of the actions we choose to avoid and to act on, in each given moment (now).

Mara, as mentioned in the Pali Canon, is referred to as evil (in the English translation), but even he will be enlightened one day. In other words, noone is inherently evil (or good) - no deities, ghosts, humans or other, in Buddhism. For instance, Maha Moggallana, disciple of the Buddha, mentioned to Mara at one point that in a previous existence, he had been Mara, and (the current) Mara had been his nephew. Strikingly, despite having been the "embodiment of evil in the world", a number of lifetimes later, he was one of the prominent disciples of the Buddha (Gotama).

An excerpt from the story: (source)

  The first Buddha appearing in our "fortunate aeon" (bhadda-kappa) with
  five Buddhas, was Kakusanda. He lived when the lifespan of man was
  40,000 years and when the first darkening of the golden age became
  evident because of a king's lack of concern and the occurrence of the
  first theft. Because of that, man's vital energy became reduced to
  half. At that time, Moggallana was Mara, chief of demons, lord of the
  lower worlds, and his name was Mara Dusi. He had a sister by name of
  Kali whose son was to become the Mara of our age. Hence Moggallana's
  own nephew was now standing in front of him at the door post. While
  being the Mara of that distant time, Moggallana had attacked a chief
  disciple of the previous Buddha by taking possession of a boy and
  making him throw a potsherd at the holy disciple's head so that blood
  was flowing. When the Buddha Kakusandha saw this, he said: "Verily,
  Mara knew no moderation here" — because even in satanic actions there
  might be moderation. Under the glance of the Perfect One the astral
  body of Mara Dusi dissolved on the spot and reappeared in the deepest
  hell. Just a moment ago he had been the overlord of all the hellish
  worlds and now he himself was one of hell's victims. A moment ago he
  had been the greatest torturer and now he himself was undergoing one
  of those terrible torments.

Whether we believe in the details of the stories in the Pali Canon is up to each of us. However, important to note, is that we all have the ability and opportunity to choose a wiser path.

Regarding your questions (in shuffled order):

There is no final "judge". No being (God or otherwise) controls our existence.
The Buddha (through long practice) awakened to (discovered, if you will) the way things are, how this existence functions.
Upon awakening, the first inclination of the Buddha was that "noone will ever understand this" - that it's impossible to teach. However, he was persuaded that some beings could be helped, and so he decided to teach others.
Briefly explained, words are inadequate to explain the way things function (karma, and so on), so instead of preaching something to believe in, the Buddha pointed the way for each of us to find out.

So noone "decided that killing is negative" (nor did anyone decide the effects of other actions). However, Buddhists will gladly help you on the path to finding out for yourself, to discover the effects of karma (your actions). Regarding being "sure we're correct", don't just take anyone's word for it. Try it out, see for yourself, do the methods and teachings from Buddhism work for you. Only then can you find certainty.


Sammasam Buddha's Sila, was it the best Sila? Buddha said Sariputra "My Sila is the best/incomparable". But people at the time of Buddha donated flowers, perfumes and jewelries to Buddha (Need citations in Pali Canon and Pitaka). The monk/num's Sila are 227 and more and monks do not allowed to get/use flowers, perfumes and jewelries, etc. How the Sila of Buddha was superior to monks' Sila whilst the latter seems more restricted than the former? Is there any more facts that I was missing to know about Sammasam Buddha's Sila?

The Sila becomes higher depending on your knowledge of the virtues/benefits of it.
The Sila becomes higher depending on how focused you are when you are keeping them.
In other words, Sila becomes higher depending on your Samadhi & Panna.
That's why the Sila of the Buddha is higher than anyone else's.

The Lord did not use the flowers offered to him.Offering flowers is merely a way of people showing reverence to the Buddha. Perfumes are not offered. Perfumes would have been sprayed by the people when preparing places for the Buddha to stay. It is the same with jewellery.


What is meant by ‘threefold bliss’ in the “verses of sharing and aspiration” What is meant by the “threefold bliss” in the verses of sharing and aspiration:

  Through the goodness that arises from my practice,
  May my spiritual teachers and guides of great virtue,
  My mother, my father and my relatives,
  The Sun and the Moon,
  and all virtuous leaders of the world –
  May the highest gods and evil forces;
  Celestial beings,
  guardian spirits of the Earth and the Lord of Death;
  May those who are friendly, indifferent or hostile;
  May all beings receive the blessings of my life.
  May they soon attain the threefold bliss and realise the Deathless.
  Through the goodness that arises from my practice,
  And through this act of sharing,
  May all desires and attachments quickly cease
  And all harmful states of mind.
  Until I realise Nibbana,
  In every kind of birth,
  may I have an upright mind
  With mindfulness and wisdom,
  austerity and vigour.
  May the forces of delusion not take hold nor weaken my resolve.
  The Buddha is my excellent refuge,
  Unsurpassed is the protection of the Dhamma,
  The Solitary Buddha is my noble Lord,
  The Sangha is my supreme support.
  Through the supreme power of all these,
  May darkness and delusion be dispelled.

via http://www.buddhamind.info/leftside/monastic/imina.htm

This page ...

  2007-11-16 The Threefold Bliss 55:28

  The talk explores worldly or human happiness, celestial or heavenly happiness and transcendent happiness or Nibbana

... says that it means:

  worldly or human happiness
  celestial or heavenly happiness
  transcendent happiness or Nibbana

I haven't found a more canonical source for the quote i.e. I don't know where that chant comes from.

The page Reflections on sharing blessings includes the Pali if that's helpful:

  Puññāni pakatāni me
  May they soon attain

  Sukhañca tividhaṃ dentu
  The threefold bliss

  Khippaṃ pāpetha vomataṃ
  And realize the Deathless.

The word translated as "bliss" is sukha, defined here (Wikipedia) and here (PTS dictionary).

The PTS dictionary definition includes:

  Two kinds, viz kāyika & cetasika; at Pts.i.188; several other pairs at AN.i.80; three (praise, wealth, heaven) Iti.67; another three (manussa˚, dibba˚, nibbāna˚) Dhp-a.iii.51; four (possessing, making good use of possessions, having no debts, living a blameless life) AN.ii.69

Those three ("manussa˚, dibba˚, nibbāna˚") correspond to the three identified above (i.e. "of man, of gods, and nibbana") -- though I don't understand the reference, i.e. what "Dhp-a.iii.51" means.


What is reincarnated? What is reincarnated? Does reincarnation occur in the realm of conventional reality?

Well I had to put in some superfluous words because the website wouldn't accept just a simple question.

It appears original Buddhism did not teach about "reincarnation". It appears "reincarnation" was introduced into Buddhism at a later time.

The Pali suttas show original Buddhism taught about "upapajjati" ("re-arising"), which means a certain result arising following from certain actions. "Upapajjati" is concerned with the results of kamma or morality.

The original Pali suttas most often say what is "re-arises" is the former sense of "being" or "self".

For example, you have the idea: "I will rob this bank because I want to have money". Then when you are imprisoned for robbing the bank, you have the painful regret: "Why was I so stupid to get get caught?". What "re-arises" is the same sense of "being", "self" or "I"; that is caught up or strongly attached to the idea of robbing a bank for money.

The scriptures say:

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

Therefore what "re-arises" is "a being". The scriptures also say "a being" is a mental state of strong attachment, as follows:

  'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to
  be 'a being'?"

  "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
  caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

  "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
  fabrications...

  "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
  when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
  being.'

  SN 23.2

While "a being" is a mental state of delusion; it is this delusion that "re-arises" or "upapajjati".


Meditating in stressful days In stressful days, when I really need to calm down and find some inner peace, is when I find it harder to meditate. A lot of thoughts going in and out and creating intense feelings as a consequence of the events of the day.

Is there any kind of method one can use to meditate in such days?

One of my favourite quotes is an old Zen adage

  You should sit in meditation for twenty minutes every day - unless
  you're too busy; then you should sit for an hour

I find that both infurating and inspirational at the same time. So on the zen theme, when I am just way too busy I can't do mindfulness of breathing or metta practice. So the one I turn to is a just sitting or zazen type practice. I just sit there and ask - what is it like to be this. It might not be traditional zazen but it helps me.

Ironically when meditation is going well and seems to be taking off (if that makes sense) then I also do just sitting. It's the beginning and end of practice for me.


Question on sexual immorality and a family situation I recently, and accidentally, found out one of my very close family members has been watching pornography on my computer. He had borrowed it and had used it apparently for his own purposes one night. I am not too bothered by this, but I did find that in recent history he had watched some very extreme videos in sexual nature. I had to think about it for a long awhile. On one hand I know I cannot control his karma and what decisions he makes. On the other I still question whether or not it is considered a break of the sexual immorality precept.

I do not wish to judge anyone, but I was just so shocked to see one of my family members watching some very extreme videos in nature. Again, we are related, but his karma is not mine. I cannot push such a thought away, and I constantly wonder, not to my choosing, whether to consider it his personal free will and to let everyone be or if I should be worried if a relative was enjoying videos almost abusive in nature. I suppose some of this suffering stems from attachment to this relative, but I am just asking for advice from fellow Buddhists.

I am pondering whether or not pornography is considered a violation of the precepts? How should I view such a situation? Should I ignore it and move on? What is the buddhist response to a situation like this? I am dearly confused.

Thank you to all.

It is not officially a breach of the 3rd precept, which, per definition, relates to actual sexual activity with specifically defined people (such as another person's husband or wife or children/teenagers still living under the care of their parents).

