What is the perfect truth in Tientai Buddhism? It it well known that Tientai teaches the identity of the mundane and real truths.

In its complete teaching, what is being equated?

Is it equating the real truth of the separate teaching with the complete teaching's mundane truth?

The so called "separate teaching" is what Yogacara and Hua-yen Buddhists claim, and Zhiyi says (translated by Swanson) says that therein:

I'm going to answer based on a hunch. Swanson notes, in his translation of the Mo-Ho-Chih-Kuan, that

  These three [truths as] expressions [of the perfect teaching] seem to
  be the same as the formulation in the Distinct Teaching, but as
  Chan-jan points out (BT–I, p. 284), the Distinct Teaching takes each
  of these formulations to be a separate level of understanding.

My hunch is that:

for the separate teaching, the mundane truth does not contain anything of the
absolute, and is only its negation.

As the perfect teaching merely integrates the three truths of the separate teaching (see above quote) it only teaches:

neither existence nor emptiness, and not neither existence nor emptiness.

And, because the perfect teaching includes both truths of the separate teaching, the perfect teaching must include:

existence and nonexistence

All three truths in perfect teaching, beyond words.

  The three types [of truth such as "emptiness"] are all empty because they are beyond verbalization

My second hunch is that:

we can only express what is beyond verbalisation to say it is merely provisionally true.

Then the perfect teaching must only state that

any proposition that mentions existence, or non-existence, or
emptiness, or non-emptiness, is merely provisionally true.

Whatever, that is, "existence" is translated as.


Enlightened Lies - Can lying be the correct action in certain situations? Can lying be the correct action in certain situations? Bhikkhu Bodhi gave an example of a situation where  lying might be appropriate:
  In World War II some nice people would hide those oppressed by the Nazis. If Nazis come and ask these nice people if they are hiding Jewish people, would it be the appropriate action to tell the truth?

There are no Enlightened lies. Fourth precept is the one precept that the Bodhisatta has never said to have broken since he started cultivating Paramita, many Kalpas ago.

Four conditions must be met to break this precept

The statement must be untrue.
There must be an intention to deceive.
An effort must be made to deceive.
The other person must know the meaning of what is expressed.

Causes of False Speech

The root causes of false speech are greed, hatred and delusion.

Greed is the root cause when false speech is used to obtain
material gain or status for oneself or someone dear to oneself.
Hatred is the root cause when false speech is used to cause loss
and bring harm and suffering to others.
Delusion is the root cause when it is used neither for one's gain
nor to cause loss and harm to others, but for the sake of
enjoyment such as lying for the sake of a joke, exaggeration to
spice up a story, or flattery to please others, etc.

But what people forget is that not giving information is not the same as lying.
In the case of the Nazis example, they wouldn't have taken your word even if you did lie. They would have searched your house in any case. It's not like they needed a warrant back then. So, instead of saying "yes we do have jews hiding in our house", you could improvise and say something to throw them off.

ex: "What?? You think we are that crazy? Heil hitler!!" :)


Similes of Attainment Though to the extent of my admittedly scarce knowledge, decapitation as a simile for some level of attainment is not to be found in the Pali Canon, but I bet the Zen tradition offers countless koans and stories wherein, figuratively, the incumbent experiencer of realization is beheaded, very much to his surprise I would say.

If you happen to know a few of these stories, your kind attention in helping me digging out these similes is greatly appreciated.

My gratitude for having taken the time to read this.

There are two that come to mind from the Shoyoroku.  The first is Case 98 and it's entitled Tonzan's Heed.  In that instance, it more refers to reticence on the part of the teacher in not wanting to lead the student into intellectualism.  I'm not sure if that is the image you were after. The second is at Case 41:

  When he was about to die, Rakuho addressed his assembly and said, “I
  have one matter to ask you about. If you say ‘yes’ to this, you are
  putting another head on your own. If you say ‘no,’ you are looking for
  life by cutting off your head.”

I don't think this is what you are looking for exactly, either.

I can't think of a single koan in the Mumonkan or Hekiganroku that has an image like that, however.  But kicked into mud?  Cat cut in two?  Finger cut off?  Nose pinched?  Now that's a different story!

(Note: the Shaseki-shu has something about heads being cut off.  Unfortunately, that collection does not contain any actual koans.  Those are parables.)


What is the difference between concentration and mindfulness practice ? I am new to buddhism and meditation (I have been practising it for one month now), and despite finishing my fourth book on the matter, I am still very unclear about what a meditation session should look like when practicing either concentration or mindfulness.

From what I understood, each of these practices are clearly differents and even have different pali names (Samatha and Vipassana if I am right ?).

I can already tell that I can't differenciate concentration and mindfulness.