However, pornography is of the kind of extreme "dangerous" (ādīnavā) potentially addictive vices found in the 'six causes ruin a man' in the Sigalovada Sutta.

Also, extreme pornography is particularly discordant with Buddhist views about the aims & needs of women (AN 6:52); it is often 'sexual objectification'; is a 'delusion' about reality; & thus does not abide with metta (wishing good welfare) & compassion (mitigating suffering).

Since, it was your computer, you have a duty of care (towards yourself) to mention it to your relative because it was a breach of your trust & something that could potentially have imperiled you (such as if it was an illegal kind of pornography that could be traced to your computer or if it was a work computer supplied by an employer).

If the relative is your child, again, the Sigalovada Sutta states a parent has the duty to restrain their children from evil & encourage them to do good.

Similarly, as a genuine friend, the Sigalovada Sutta states to protect a friend when he is heedless, to not forsake him in his troubles, to give good counsel, to discourage from doing evil encourage & to do good.

The Sigalovada Sutta contains most answers to Buddhist personal & social conduct.

As for pornography, it is a very powerful (alluring) sense object, even if looked at out of curiosity. Since it is freely accessible on the public internet, many people watch it or have viewed it.

I have noticed more than a few members on a certain Buddhist chatsite that have brought up their problems with & addictions to pornography.

About sensual pleasures (which includes pornography) the scriptures advise to be cognizant of: (i) the origin (all lifeforms are sexual/reproductive/filial beings); (ii) the allure/attraction; (iii) the drawback/danger; & (iv) the method to escape the danger (which is appropriate healthy use of appropriate sexual relationship or, otherwise, restraint). Some links below.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.010.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.054x.than.html

Pornography can have a powerful allure but I assume many people grow out of it (just as many people get addicted to it).


What weight has the kamma when forced to do bad things as a child? Example: A child (+/- 8yrs old) is forced to kill an animal. It doesn't want to, but has to because it is threatened by abusive adults.

Wanting to kill or not doesn't, I think, matter when it comes to the bad kamma performed here. And yes, since it is the child that performs the killing, the bad kamma is done by the child and the child will bear the negative results of that kamma.

But, what about the weight of that kamma? Since the child had no option but to obey. How heavy is that kamma? How heavy can the results be?
Does anyone have an idea (preferably with source to text in the Pali canon)?

(Related: What is the Buddhist perspective on child abuse? . Except that that question was about the cause, mine is about the weight of kamma.)

I don't think it possible for sentient beings to objectively quantify the weight of karma. In other words, there is no objective answer to this question that will properly quantify the weight of negative karma relative to other acts.

What is clear is that negative karma will almost certainly accrue. How do we know this? Because being forced to kill is unsatisfactory. It is disturbing to the mind. It will leave a negative imprint.

Now, is it possible that some child is actually an advanced Bodhisattva or Buddha manifesting as a child and what appears to us mundane sentient beings as a child being forced to do harm could in actuality be an enlightened being manifesting and doing acts that are ultimately beneficial motivated by compassion? Yes! This is possible. In such a case, no negative karma will accrue for that manifesting being. That being's mind will not be disturbed even the slightest bit.

However, if the child is an ordinary sentient being then the predicament is negative and the fruits of it are going to be at least in part negative. Why do I say at least in part? Maybe the child also has a thought of compassion for whatever sentient being it is forced to kill. That compassionate thought is virtuous and will without a doubt manifest positive fruit. Nevertheless, negative thoughts most certainly will also arise and give negative fruit.

Anyway, I don't think we can quantify it. I think we can say it is most likely some negative stuff going on and children forced to do this type of thing are going to be negatively impacted both in the moment when they are forced into a negative act and in the future as negative fruit ripens.

One thing to keep in mind is that karma is not justice. It is not like there is some court or bank that is keeping tally of our good/bad deeds and doling out consequences accordingly. It is not like that. Karma and the law of karma just are the way things work. Children don't deserve this kind of thing happening to them. On the other hand, they don't not deserve it either. Deserve / not deserve, does not apply. Karma just is.


Buddhist views on transgender issues The Buddha or the scriptures do not state specifically if an individual being a transgender is right or wrong. So how would a Buddhist interpret this in a modern light and why?

For anybody who ''wants to end dukkha'', caring about the body is the first mistake, and trying to change the body is the second mistake. The third mistake is to base the actions, which let's recall are thinking, talking and moving the body, on the individual will (to talk like the secular humanists) or more generally on the various libidos, like the libido dominandi and libido sentiendi to talk like the full-on christians, which means on the sensations imagined, fantasised, expected, or even worse demanded , through some of the ''6 sense consciousnesses'', as the results of the actions based on the libido.
Overall, for anybody who want to stop being miserable, it is quite a blunder to even spend some energy on this.
For anybody who ''wants to end dukkha'', the actions are based on what gets the person closer to nirvana -- those are welcomed -- and what gets the person away from nirvana -- those are avoided -- which have nothing to do with pleasures, displeasures, comfort, lack of comfort, the will, the libido.

For the people who are satisfied with dukkha, it is quite natural to worry about the body, the senses and to base their actions on ''what they want'' or more generally on their desires (and then, even worse to build an identity on the pleasures and displeasures they have so far), since it is all they know ; which it turns out is a major source of misery, but they do not know that...


Keeping rooted in the present in the face of past realities I have remembered at least 4 past incarnations, two being particularly influential throughout my current life before the memory of them. I had been cleaning my psyche and spirit during this time, but I still had a hard time keeping rooted in the present with all these different realities suddenly apparent.

I thought I was ready, as I had been studying reincarnation and the possible implications for years before the memories started. Once they came, it was unlike anything I expected. They were visceral, real, encompassing and completely immersive. I could see so many parallels through them all, and deeply rooted throughout my current incarnation. It began to be too much, and I found it becoming hard to keep rooted in the present.

I started to wonder if I really was just living the same mistakes again that I saw reflected in the most vivid life, and became scared I would suffer the same pain no matter what I did to stop it. I desperately wanted to seek advice, but had no one near me at the time that I felt would know any answers.

So, even though it is years past now, I have found this forum, so I ask those who may know from experience:

How do you keep rooted in the now when all your pasts are constantly running through your mind, sometimes as clear as this moment?
How do you keep this present clear, and not let the other faces and experiences overlay everything?

Do vipassana, a retreat if possible. In every moment you have a memory, know that it is a memory, know about feelings which are coming up and so on. Your mind is in the habit of believing the images, but in fact what you see is just mental noise. Maybe you had past lives like that, but it does not matter (I bet you think it does matter; that's exactly the power these images have over you). The training in returning back to the present moment (by acknowledging whatever is happening and letting it go, time and again) will gradually break the attachment of mind to those images, so you will be able to stay more stable even if these images come.

Whatever in the mind is not a hindrance to be present, if seen clearly for what it is (body sensation, feeling, mind, mind object -- technically speaking); present cannot be destroyed but we are sometimes unable to tune in back to it, and that's why we train.

As a side note: if your condition is psychiatric (you are not able to take care of yourself in regular matters, often can't distinguish hallucinations from reality etc), do seek proper treatment first.


What was the 1st Buddhist Council about? I'm interested in the 1st Buddhist Council, i.e. why was it held, where was it held, who attended it and what were the outcome?

I'm not looking for an in-depth and detailed answer. More like an overview of the 1st council and preferably a text-reference.

Thank you for your time.

The account of the first and second councils is found in the Cūḷavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka (Cv XI and XII). The first council (Cv XI) was held in Rajagaha, at what is known as the monastery of the seven caves, on the mountains above the city. Five hundred bhikkhus were in attendance.

The idea for a council began with Mahakassapa relating to his fellow monks the story found in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (DN 16) wherein Mahakassapa finds out about the Buddha's passing. He relates how he encouraged the monks to remember that everything we hold dear must pass, so they shouldn't mourn, and how an old monk named Subhadda said they shouldn't mourn because they were now free to ignore the Buddha's words and do what they wanted. He then requests that they rehearse the dhamma and vinaya together, "before what is not the dhamma shines and the dhamma is rejected; before what is not the vinaya shines and the vinaya is rejected; before those who speak what is not the dhamma become strong and those who speak the dhamma become weak; before those who speak what is not the vinaya become strong and those who speak the vinaya become weak."

At this, his fellow monks requested he select monks for the council, which he did - 499 of them, all arahants. The monks suggested he select ananda as the 500th, since he was a sekha, unable to give rise to such defilement as would lead to the states of loss and of course because he had heard much of the dhamma and vinaya in the Buddha's presence.

The elders asked themselves where they should meet, and agreed upon Rajagaha as being a great place to find the support they would need in terms of alms and dwellings. They proposed to stay there for the rains and hold the council there, and to agree that no other monk should stay in Rajagaha for the rains., Mahakassapa proposed it as a sanghakamma - any against should speak, those for it should stay silent - and it passed unanimously.

They spent the first month making repairs to their dwellings, then began the council.