When I focus on my breath, I am naturally distracted by all kind of things which I have to be mindfull of (the way my body feels, the sounds I ear, what I smell from the kitchen, my thoughts and emotions).

And when I try to practice mindfulness, I can't help but focusing on my breath, because it is often the first thing that I can notice in that state, and it is always present.

When I start my meditation I focus on my breath, then if something happens I try to be mindfull of it, and then I focus on my breath again until something else happens, switching maybe every 2 to 10 seconds.

I am wondering why concentration and mindfulness are referred to as disctinct practices in the books I read, as it doesn't make much sense to me. At this point I am afraid that I may be missing something important.

From what I understood, each of these practices are clearly different

Calm meditation deals with developing the Jhana factors which are:

Movement of the mind onto the object (vitakka)
Retention of the mind on the object (vicāra)
Joy (pīti)
Happiness (sukha)
One-pointedness (ekaggatā)

The object of calm can be conceptual object or one relating to ultimate realities (rupa, citta, cetasika and nirvana). If it is relating to ultimate realities then insight also develops.

Insight is based on meditation on the ultimate realities. The practice to understand the nature of the realities is through Satipatthana which are:

mindfulness of the body (kāya)
mindfulness of feelings or sensations (vedanā)
mindfulness of mind or consciousness (citta)
mindfulness of dhammās

Here you bring your mind in tune with the universal characteristics which results in wise attention. This helps you understand causality (Four Noble Truths, Dependent Arising, Conditional Relations):

  As such, bhikshus, the instructed noble disciple closely and wisely attends to dependent arising itself,
  thus:

  Imasmiṁ sati, idaṁ hoti; „When this is, that is;

  imass’uppādā, idam uppajjati. with the arising of this, that arises.

  Imasmiṁ asati idaṁ na hoti; When this is not, that is not;

  imassa nirodhā idaṁ nirujjhati. with the ending of this, that ends.‟

  Bhikshus, dependent on pleasant contact, a pleasant feeling arises.
  With the ending of the pleasant contact, the pleasant feeling that arose in dependent on that pleasant
  contact, ceases, is stilled.

  Bhikshus, dependent on painful contact, a painful feeling arises.
  With the ending of the painful contact, the painful feeling that arose in dependent on that painful
  contact, ceases, is stilled.

  Bhikshus, dependent on neutral contact, a neutral feeling arises.
  With the ending of the neutral contact, the neutral feeling that arose in dependent on that neutral
  contact, ceases, is stilled.

Assutava Sutta 2

Also wise attention is forerunner of cultivating the Noble Eightfold Path which leads to insight. Also it is one of the most essential ingredient in developing insight and insight meditation.

  Dawn, bhikshus, is the forerunner, the harbinger of sun-rise.
  Even so, bhikshus, for a monk this is the forerunner, the harbinger of the arising of the noble eightfold
  path, that is, accomplishment in wise attention.

  Bhikshus, when a monk is accomplished in this wise attention, it is to be expected that he will
  cultivate the noble eightfold path, develop the noble eightfold path.

Yoniso Manasikāra Sampadā Sutta

Insight  practice can be combined with calmness practice as in Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta:

  When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then you should
  train yourself thus:

  "I will dwell exertive, clearly aware, mindful,
  observing [contemplating] ________ the in the _________ [body | feeling | mind | dhamma],
  removing covetousness and displeasure [discontent] in regard to the world."

  Thus, bhikshu, you should train yourself.

  When, bhikshu, this samadhi has been cultivated, well cultivated by you, then, you, bhikshu,

  THE 1ST DHYANA:

  should cultivate this samadhi with initial application, with sustained application;

  should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, with only sustained application;

  THE 2ND DHYANA:

  should cultivate this samadhi without initial application, without sustained application;

  should cultivate this samadhi with zest;

  THE 3RD DHYANA:

  should cultivate this samadhi zest-free;

  should cultivate this samadhi attended by comfort;

  THE 4TH DHYANA:

  should cultivate this samadhi attended by equanimity

Both are needed for liberation.

  And what, bhikshus, is the path leading to the unconditioned?

  Calm and insight [Samatha and vipassana]—this is called the path leading to the unconditioned.

(Mūla) Samatha Vipassanā Sutta

Both calm and insight is needed to get to the final goal. They may not develop at the same space or level at the same time.

  (1) “insight preceded by calm” samatha,pubb’angama vipassanā

  (2) “calm preceded by insight” vipassana,pubb’angama samatha

  (3) “calm coupled with insight” samatha,vipassana,yuga.naddha

  (4) “a mind seized by dharma-restlessness” dhamm’uddhacca,viggahita manasa

(Yuga,naddha) Paṭipadā Sutta

Also the development of both gives arise to psychic powers as in

  In that case, Vaccha, cultivate two higher teachings: calm and insight. Vaccha, when these two
  teachings—calm and insight—are cultivated further, they bring about a penetration of the many elements
  (dhātu).