The events of the council itself are, in brief, as follows:

Ananda, an arahant by this time, arrived just as the council was beginning.
Mahakassapa questioned Upali on the vinaya, beginning with "The first parajika, where was it laid down?". He asked about the story behind, the person behind, the issue behind, minor issues related to, what was an offence, and what was not, in relation to each of the precepts from each of the two codes of discipline and Upali responded.
Mahakassapa questioned Ananda on the dhamma, asking about the story behind and the person behind every sutta in the five nikayas, starting with the Brahmajala sutta and Ananda responded.
Ananda related the Buddha's permission to discard the minor and lesser precepts; they asked him if he had gotten specification on what were the minor and lesser rules and he admitted he had not. They couldn't agree, so in the end, Mahakassapa made a formal proposal that they keep the rules as they were, since it was known to lay people what was proper for them and what was not. If they were to change the rules, it would be spread about that they were going against the Buddha while his funeral pyre still smouldered. There was unanimous consent.
The elders questioned Ananda on several points where they felt he was deserving of rebuke, including that he didn't ask about the minor and lesser rules. He replied in defence, but accepted his actions as wrong doings out of faith in the elders.
The venerable Purana arrived and was told they had recited the dhamma and vinaya and that he should recite it with them. He replied by saying that while the dhamma and vinaya was well recited by them, he preferred to hold to the dhamma and vinaya as he had heard it from the Buddha himself.
Ananda related the Buddha's injunction that Channa was to receive the brahmadaṇḍa (God's or highest punishment) - that no one should speak or teach or advise him. They told him to tell Channa himself, and he asked what to do if Channa was harsh and abusive in response. They told him to bring many monks with him. The council seems to have ended there, as the text then follows Ananda to a meeting with King Udena and eventually Channa. Either that, or the council ender before this and Ananda related the injunction regarding Channa to the elders on a later date.


Tanhā Jālinī Sutta and Self-Views This answer by Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena noted the self-views, in the Tanhā Jālinī Sutta, that promote clinging to a self.

I wish here to verify my understanding, namely that these views are divided into 5 parts:

  (1) “I am”

  (2) “I am this [I am like this]”

  (3) “Thus am I [I am like that]”

  (4) “I am otherwise”

These seem to relate to affirmations in the present, linked to affirming permanence of the self, e.g. "I am like this [always]."

  (5) “I do not exist”

  (6) “I exist”

Here the two views are about extremes of eternalism and nihilism.

  (7) “May I be”

  (8) “May I be this [be like this]”

  (9) “May I be so [be like that]”

  (10) “May I otherwise”

Here, the quality of yearning and attachment is involved, namely through fantasizing.

  (11) “I might be”

  (12) “I might be this [be like this]”

  (13) “I might be that [be like that]”

  (14) “I might be otherwise”

Here, it is speculation which is in question, and the contemplation of hypothetical realities which is the problem.

  (15) “I shall be”

  (16) “I shall be this [be like this]”

  (17) “I shall be so [be like that]”

  (18) “I shall be otherwise”

Lastly, projection into the future and imagining yet occurred realities is in question.

Are these last five conclusions correct? Or have I misunderstood certain elements?

Overall, I understand this sutta to be divided into sections 1-6 pertaining directly to ignorance, 7-10 as attachment, and 11-18 as linked to the hindrances of doubt and worry.

I wonder, though, how all these separate aspects are all considered 'self-views'; is it because all kleshas mentioned previously come from and are manifesations of the self?

kleshas cannot be manifestations or come from the self, since there is no self in the first place.

What there is is various conditioned things that puthujjanas ''take up'', ie the various ''taking up'' is the upadanas, ie the fuel, and they claim the things taken up is self. They also claim that either it is not possible to stop upadanas, or that if is possible to stop the fuel, then it is bad to stop the fuel.

the buddha says the opposite, for instance

  But the well taught Ariyan disdple, brethren, who discers those who
  are Ariyans; who are skilled in the Ariyan doctrine, trained in the
  Ariyan doctrine; who discern the worthy ones, who are skilled in the
  worthy doctrine, trained in the worthy doctrine, regard not body as
  the Self, regard not body as having a Self, regard not body as being
  in the Self, regard not the self as being in the body;

  regard not feeling as the Self, regard not feeling as having a Self,
  regard not feeling as being in the Self, regard not the self as being
  in feeling;

  regard not perception as the Self, regard not perception as having a
  Self, regard not perception as being in the Self, regard not the self
  as being in perception;

  regard not the activities as the Self, regard not the activities as
  having a Self, regard not the activities as being in the Self, regard
  not the self as being in the activities;

  regard not consciousness as the Self, regard not consciousness as
  having a Self, regard not consciousness as being in the Self, regard
  not the self as being in consciousness;

  do not run and revolve round and round from body to body, do not run
  and revolve round and round from feeling to feeling, do not run and
  revolve round and round from perception to perception, do not run and
  revolve round and round from activities to activities, do not run and
  revolve round and round from consciousness to consciousness.

  They, not running and revolving round and round from body to body, not
  running and revolving round and round from feeling to feeling,

  not running and revolving round and round from perception to
  perception, not running and revolving round and round from activity to
  activity, not running and revolving round and round from consciousness
  to consciousness are released from body, are released from feeling,
  are released from perception, are released from the activities, are
  released from consciousness, they are released from rebirth, from old
  age and decay, from sorrow and grief, from woe, lamentation and
  despair; they are released from suffering, I declare.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/03_kv/sn03.22.099.wood.pts.htm#p1

same thing with the next sutta

  The Exalted One was once staying near Sāvatthī at the Jeta Grove in
  Anāthapiṇḍika's Park.

  And there the Exalted One addressed the brethren, saying:

  "Brethren!"

  "Master!" responded those brethren.

  The Exalted One said:

  "Incalculable, brethren, is the beginning of this round of rebirth.

  No beginning is made known of beings wrapt in ignorance, fettered by
  craving, who run on, who fare on the round of rebirth.

  ■

  Just like a dog, brethren, tied up by a leash to a strong stake or
  pillar - if he goes, he goes up to that stake or pillar; if he stands
  still, he stands close to that stake or pillar; if he squats down, he
  squats close to that stake or pillar; if he lies down, he lies dose to
  that stake or pillar.

  ■

  Even so, brethren, the untaught manyfolk regard body (thus):|| ||

  'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'

  They regard feeling (thus):|| ||

  'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'

  They regard perception (thus):|| ||

  'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'

  They regard the activities (thus):|| ||

  'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'

  They regard consciousness (thus):|| ||

  'This is mine; this am I; this is the self of me.'

  ■

  If they go, it is towards this fivefold grasping-group that they go.

  If they stand still, it is close to this fivefold grasping-group that
  they stand still.

  If they sit, it is close to this fivefold grasping-group that they
  sit.

  If they lie down, it is close to this fivefold grasping-group that
  they lie down.

  [128] Wherefore, brethren, again and again must one regard one's own
  mind thus:

  'For a long, long time this mind has been tainted by lust, by hatred,
  by illusion.'

  By a tainted mind, brethren, beings are tainted.

  By purity of mind beings are made pure.

  Brethren, have ye ever seen a picture which they call 'a
  show-piece?'"[1]

  "Yes, lord."

  "Well, brethren, this so-called show-piece is thought out by mind.

  Wherefore, brethren, mind is even more diverse than that show
  piece.[2]

  Wherefore, brethren, again and again must one regard one's own mind
  thus:

  'For a long, long time this mind has been tainted by lust, by hatred,
  by illusion.'

  By a tainted mind, brethren, beings are tainted.

  By purity of mind beings are made pure.

  Brethren, I see not any single group[3] so diverse as the creatures of
  the animal world.

  Those creatures of the animal world, brethren, are thought out by
  mind.[4]|| ||

  Wherefore, brethren, mind is even more diverse than those creatures of
  the animal world.

  Wherefore, brethren, again and again must one regard one's own mind
  thus:

  'For a long, long time this mind has been tainted by lust, by hatred,
  by illusion.'

  By a tainted [129] mind, brethren, beings are tainted.

  By purity of mind beings are made pure.[5]

  Just as if, brethren, a dyer or a painter, if he have dye or lac or
  turmeric, indigo or madder, and a well-planed board or wall or strip
  of cloth, can fashion the likeness of a woman or of a man complete in
  all its parts,[6] even so, brethren, the untaught manyfolk creates and
  re-creates its body, creates and re-creates its feelings, creates and
  re-creates its perception, creates and re-creates its activities,
  creates and re-creates its consciousness.

  Now as to this, what think you, brother?|| ||

  Is body permanent or impermanent?"

  "Impermanent, lord."

  "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"

  "Woe, lord."

  "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:

  'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"

  "Surely not, lord."

  ■

  "Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"

  "Impermanent, lord."

  "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"

  "Woe, lord."

  "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:

  'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"

  "Surely not, lord."

  ■

  "Is perception permanent or impermanent?"

  "Impermanent, lord."

  "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"

  "Woe, lord."

  "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:

  'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"

  "Surely not, lord."

  ■

  "Are the activities permanent or impermanent?"

  "Impermanent, lord."

  "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"

  "Woe, lord."

  "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:

  'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"

  "Surely not, lord."

  ■

  "Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

  "Impermanent, lord."

  "That which is impermanent, is it weal or woe?"

  "Woe, lord."

  "But that which is impermanent, woeful, unstable in nature, is it
  right to regard it thus:

  'This is mine, this am I this is the Self of me?'"

  "Surely not, lord."

  "Therefore, brethren, every body whatever, be it past, future or
  present, be it inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or
  near, - every body should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right
  insight:

  'This is not mine.

  This I am not.

  This is not the Self of me.'

  ■

  Every feeling whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward or
  outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every feeling
  should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight:

  'This is not mine.

  This I am not.

  This is not the Self of me.'

  ■

  Every perception whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward
  or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every
  perception should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight:

  'This is not mine.

  This I am not.

  This is not the Self of me.'

  ■

  Every activity whatever, be it past, future or present, be it inward
  or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every
  activity should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right insight:

  'This is not mine.

  This I am not.

  This is not the Self of me.'

  ■

  Every consciousness whatever, be it past, future or present, be it
  inward or outward, gross or subtle, low or high, far or near, - every
  consciousness should be thus regarded, as it really is, by right
  insight:

  'This is not mine.

  This I am not.

  This is not the Self of me.'


What to do with gathered saliva while Meditating While meditating today I found that the gathered saliva was bothering me a lot. I do not know why it just came up today. It was distracting and took me away from my concentration a few times . I swallowed it .
What should I do when this happens again in the future? How should one keep the tongue and do with the saliva?

Haha, spit it out and use it as an in-vivo object for the asubha bhavana practise (loathsomeness of the body).


Can anyone explain non-self or Anatta of Buddhism in simple terms with example? Recently I got to know about 'Non-Self' or Anatta term but online material was not comprehendible. Below are my questions:
1) Can anyone explain it in simple terms with example?
2) If there's no permanent self or soul then how did Buddha HIMSELF saw his previous lives in various forms, which would be impossible without a permanent soul. In the case of temporary soul it would have been only limited to current life.
3) What were the cases/scenarios from which Buddha made the 'Non-Self' conclusion?
4) How can I cross verify this claim. I mean experience this (as Buddha said believe on your own experience & then follow & not because I said it.)

1) Can anyone explain it in simple terms with example?

'Self' is a subjective ever-changing 'idea' or 'thought' created by the ignorant mind. For example, the 'self' the mind believed it was at 4 years old is different to the 'self' the mind believes it is at 35 years old. If the mind stops thinking, it can see the body & mind do not have any real self. For example, if an axe is used to cut off a finger, is there any 'self' in that detached finger? Is there any 'self' in an ear lobe or eye-ball or liver or kidney? Is there any 'self' in a feeling of pain, perception of 'green' or sight of object or hearing of a sound? 'Self' is only an idea, such as when a mind believes: "John is a nice person"  but another mind believes: "John is a bad person".

  2) If there's no permanent self or soul then how did Buddha HIMSELF saw his previous lives in various forms, which would be impossible
  without a permanent soul. In the case of temporary soul it would have
  been only limited to current life.

The Buddha did not see any previous lives. This is a mistranslation & misinterpretation of the original teachings (even though at a later time in Buddhism, scriptures such as Jataka Tales were created that depicted literal past lives). The Buddha recollected 'past abodes' or 'past adherences' ('pubbe nivasa'), which means viewing when in the past when the mind ignorantly attached to either one or all of the five aggregates as "self". This is clearly explained in the Khajjaniya Sutta. Please carefully read the entire Khajjaniya Sutta, very carefully, particularly the 2nd paragraph.

  3) What were the cases/scenarios from which Buddha made the 'Non-Self' conclusion?

The first explanation is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. Here, the Buddha started by explaining if each of the five aggregates can be subject to sickness/disease & cannot ultimately be controlled, how can they be a 'self'? Then the Buddha explained how can any of the five aggregates, each being impermanent & unable to bring lasting happiness, be a permanent lasting self or belong to a permanent lasting self?

  4) How can I cross verify this claim. I mean experience this (as Buddha said believe on your own experience & then follow & not because
  I said it.)

Meditation. Stop thinking and allow the mind to become exclusively observant. Although the sense of self will initially remain, as the mind becomes more pure & naturally 'concentrated', the sense of self, which is merely subtle thoughts, will dissolve. Then the mind (rather than "you") will realise it & everything else is not a self.

However, be warned: this runs against the nature of instinct. Nature creates the instinct in self in people. Only relatively few minds clearly realise not-self. For most Buddhists, non-self is just blind-faith or a logical deduction (philosophical theory), such as for the famous philosopher Nāgārjuna.

If needing to read more, this is the best explanation: Anatta & Rebirth by Buddhadasa.


If someone was an Once-returner in last life how can he know that ? There are 4 stages in the path to nirvana.  one of them is called "Once-returner" and they will be born only once as a human. So my question is , If Someone was an once-returner in last life , how can he know it in this life ? And if he does nothing in this life to attain nirvana, will he automatically be arahath and no rebirths?

"So my question is , If Someone was an once-returner in last life , how can he know it in this life ?"

When one has attained to stream entry and the higher stages such as Once-returner etc. both ones morality and spiritual faculties (indriyas) are well developed and firmly established.
When they are mature and well developed we call them the Five Powers. They work in unison each balancing and strengthening each other further.

This creates a powerful momentum and that momentum might mean that a Once-returner does not have the possible to "stop" on his/her path. That being would be so inclined towards Nibbana that anything else is not possible.

A Once-returner has done away with 3 of the lower 5 fetters and have weakened fetter no. 4 and 5. Especially the removal of fetter no. 2 (doubt in the Buddha) is important. A Once-returner will have full confidence in the Buddha and his teaching as he/she has already destroyed fetters and entered into the noble path.

  "And if he does nothing in this life to attain nirvana, will he automatically be arahath and no rebirths?"

I'm not sure its possible to do nothing once one has entered into the stream.

Either way the Once-returner still needs to practice in order to remove the 5 higher fetters thereby attaining to Arahantship.

A Once-returner will be reborn one more time into the Sense-sphere Realm which contains; the Hell realm, Pretas, Animal Kingdom, Asuras, Human Realm and Deva Realm (heavenly realm).

As the 3 lower fetters has been destroyed a Once-returner can only be reborn in either the Human or Heavenly Realm.


Sankhara conditions vinjana dependent origination When it is said in dependent origination that "sankhara conditions consciousness", in what way and how does sankhara condition consciousness?

And also, how is consciousness conditioning nama rupa? And then nama rupa conditions salayatana again how?

Also, nama rupa -- I have heard many different descriptions of what it is, so i would be happy if someone could give the right meaning of nama rupa.

Going back to "sankhara conditions consciousness", what consciousness are they refering to -- is it the pure consciousness or limited consciousness?

And how can avidja or ignorance and sankhara come before consciousness in dependent origination (because i must first be conscious before i can have ignorance and do sankharas!)?

D.O. is a deep topic that is very hard to understand. Even when someone claims that they understand it, you should take their answer with a VERY BIG grain of salt.

In theory my understanding "could" be wrong too. In my defense, I have specifically studied this topic for years, going over much literature, both in Pali Canon and in Mahayana. I also took into account the (written down) verbal teachings of renowned teachers in the Kagyu lineage.

One thing that is absolutely clear to me is the overall high-level meaning of D.O. Overall D.O. is about gradual emergence of differentiated experience, that is, arising of a subjective experience of a world consisting of separate objects and a "self" acting in the world in pursuit of its objectives. This is clear to me as day, and confirmed by many, many texts and teachers.

It is 100% clear to me that the part of DO from Ignorance to Namarupa speaks about arising of the overall sense of the world, and then the rest of D.O. from the Six Sense Doors speaks about arising of the sense of self.

Now let's zoom in on "arising of the overall sense of the world".

This part is "pretty clear" to me. Not "clear as day" but not "I'm guessing" either. The overall mechanism is as follows:

First, there is accumulation of sankharas. Roughly speaking, in modern terms we can say there is accumulation of patterns or tendencies. Meaning, when similar things happen again and again, they add-up and their results tend to accumulate. (You see, this sounds very abstract, almost impossible to follow - and that's the problem with D.O. This why Buddha said it was deep and hard to grasp. You must be in a certain mindstate to be able to focus and understand it.)

Once enough patterns have accumulated, from these patterns arises ability to recognize and anticipate. This is vijnana or basic consciousness - recognizing and anticipating things as they happen.

Once there is recognizing and anticipating develops enough, there emerge the notions of individual "things". These are namarupa, distinct delineated objects.

Overall this seems clear enough. I definitely understand the overall mechanism, what's left to be clarified are the details of the process and the exact definition of terms used in the old texts.

  When it is said in dependent origination that "sankhara conditions consciousness", in what way and how does sankhara condition consciousness?

Sankhara condition consciousness in the sense that the accumulation of tendencies or repeated patterns is what grows or develops into consciousness. The consciousness literally emerges from sankharas, so whatever shapes and forms that those patterns and tendencies have, is what's going to become the shape and form of consciousness. In this sense, accumulation of certain sankharas is the force that shapes or conditions the emerging consciousness.

  And also, how is consciousness conditioning nama rupa?

Consciousness was defined above as basic ability to recognize and anticipate phenomena as they happen. It is very important (critical!) to understand that phenomena are not inherently separate from each other, not inherently delineated. Instead, delineation emerges gradually, as a result of accumulation of sankharas and development of the ability to recognize. Clear delineation of objects is culmination of development of consciousness. The process is kinda cyclical: the more sankharas accumulate, the better the ability to recognize, the clearer the consciousness -- and as the consciousness gets clearer, it gets better at discernment/delineation, and so the objects become more well-defined, enabling more meaningful activity, which in turn helps new sankharas to accumulate even faster. The process automatically supports and feeds itself forward.

  And then namarupa conditions salayatana again how?

As I understand, delineation of objects enables delineation of "outer" vs "inner" (that vs this). Salayatana (literally "Six Doors") is a phase when this separation of outer vs inner begins to emerge. This part is less clear to me.

  Also, nama rupa -- I have heard many different descriptions of what it is, so i would be happy if someone could give the right meaning of nama rupa.