  ...

Mahā Vaccha,gotta Sutta

When one develops without the other then the following advice is given in finding a suitable teacher / technique:

  (1) A meditator who is able to attain only calm should consult an insight-attainer.

  (2) A meditator who is able to attain only insight should consult a calm-attainer.

  (3) A meditator who is unable to attain both should consult one skilled in both.

  (4) A meditator who is able to attain both should work for awakening.

(Samatha Vipassanā) Samādhi Sutta 3

When I focus on my breath, I am naturally distracted by all kind of things

To get over distraction you have to practice

Movement of the mind onto the object (vitakka)
Retention of the mind on the object (vicāra)

More effort and energy you put into it lesser distraction you will get from external distraction going forward.

Being mightful about the breath should be inline with the techniques in Anapanasati Sutta to get the benefits.

Also if your mind gets distracted then you have to:

know where you mind wanders away
each new object or through has a sensation of pleasantness, unpleasantness or neutral sensation associated with it. Get to know this sensation and wait for it to subside otherwise this itself and memories it trigger means the distractions will continue.
Bring back to the object of meditation

And when I try to practice mindfulness, I can't help but focusing on my breath

Mindfulness of the breath is also insight and Satipatthana meditation.

First Tetrad: Contemplation of the Body (kāya)

Discerning the in and out breathing
Discerning long or short breaths
Experiencing the whole body (sabbakāaya)
Calming bodily formations

Second Tetrad: Contemplation of the Feeling (vedanā)

Being sensitive to rapture (pīti)
Being sensitive to pleasure (sukha)
Being sensitive to mental fabrication (citta-saṃskāra)
Calming mental fabrication

Third Tetrad: Contemplation of the Mind (citta)

Being sensitive to the mind
Satisfying the mind
Steadying the mind
Releasing the mind

Fourth Tetrad: Contemplation of the Mental Objects (dhammā)

Dwelling on impermanence
Dwelling on dispassion
Dwelling on cessation
Dwelling on relinquishment

Source: Anapanasati Sutta

But having said this ...

Movement of the mind onto the object (vitakka)
Retention of the mind on the object (vicāra)

... will help you keep your focus on a chosen object, may it be the breath or one of the Satipatthana.

I am wondering why concentration and mindfulness are referred to as distinct practices

The techniques are different but should be practiced together as highlighted above.

Also see: Samatha and Vipassanā by Piya Tan.


Is Intention a sankhara? I would like to know if the following premises are well stated and if their content is true. Also, I'd like to know if the conclusion/answer makes sense:

1) In the aggregates, 'sankhara' are kammic formations.

2) Kammic formations are any phenomena that have an underlying intention, and therefore create new kamma.

Question: Is intention (cetana) a sankhara?

Thanks in advance for your time.

Kind regards!

1) In the aggregates, 'sankhara' are kammic formations.

Yes. Sankhara creates future results. So karmaic results are due to Sankhara. Sankhara is like the seed which germinates into the result.

  2) Kammic formations are any phenomena that have an underlying intention, and therefore create new kamma.

Intention decides which of the 121/89 mind states arise. Each mind has The 52 Mental Factors (cetasika). Out of the 52, 50 are Sankhara which results in conditioning future experiences which are also known as karmic results.

  Question: Is intention (cetana) a sankhara?

Cetana is a part of sankhara, which is 1 part out of 50 mental factors. There are 49 other factors which are considered sankhara. Cetasika has sanna and vedana also, excluding these factors the rest is sankhara out of which Cetana is one factor. As cetana is a Universal mental factor this always arising with the rest of the mental factors pertaining to a mind-state.

Cetana is also part of the phenomenon triggered by contact, as all minds arise with contact. With each mind-state all factors pertaining to vedana, sanna and sankhara arise out of which cetana is one factor.

Centana decides the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of the mind and sankhara creates. E.g. For a positive mind, 14 of the Unwholesome mental factors will be missing. These 14 are sankhara which gives bad results.


Mahayana doctrine about dreams and illusions Is there some standard Mahayana doctrine about dreams and illusions?
How is the doctrine meant to be used -- assuming it's a view, how is it meant to be effective?
I ask because of this answer:

  Consider how it feels to wake up from a dream and realize that all you felt during that dream was, “just a dream.” All the passion you felt while dreaming would dissipate upon waking up with the certain knowledge that it was “just a dream,” right?

  Now, what if you knew you were “just dreaming” while you were dreaming? Like in a lucid dream? The passion and zeal would dissipate right then and there as you would know it all to be unreal.