As with any explanation of D.O. there is no consensus among on what Namarupa means. The Pali Canon literalists keep on quoting the suttas that define "nama" as "mental" and "rupa" as physical, combining together to form the whole person. As you can see from above, my understanding is completely different. I think namarupas are our ideas of distinct entities or objects, "identified forms" or "names-and-forms". You can search this site for dedicated questions focusing specifically on namarupa.

  Going back to "sankhara conditions consciousness", what consciousness are they refering to -- is it the pure consciousness or limited consciousness?

As you can see from my explanation above, it is the discriminating consciousness is what's meant here, the tainted consciousness that naively assumes its experience of the world-of-objects to be the reality of how things are.

  And how can avidja or ignorance and sankhara come before consciousness in dependent origination (because i must first be conscious before i can have ignorance and do sankharas!)?

Not at all. Ignorance refers to the lack of differentiation. Imagine some kind of computer-based vision system before it was trained to recognize objects. This is basically what ignorance is. Once it accumulates enough data (sankhara) it can recognize (vijnana) objects and label them (namarupa).


Purpose beyond first Jhana? If access concentration, or at most the first jhana, is the requirement for successful insight meditation what is the purpose of the other form and formless jhanas?

Although the higher jhanas are not required, they're strongly encouraged by the Buddha evident in the high frequency with which they are mentioned throughout the suttas. Ven. Gunaratana in his "The Jhanas" wrote:

  The Buddha is constantly seen in the suttas encouraging his disciples to develop jhana. The four jhanas are invariably included in the complete course of training laid down for disciples. They figure in the training as the discipline of higher consciousness (adhicittasikkha), right concentration (sammasamadhi) of the Noble Eightfold Path, and the faculty and power of concentration (samadhindriya, samadhibala). Though a vehicle of dry insight can be found, indications are that this path is not an easy one, lacking the aid of the powerful serenity available to the practitioner of jhana. The way of the jhana attainer seems by comparison smoother and more pleasurable (A.ii,150-52). The Buddha even refers to the four jhanas figuratively as a kind of Nibbana: he calls them immediately visible Nibbana, factorial Nibbana, Nibbana here and now (A.iv,453-54).


Maintaining respect to their previous faith while explaining Buddhism to a person who is in another school of Buddhism or another religion? I have a Blog and a lot of people come to learn Buddhism in it. I want to start doing articles on Theravada Buddhism and i do not have any idea if i can do it without being a bit corrosive in certain topics.
I want some advice how to do this.

So can you guys help me?

It is most honorable to do whatever you can so that people who take what you give take it smoothly. However, what you can do in this area is limited.

To paraphrase Lama Tsongkhapa, if he who receives what you give is like a vessel turned upside down (not open to listen, to receive) nothing will enter; If he is like a leaking vessel (forgetful, not paying attention), whatever will enter will not remain; If he is like a dirty vessel (having a faulty motivation) the pure nectar you will pour in by way of teaching the Dharma will turn to mud.

However, there are things you can do to make sure people listen to you with an open mind. For instance, one is likely to be open if you are an example. If a beggar was to tell me the same thing my teacher tells me, it would not sink in in the same way because I would not  be as open as I am in relation to my teacher. This is because I have more respect to my teacher, I trust him and I trust his words, his guidance, his intentions. Therefore, that your reader trust you is important. If he does not trust you, his ears will be closed. And in order to be trusted, you have to be trustworthy, you have to be exemplar, for instance in showing respect for others and other traditions. Maybe you can include Links to websites of other traditions on your blog, as a sign of openness, and interest from your part.

Moreover, I noticed that in the West, many people prefer being told that "it is a method, it is a practice, it is a path among many others, and it works in this and that way" as opposed to "it is the truth". We like being right, we hate being wrong, we dislike being proven wrong. So, if you emphasize (1) the practical aspects and (2) contexts, that might help not dwelling to much on the 'right or wrong' type of approach.

Finally, I visited my teacher recently. I also, tend to be a bit corrosive with regard certain topics and debating with him showed me that it was due to my own pride, my own arrogance. It's always the "I know, others do not" tendency, or the "How could anyone even think in this or that way?" tendency that tends to take over. If you reduce your pride, you will naturally be smoother and more respectful.


Does having a child has a negative/positive impact in karma? The question aims towards to creating a new life and not to the desire from which said life is concived. Other way of this question would be: the act of giving a life which can be seen as a being with it's own karma, creates more karma to one self?
 Has the buddha ever talked about this?

It depends on the intention behind the action. If the intention is unwholesome then it will lead to unwhole resultants and vice versa if its wholesome. It is the intention that has kammic potency.
Here is a quote from the wiki about what the Buddha said when he was about to leave his palace and at the same time got news about his newborn son:

"Prince Siddhartha was preparing himself to leave the palace. One account claims that when he received the news of his son's birth he replied Rāhu jāto, bandhanam jātam — "A rāhu is born, a fetter has arisen." Accordingly the child was named Rāhula, meaning "fetter", or "impediment", recognizing that the child could be a tie that bound him to his wife Yashodhara, a binding that may impede a search for enlightenment. Others, however, feel rāhu does not mean "fetter" in this sense. The second account, found in the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya, is that Rāhula received his name in accordance with an eclipse of the moon, caused by the snake Rahu. In Japanese he is called Ragora (羅睺羅).
Supporting the first account, in the Dhammapada, the pleasure and joy that a man receives in his wife and children is called a "soft fetter" that ties individuals to life and suffering, not just through eventual loss and separation of loved ones but more deeply and subtly may act as ties to cyclic existence (samsara)".


Hypocrisy of Buddhism Aren't Buddhists (with Buddhist I refer to an ideal Buddhist or Buddhists monk) actually not doing enough to prevent harm in this world?

So, Buddhists don't have any attachment to things and work towards reduction of suffering in the world. Given the focus and discipline dedicated Buddhist has, they could use this to become successful businessmen for example and use that money/power to help people. But many don't, they seem very passive from what I have read so far.

In a sense Buddhist not trying to accumulate money/power and use it to help people and change world, is hypocritical?

Buddhist master, Ajahn Brahm, answered a similar question as follows in an interview with Rachael Kohn:

  Rachael Kohn: I know that your message is often about happiness, and how the point of life...is all about changing one’s attitude, not
  really about changing the world. And yet you would know that that kind
  of an attitude can also be breeding a certain indifference to the
  world...Does Buddhism ever teach a resistance to things which are
  dangerous, which are bad, which are evil?

  Ajahn Brahmavamso: Yes, we teach a resistance to anger, we teach a resistance to jealousies, we teach a resistance to stupidity. Those
  are the things which we should really be resisting, you know, the
  anger and the feelings of revenge, the hurt, the grief, the guilt
  inside of us, all those negative emotions which make our world. Those
  are the things which we want to resist, to understand, to overcome, by
  letting go.

In other words, Buddhists claim that harm in this world arises because of greed, hatred, and delusion; they seek to eliminate these sources of harm within themselves and to educate others so that they may do the same. So, on this view, Buddhists are addressing the root causes of suffering in themselves and others and helping people in this way--the most effective way. As the passage above implies, an ideal Buddhist is far from passive internally and, although she may appear to be so externally, one could argue that she is simply skillful/technical in her approach to the suffering of others.

In summary, Buddhists want to use wisdom, rather than money and power, to help others. According to them, this is the most effective way to do so, and the only way to get to the cause of the problem; using power and money to alleviate worldly problems can be a temporary, palliative solution at best. The Buddha often compared himself to a doctor, treating the causes of suffering rather than exclusively treating the symptoms.


How might Buddha have seen how far the gratification, danger and escape extend? In "The Connected Discourses" Buddha says

  “Bhikkhus, I set out seeking the gratification in form. Whatever
  gratification there is in form—that I discovered. I have clearly seen
  with  wisdom just how far the gratification in form extends.

  “Bhikkhus, I set out seeking the danger in form. Whatever danger there is  in form—that I discovered. I have clearly seen with wisdom
  just how far the  danger in form extends.

  “Bhikkhus, I set out seeking the escape from form. Whatever escape there is  from form—that I discovered. I have clearly seen with
  wisdom just how far the  escape from form extends.

How might he have seen how far the gratification, danger and escape extend? Did he elaborate on this any where else?

Because He was the one who experienced it all. As a prince, He had all the necessary means to experience the maximum level of pleasure/gratification. Later on, as the most extreme self-mortified ascetic, He was able to experience the most terrible kinds of suffering. Abandoning both extremes, He meditated and penetrated the Four Noble Truths. Then after this major breakthrough, He was able to claim that He directly knew as they really are the gratification, the danger, the escape, etc. In short, due to various factors like his time as a prince, an extreme ascetic, and the final breakthrough to the Four Noble Truths, the Buddha was able to see the true nature of all phenomena. In SN 14.31, Ven. Bodhi provided the Commentary's note:

  Spk: In this sutta the Four Noble Truths are discussed. The "gratification" (assada) in the four elements is the truth of the origin; the "danger" (adinava) is the truth of suffering; the "escape" (nissarana) is the truth of cessation; the "path" that understands the escape is the truth of the path.


What is the meaning of “knowledge and vision” in the context of the heartwood sutta? I am aware of a similar question here:
What is knowledge and vision?
However, I would like a deeper understanding of what precisely is meant by “knowledge and vision” in the heartwood sutta and why is its attainment positioned as it is with respect to the other attainments.
I feel that I have a good understanding of the meaning of the attainments which precede, and presumably are prerequisites for “knowledge and vision”.
Namely
1: gain, honor and renown
2: moral discipline
3: concentration
and for the attainment which follows and presumably depends upon it.
Namely
5: perpetual liberation
but the attainment of “knowledge and vision” itself is frustratingly fuzzy in my mind.
I’d like a better understanding of
1: What precisely is meant by “knowledge and vision” in this context?
2: Why is concentration a prerequisite for “knowledge and vision”?
3: Why is “knowledge and vision” a prerequisite for perpetual liberation?
My best guess is that
1: Knowledge and vision” represents a level of development wherein one can get to nibbana when needed, but it does not persist perpetually.
2: Concentration is a prerequisite for “knowledge and vision” because seeing the arrow (hard to see) as it enters the heart requires a concentrated mind. Perhaps this is the vision part?
Seeing the arrow as it enters the heart enables us to identify precisely where we became self-absorbed in the narrative and thus where the work of severing attachments must be done.
3: “Knowledge and vision” is a prerequisite for “perpetual liberation” because having knowledge of each individual desired sensory experience which the mind is attached to, is required before the work of severing said attachment can begin. Perhaps this is the knowledge part?
When all such attachments are severed and no new ones are added, then sustaining nibbana perpetually becomes possible
This is a complete guess on my part. Am I close?
I am referring to the translation provided by Bhikkhu Bodhi.
https://www.suttareadings.net/audio/index.html

Heartwood Sutta is one of the many suttas that paint the overall Path in broad strokes. We use these suttas to understand the elements of the Path from their relations to each other.
In this case the point of the sutta is to drive home the last step of the Path, cetto-vimukti, i.e. "liberation of mind" (or heart) as the only reliable differentiator between the Knowledge-and-Vision and all kinds of lesser knowledges, as superior to even this Knowledge-and-Vision, and as the only true Nirvana. The knowledge-and-vision (also described as "wisdom" in oher suttas) plays the role of the instrument or the gateway to Liberation.
Before I answer your question about the nature of Knowledge-and-vision I'd like you to first understand what Liberation actually refers to. This topic is not studied deeply in Theravada but is very well covered in Mahayana, especially in the live teacher-to-student traditions of Zen and Vajrayana. Liberation is a big topic and I don't have room here to describe it in detail, but to boil it down to its essence it is when, having realized how things work, you are no longer bothered by anything. You have no fear, no hope, no hindrance in the mind. You don't ascribe intrinsic value to anything. And now that you see that nothing is more valuable than anything else, nothing bothers you. Subjectively it feels as if you are finally free to just be spontaneous and true to yourself. (But remember: at this point you're quite clear on how things work, so you are free but not stupid.) You no longer define yourself, you have no shape, and you are not anchored in any single mental framework. You are undefined and spontaneous. You are free to do anything you decide, or not do anything at all.
1: What precisely is meant by “knowledge and vision” in this context?
Now, knowledge-and-vision (jnana-dassana) is exactly that understanding of how things work that, both, gives you assurance that nothing is intrinsically more important than anything else, and at the same time gives you clear insight into how certain actions lead to certain results. Once again, this knowledge-and-vision is quite deep and has multiple facets that all come together as one thing only when you truly get it. Until then you have to necessarily approach it from multiple sides as if it were multiple things. One of such aspects is Emptiness. Emptiness is an umbrella term that stands for the huge body of realizations and implications that come from the basic insight that "everything is defined relatively to something else". Another aspect of knowledge-and-vision is the Three Marks of Existence, or the nature of dharma-flow. When you truly understand TMoE you understand Emptiness and vice-versa. Another aspect of knowledge-and-vision is insight into how samsara comes about, that is how the developing mind assembles its superficial impressions into a full-blown subjective reality. This is usually explained as Dependent Origination but there's more to it than the standard formula. Another aspect of knowledge-and-vision is direct insight into the mechanism of semiosis that powers your own mindstream. This insight is obtained from the practice of Four Formless Jhanas and is also connected with Emptiness. Finally, the practice of Four (Rupa) Jhanas gives the insight into Four Noble Truths: Dukkha, Craving, Cessation of Craving, and Suchness. I can't emphasize enough that all of these only seem to be distinct ideas, but when you really get them they are aspects of the whole that I like to label "how things work".
Now, to answer your other questions:
2: Why is concentration a prerequisite for “knowledge and vision”?
It's not as much "dumb" concentration (in and of itself) as it is being able to focus on these topics and spend some quality time with them, to fully understand their implications. Well, I have to correct myself: when it comes to jhana practice, concentration is quite literally concentration on your own mind. Again, it's not just mechanical "dumb" concentration, it is concentration governed by a very specific goal: reaching the ultimate "sign" (the end of semiosis) in case of formless jhana, and reaching the ultimate "suchness" (the end of dukkha) in case of rupa-jhanas.
Both types of concentration are needed so you can exhaustively understand and truly get to the bottom of things.
3: Why is “knowledge and vision” a prerequisite for perpetual liberation?
As I explained above, cetto-vimukti is liberation of heart (or mind) through wisdom. Until you clearly see that nothing is more important than anything else, and until you know for sure why that is the case, it's really quite impossible to be free. Hence wisdom being the prerequisite for liberation.
My best guess is that ... This is a complete guess on my part. Am I close?
No, not at all. Yours is a typical misunderstanding of the final stages of the Path. The liberation is not attained through watertight control of the mind. It's not a sterile state. It's a state of having transcended the boundaries of all those frameworks that kept you captive.


Did Shakayamuni Buddha talk about the Trikaya? Did Shakayamuni Buddha talk about the Trikaya? If so where?
I am looking for suttas attributed to Shakyamuni in the times of Theravada.

It wasn't explicit in the Theravada but the foundation was already there. The concept got fully developed by the time of the Mahayana. Further info. is available from the wiki page here


Does Buddhism teach about "Parallel worlds" I have heard something called "Mangala Sakwala"  (The special universe or galaxy where lord Buddhas are born)

This is a real puzzle for me because does it mean that there are many other worlds like this where the words of lord Buddha will never reach?

If such places exist what causes a being to be born there instead of here?

For example if i die now and get a birth as a human what would cause me to be born here (This galaxy/universe) or there (the unknown galaxy/universe)?

The exact word ( "parallel universes" ) hasn't being used in Buddhism but if you search you will find stories about Human like or Humanoid creatures who are just like us (Beings in the human realm) but not with the chance to reach Dhamma because Lord Buddhas never born there. I am referring to some Theravada teachings i heard many  years ago.

Hope someone can help!

Coming together of 31 planes of existance forms an universe. (At least when it is not collapsed.) Likewise there infinite universes1. Also there is view that each universe contains multiple humanoid planets which is called the human plane2.
Out of these universes there is only one universe a Buddha can appear. This is called the Mangala Sakwala  (The special universe or galaxy where lord Buddhas are born). This can be viewed in terms of the number line where there is infinite numbers but there is only one zero. Likewise in the infinite universe there is only one universe conducive for a Buddha to appear.

1Abhidhammattha Pradeepika By Amaradasa Rathnapala, Volume 1, page 27, paragraph starting at line 6.
2 Perhaps based on: Kosala Sutta: The Kosalan

"As far as the sun & moon revolve, illumining the directions with their light, there extends the thousand-fold cosmos. In that thousand-fold cosmos there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns, a thousand Sunerus — kings of mountains; a thousand Rose-apple continents, a thousand Deathless Ox-cart [continents], a thousand northern Kuru [continents], a thousand eastern Videha [continents]; four thousand great oceans, four thousand Great Kings, a thousand [heavens of the] Four Great Kings, a thousand [heavens of the] Thirty-three, a thousand [heavens of the] Yamas, a thousand [heavens of the] Tusitas, a thousand heavens of the Nimmanaratis, a thousand heavens of the Paranimmitavasavattis,  and a thousand Brahma worlds. And in that thousand-fold cosmos, the Great Brahma is reckoned supreme. Yet even in the Great Brahma there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that. Being disenchanted with that, he becomes dispassionate toward what is supreme, and even more so toward what is inferior.
"There comes a time when this cosmos devolves. When the cosmos is devolving, most beings head to the [heaven of] the Radiant. There they remain for a long, long time — mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-radiant, faring through the sky, abiding in splendor. When the cosmos is devolving, the Radiant Devas are reckoned supreme. Yet even in the Radiant Devas, there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that. Being disenchanted with that, he becomes dispassionate toward what is supreme, and even more so toward what is inferior.


Thought or intention is always karma? "Chethanaham bikkawe kamman wadami".

  Dear Bikkhus, I introduce thought as karma. It is after having thought
  that we engage in action physically, verbally and mentally. (
  Nibbedhika sutraya)

My question is simple. Does thought or intention alone become karma? Or does it need to have certain characteristics (Sorry if this word is inappropriate) for it to become Karma? If intention alone is karma whether we engage in action in though, word or deed what is the point of good deed?

 Can we just "think" that we are helping the poor and have good karma? Can we "think" that we are giving dhana to monks and have good karma? In the context of good karma, can we just have good intentions and thoughts of good deeds and get the same karma that we get from physically engaging in such activities?

Thought is what decides Karma. Same action with different motivation or volition can be bad or good depending on the motivation or volition. That is volition is what becomes Karma.

If you follow though with your intentions then this can lead to rebirth linking Karma. If you don't it will be weaker Karma.

If you have the volition but not the means to follow through then it will be a weak Karma as discussed above.

Volition bears fruit based on the root and level of mental lethargy or whether you or someone else has to prompt or motivate you to do something. If you have the thoughts but not the desire to do it then the root are missing or very weak hence there is unlikely to be Karmic results. If there is lethargy but there is genuine desire, the roots weak but present hence will have diminished Karmic results. More than the thoughts, imagination of doing something, visualisation of doing something, what counts is motivation or volition or desire to do the thing, though such thoughts could lead to desire or motivation or volition to act. As discussed above all factors may not align to successfully follow through nevertheless karma is created but at different intensities of potential results.


In what way do Bodhisattvas help others get enlightened? In Mahayana, how do Bodhisattvas help others get enlightened? Do they do it by teaching, just like Gautama Buddha did, or by some other means?

I'm drawing from Precepts of The Brahman Net Sutra, Upsasaka Precepts Sutra, and Avatamsaka (Flower Garland) Sutra.

The BNS recommends this worldly Bodhisattvas (monks and laity)

Teaching (many precepts address this directly or indirectly, many sutras discuss pedagogy and the duty to teach) Upasaka Sutras forbid teaching the Dharma by laity.
Building temples, and other religious "infrastructure"
Reading and chanting sutras, which was believed to magically help the nation
Caring for the sick. BNS & Upasaka Sutra's mention this. I don't know if it was for enabling enlightenment, or just a "right thing to do." Even early Mahayana Buddhism expected some sort of practice, like meditation & what not and that requires a certain amount of health.
Avatamsaksa promotes all sorts of ways of helping people reach enlightenment indirectly by working on this worldly jobs.

Hosting vegetarian feasts for monks, lay Bodhisattvas, get mention in the BNS and Ullambana Sutra.

As for celestial Bodhisattvas, we don't get a lot of clues. The 7th to 10th Bhumis (grounds) describes what celestial Bodhisattvas do-- I don't have a good summary for that though.

And finally, there are the vows. Amitabha helps people reach enlightenment by guaranteeing rebirth in a pure land, which depending on who you are reading, is describe as an especially good place for practicing Buddhism, as compared to our own universe, where the most recent Buddha has passed on and there isn't another one available to teach.

Samantabhadra's vows has some more clues, such as encouraging Buddhas to come & stay in our universe-- since it is easier to become enlightened when there is a Buddha available, and transferring merit


What significance does the dragon hold within Buddhism? What significance does the mythical dragon hold within Buddhism and why, where does it originate within Buddhism?

Nagas are serpent like creatures that are also identified with dragons. I'm aware of a couple of places within Buddhism that these appear but there are undoubtedly a lot more.

The Buddhist philosopher and Mahayana pioneer Nagarjuna is reputed to have recovered the Perfection of Wisdom sutras from the Nagas. He then went on to distribute the sutras to the world at large.In addition Naga's would come to him while he was preaching and provide shade to him while he was teaching.

Again from with the Mahayana tradition, the Nagas appear many times in the Lotus Sutra. The Dragon (Naga) Kings daughter has a starring role within one of the chapters. Although she is young and female she nevertheless attains Buddhahood. This points to the fact that everyone (even if they are young or a woman) can attain the highest spiritual perfections.


Meditation for Stress and Anxiety I have read much about meditation and stress and anxiety, but I'd like to have an experiential perspective from people on here.

1) What's the Buddhist view about stress? What are the solutions to stress? [I don't mean suffering as in dukkha but the physiological reaction of stress linked with cortisol, or just the feeling of being stressed.]

2) Same thing, but with anxiety.

3) How much are stress and anxiety, or their exacerbation, barriers to spiritual practice?

Thank you.

How much are stress and anxiety, or their exacerbation, barriers to spiritual practice?

Stress can be broken up into mental and physical phenomena such as thoughts, emotions, muscle tension, pain etc. They are just impersonal phenomena arising and ceasing on their own accord.

Anxiety is a variation of the 4th Hindrance of restlessness and worry (uddhacca-kukkucca). The hindrances are barriers that block one from progressing on the Path, unless one practices to understand and overcome them.

In Vipassana meditation one treats all objects the same. No object is more or less important than the previous or next object.

Just note the phenomena a couple of times and return attention to the abdomen (Burmese Method).


Is anxiety as hell-bound as cruelty? On page 24 of Good Questions, Good Answers it says,

  The gentle, loving type of person tends to be reborn in a heaven realm or as a human being who has a predominance of pleasant experiences.
  The anxious, worried, or extremely cruel person tends to be reborn in a hell realm or as a human being who has a predominance of unpleasant experiences.
  The person who develops obsessive craving, fierce longings, and burning ambitions that can never be satisfied tends to be reborn as a hungry spirit or as a human being frustrated by longing and wanting.

I have three questions:

If a person is all three (i.e. gentle, loving, anxious, and longing) then what determines their future rebirth?
Why are 'anxious' and 'cruel' both reborn in hell?

Isn't someone who is cruel more harmful than someone who is anxious, and therefore more 'deserving' of hell?
Is an anxious person reborn in hell because anxiety a hellish (unpleasant) experience, i.e. if you choose to live a life of anxiety you're therefore inclined to choose to be reborn in hell?

Do cruelty and/or anxiety correspond to kilesas? The introduction to the Wikipedia article says,

  Kleshas include states of mind such as anxiety, fear, anger, jealousy, desire, depression, etc.

... but I don't see anxiety (nor cruelty) listed later in the article, e.g. in the list of 10 defilements.

(N.B. This is from a Theravada perspective)

If a person is all three (i.e. gentle, loving, anxious, and longing) then what determines their future rebirth?

Karma is a complex system; there are three sets that you have to understand, one mentioned by Sankha:
By order in which they operate:

weighty karma
karma performed at death
habitual karma
other karma

By their function:

productive of new results
supportive of other results
destructive of other results
detractive from other results

By the time it takes them to bring results

in this life
in the next life
in some future life
already finished

So, to say that behaviour X leads to hell is just a simplification - it should be taken as a guide, not a dogma. The Buddha himself said:

“Therein, Ānanda, when a recluse or brahmin says: ‘Indeed, there are evil actions, there is result of misconduct,’ I grant him this. When he says: ‘I saw a person here who killed living beings…and held wrong view, and I see that on the dissolution of the body, after death, he has reappeared in a state of deprivation…even in hell,’ I also grant him this. But when he says: ‘On the dissolution of the body, after death, everyone who kills living beings…and holds wrong view reappears in a state of deprivation…even in hell,’ I do not grant him this. And when he says: ‘Those who know thus know rightly; those who think otherwise are mistaken,’ I also do not grant him this. And when he obstinately adheres to what he himself has known, seen, and discovered, insisting: ‘Only this is true, anything else is wrong,’ I also do not grant him this. Why is that? Because, Ānanda, the Tathāgata’s knowledge of the great exposition of action is otherwise.
--MN 130 (Bodhi, trans)
Why are 'anxious' and 'cruel' both reborn in hell?

Orthodox Theravada theory says that, in general, anger leads to the hell realm, greed leads to the ghost realm, and delusion leads to the animal realm
Anxiety could refer either to worry or fear. If it refers to worry, it is a delusion-based state and will incline one towards the animal realm. If it refers to fear, it is an anger-based state and will incline one towards teh hell realm. Note that simple worry and fear shouldn't lead to either realm, unless it is serious enough to lead one to break precepts - harming others or oneself out of fear or worry. Taking strong anti-anxiety medication might arguably fit the bill (leading to animal realm); killing or stealing could lead one to hell, and could ostensibly be performed out of fear-based anxiety.
Cruelty is anger-based, so yeah, always inclining one towards hell.

Isn't someone who is cruel more harmful than someone who is anxious, and therefore more 'deserving' of hell?

One would think so, probably because we use the word anxiety to refer to a mild form of anger (fear) or delusion (worry). These states can, however, become intense and destructive to the point of suicide, drug addiction, etc., which can in turn easily be more destructive than mild forms of cruelty, like insensitivity to the feelings of others, etc.

Is an anxious person reborn in hell because anxiety a hellish (unpleasant) experience, i.e. if you choose to live a life of anxiety you're therefore inclined to choose to be reborn in hell?

Unwholesome-inclined individuals don't really get the chance to "choose" where they are born. Somewhere, the Buddha is said to have taught that it takes morality for one to have a stable enough mind to actually choose where one is born, IIRC (can't remember the source off-hand). But yes, the general idea is that one's prevalent state of mind inclines one towards hell; it doesn't have anything directly to do with the judgement of others.

Do cruelty and/or anxiety correspond to kilesas?

Answered above.


'Sankhara' Dependent Origination: Bhikkhu Analayo vs Bhikkhu Thanissaro. Which is right? About 'sankhara' in Dependent Origination as found in SN 12.2 of the Pali suttas, Bhikkhu Analayo said the following:

Bhikkhu Thanissaro said the following:

Which is right and why? Bhikkhu Analayo or Bhikkhu Thanissaro?

Ajahn Thanissaro’s description is accurate. The 3 sankharas in MN44 is the same as SN12.2.

Arahant’s sankhara is NOT conditioned by ignorance. Arahant’s sankhara arises and ceases with knowledge. Feeling still arises and ceases in an Arahant, but it’s not conditioned by ignorance, which is why it doesn’t lead to craving. Contact conditions feeling. So long as the Arahant is still alive, there will be contact impinges on the 6 sense bases, and feeling will arise. As stated in SN12.51, the Arahant feels a feeling detached. Please note that the “sankhara” that Arahant does not generate (as stated in SN12.51) is kamma, and not the sankharas in MN44/SN12.2.

There are 2 sets of sankhara used in the Nikayas. First set is used in dependent origination discourses (MN44, SN12.2). Second set is used in kamma-vipaka discourses (SN12.51).

The dependent origination essay below discusses sankhara in more detail (including the above 2 sets of sankhara). It’s very concise and informative.

https://www.vbgnet.org/Articles/Conditioned-Arising-of-Suffering-2018.pdf


Is this the same nun in these sutta references? From sutta SA 2.218:

The renunciant Gotama is staying at Sāvatthī at the Jeta Grove in the
Anāthapiṇḍika Park. And there is the nun Selā who took her robes and
her begging bowl and entered Sāvatthī to beg for food. Having finished
her meal, she cleaned her bowl, gathered her seat and has gone to the
Andhavana forest. I shall disturb her!” Having thought this he changed
into a young man, approached her and spoke a verse:
“Who is it that created beings,
by whom were they made?
Why are they called beings,
from where do they arise?”

That time the nun Selā, having heard the verse thought: “Who is this?
What a cheat! Is he a human or a non-human being?” She entered
concentration and recognized he was King Māra. She answered with a
verse:
“Māra, you have a wrong view of ‘beings’,
saying and believing they actually exist as substantial entities.
Conventional, empty they are but compounded entities
there are in fact no ‘beings.’
Like when causes and various conditions
converge and yield the use of a ‘chariot’.

From sutta SN 5.10:

Then Māra the Wicked, wanting to make the nun Vajirā feel fear,
terror, and goosebumps, wanting to make her fall away from immersion,
went up to her and addressed her in verse:
“Who created this sentient being?
Where is its maker?
Where has the being arisen?
And where does it cease?”

Then the nun Vajirā thought, “Who’s speaking this verse, a human or a
non-human?”
Then she thought, “This is Māra the Wicked, wanting to make me feel
fear, terror, and goosebumps, wanting to make me fall away from
immersion!”
Then Vajirā, knowing that this was Māra the Wicked, replied to him in
verse:
“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?
Māra, is this your theory?
This is just a pile of conditions,
you won’t find a sentient being here.

When the parts are assembled
we use the word ‘chariot’.
So too, when the aggregates are present
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.

And from Mil 3.1.1:

Very good! Your Majesty has rightly grasped the meaning of “chariot.”
And just even so it is on account of all those things you questioned
me about— The thirty-two kinds of organic matter in a human body, and
the five constituent elements of being—that I come under the generally
understood term, the designation in common use, of “Nāgasena.” For it
was said, Sire, by our Sister Vajirā in the presence of the Blessed
One:
“Just as it is by the condition precedent
Of the co-existence of its various parts
That the word ‘chariot’ is used,
Just so is it that when the Skandhas
Are there we talk of a ‘being.’”

Most wonderful, Nāgasena, and most strange. Well has the puzzle put
to you, most difficult though it was, been solved. Were the Buddha
himself here he would approve your answer. Well done, well done,
Nāgasena!

Are these verses about the same nun? Is there anything more known about her?

They seem to be two different persons.
Info on Vajira Theri:

Vajirā Therī. The Samyutta Nikāya (S.i.134f) relates that one day, when she was taking her siesta in Adhavana at Sāvatthi, Mārā
questioned her as to the origin of “being" (satta), its creator, its
origin, its destiny. Vajirā answers that there is no such thing as
“being," apart from certain conditioned factors, like a chariot, which
exists only because of its parts. Māra retires discomfited.
Vajirā's verses are often quoted (E.g Kvu. 240, 626; Mil. p.28;
Vsm.ii.593) both in the Canon and in later works, but they are not
included in the Therīgāthā, nor do we know anything else about her.

Info on Sela Theri:

Selā Therī. She was born in Alavi as daughter of the king: therefore
she was also called Alavikā. When she was still unmarried the Buddha
visited Alavī with Alavaka, whom he had converted, carrying his
begging bowl and robe. On that occasion Sela went with her father to
hear the Buddha preach. She became a lay disciple, but later, agitated
in mind, she joined the Order and became an arahant. After that she
lived in Sāvatthi. One day, as she was enjoying her siesta in the
Andhavana under a tree, Māra, in the guise of a stranger, approached
her and tried to tempt her. But she refuted his statements regarding
the attractions of lay life, and Māra had to retire discomfited
(S.i.134; Thig.vss.57-9).
In the time of Padumuttara Buddha Selā was born in the family of a
clansman of Hamsavatī and was given in marriage. After her husband's
death she devoted herself to the quest of good, and went from ārāma to
ārāma and vihāra to vihāra, teaching the Dhamma to followers of the
religion. One day she came to the Bodhi tree of the Buddha and sat
down there thinking, "If a Buddha be peerless among men, may this tree
show the miracle of Enlightenment." Immediately the tree blazed forth,
the branches appeared golden, and the sky was all shining. Inspired by
the sight, she fell down and worshipped the tree, and sat there for
seven days. On the seventh day she performed a great feast of offering
and worship to the Buddha (ThigA.61f). Her Apadāna verses, quoted in
the Therīgāthā Commentary, are, in the Apadāna itself, attributed to a
Therī called Pañcadīpikā, and are twice repeated in these verses
(Ap.ii.519, repeated at 527f), however, she is mentioned as having
attained arahantship at the age of seven, and there is no reference to
her life as daughter of the king of Alavī.


Is become a stream-enterer (sotāpanna) enough? I've quoted below from Ratana Sutta (The Discourse on the Jewels).

  Ye ariyasaccāni vibhāvayanti
  Gambhīrapaññena sudesitāni
  Kiñcāpi te honti bhusappamattā
  Na te bhavam atthamam ādiyanti
  Idam pi sanghe ratanam panītam
  Etena saccena suvatthi hotu

~ Cited from: Ratana Sutta (Pāli Text)

which means;

  Those who clearly distinguish the noble truths,
  which have been well preached by the one with great wisdom,
  no matter how great they become in heedlessness
  still they do not take up an eighth existence—
  this excellent treasure is in the Sangha:
  by virtue of this truth may there be safety!

~ Cited from: Ratana Sutta | The Discourse on the Treasures

According to the above, stream-enterer will not have an eighth existence (re-appearing) no matter how great he/she become in heedlessness. Does it mean that a stream-enterer will become an Arahant within his/her next seven existences even without any effort?

If so, why would someone put an extra effort to become an Arahant after becoming a stream-enterer?

The Pali word translated as "existence" is "bhava". "Bhava" is a mental asava (defilement) and not another life. There are 10 fetters to break through for Arahantship. The stream-enterer has broken three fetters. Each fetter is a type of becoming. Therefore, the sutta says "they do not take up an eighth becoming" because there are only a maximum of 7 more fetters to break..

In summary, it is pointless asking about stream-entry if you believe in reincarnation because this just perpetuates the "self-view" that must be broken for stream-entry. When there is the belief in reincarnation, it is the belief of "I will reincarnated or reborn seven more times". This is self-view.

The stream-enterer, in the suttas, has the realisation of: "All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation". The realisation of the stream-enterer is not: "All that is subject to cessation is subject to re-arising".


Categorizing common thoughts patterns and believes Are there any list of thought patterns / believes of a person who have extream aversion, conceite .... etc ?

There is an android app that gives a similar result. (I'm not sure that I can linked to a that kind of source from here) But that app is on topics like Perfectionism, low self esteem .. etc. That app let us know what are the common thought patterns, believes if we have one of that problems. Also they provide some pracices to overcome them.

It is very useful to know that common belives, thought patterns as we can understand our mind / situation easily and quickly. Also, that may let us know some belives we have that we might think we don't have.

Can anyone post list of common belives on topics from buddhism ? Especially on five hindrances ? (Wiki answers may suitable)

Example format for an answer :

Common believes of a person who have aversion

Common thought patterns of a person who have aversion

Very sorry for bad english

Kind regards

There are different classifications for unwholesome thoughts:

Vipallasa

(can be compared to "cognitive distortions" from contemporary cognitive psychology. I assume you have those mentioned in your app).
Vipallasa are misconceptions regarding:

The impermanent (anicca) being permanent
Pain (dukkha) being pleasant or happiness-yielding
That which lacks a self (anatta) being a self
That which is repulsive (asubha) being pure or beautiful

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.olen.html

Akusala cetasikas

These are mental factors grouped in four categories. They are not cognitions in the strict sense, but still has relevance for your question (The five hindrances are included in the akusala cetasikas):

Universal unwholesome mental factors (akusalasadharana):

Moha - delusion
Ahirika - lack of shame
Anottappa - disregard for consequence
Uddhacca - restlessness

Greed group (lobha):

Lobha - greed
Diṭṭhi - wrong view
Māna - conceit

Hatred group (dosa):

Dosa - hatred
Issā - envy
Macchariya - miserliness
Kukkucca - regret

Other unwholesome mental factors:

Thīna - sloth
Middha - torpor
Vicikicchā - doubt

(A good abhidhamma source for the akusala cetasikas turned out to be really hard to find online)

These are concepts on the top of my head, and could need more elaboration. Also, ChrisW pointed out that you might have asked for everyday examples, and not classifications from dhamma if i understand you.

However, one may have to connect the theoretical dharma concepts with thoughts actually appearing in everyday life by observing vinnana with the aid of meditation. Vipassana is inevitable for understanding dharma:

  There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to a pleasant abiding in the here & now. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html