I don't think I have the experiences of dreams, described above -- instead:

The feelings, the emotional content, of a dream -- how I feel towards a someone in a dream, or about the place or surroundings in dream -- is not very different from the emotional content of waking life: similar feelings whether I'm asleep or awake.

There are some childhood nightmares I remember -- of falling out of a tree, or being chased by a dinosaur -- I still remember the fear ... I probably am (or could be) still afraid of being a young child chased by a dinosaur, even though I know that was/is a dream.
When I know that I am dreaming -- e.g. because I'm with someone in my dream who I know has died in waking life -- the passion doesn't dissipate. The passion is part of the dream, part of the memory perhaps, part of the fabrication you might say, just as much as the person's form (appearance, voice, character, actions) is part of the dream.

The "lesson" I get from the experience isn't that passion and zeal dissipate -- instead the lesson is that experiences (e.g. views of people and relationships) are mind-made. I assume that to whatever extent they're mind-made in a dream, they're similarly mind-made in waking life.

The experience even leaves me doubting (because it's contradicted by experience) whether sankharas (if that's what dreams are) are really "impermanent" -- or perhaps they should be called "attachments" or I don't know.

In summary I don't get the impression that dreams are less real than waking life, I do get the impression that waking life is mind-made like a dream.

I'm not sure these are the right "lessons" to derive from the experience though -- or are they? -- since they seem to contradict the answer quoted above.
Inaccurate/approximate portrayals of the word illusion might imply: "everything is an illusion, nothing exists, nothing matters" -- I think that's a kind of nihilist wrong view according to the suttas: how about in Mahayana?
Another problem I have with "dreaming" as a characterisation of or analogy for waking life, is that I think I'm quite passive in a dream: i.e. things happen to me, things come out of nowhere, unpredictable. I fear that may be an unhealthy, unwise, unskillful attitude to have towards waking reality -- is one supposed to be, instead, active (not just reactive) and intentional? What does "awake" mean, in context?

I note that the above doesn't mention anatta -- which, to the extent that the above is a problem, may be part of the solution -- but maybe the above question makes some sense as-is.

Is there some standard Mahayana doctrine about dreams and illusions?

Not sure if there is anything like "official Mahayana doctrine" about dreams, but the examples of dreaming are used in the verbal tradition all the time. For example, from this lecture by Thrangu Rinpoche:

  [Speaking about the first link of Twelve Nidanas.] This basic ignorance concerns two things: external phenomena
  and mind. First we believe the appearances such as trees and rocks
  that we see in our mind are external and real objects. That is the
  nature of mistaken appearance. Second, we believe that internal
  mind is truly existent.

  For example, when we sleep dreams are an
  appearance that arise out of the luminosity of the mind. The
  luminosity of mind does not stop just because we go to sleep; the mind's luminosity when we dream appears in our mind which "sees"
  those various appearances as external objects. We know, however,
  that those mountains and elephants that appear in our dreams were
  created by the luminosity of the mind and do not exist. Since we
  know that they do not exist, we can also understand that the "I" or
  the mind seeing all these appearances in the dream does not exist
  either.

  Now when we apply this example of our experience of dreaming
  to our experience while awake, we can see that there are external
  appearances and internal appearances (thoughts and feelings) and
  that these also do not exist.

  ...

  [Speaking about the second link, Sankharas, which he calls "latencies".] Let us take an example of an elephant — one that we see while we are asleep and dreaming and one that we see while we are awake. In both cases an elephant appears to us as a real elephant. While we are awake, the outside sensory impression of an elephant appears real, because our impression of an elephant
  matches these internal latencies which come from the eighth consciousness. In a dream the latencies of the elephant also come from the eighth consciousness and appear to us, and we see it at the time as real. So we see that the dream elephant and the real elephant are the same in two respects: they really do appear due to latencies, and they are both truly empty.

Paraphrasing, according to this presentation, so-called external objects as well as internal mind (=thoughts & feelings) arise out of the luminosity of the mind. External objects arise when outside sensory impressions match internal latencies, while internal objects arise out of the same internal latencies without any sensory impressions. This is usually summarized as "appearances are mind". At the same time, to say that "mind is a real entity" or that "mind is truly existent" is a mistake. The true nature of mind is emptiness which has the "quality of luminous clarity", "quality of knowing" and "spontaneous presence". So all our experiences, both when dreaming and when awake, are projections of mind's "latencies"; these "latencies" or "tendencies" are imprints from the previous experiences -- and this is how the cycle of ignorance feeds itself.

I guess the point of comparison between dreaming and wakeful states, at least as used in this presentation, is that both types of experiences are projections of imprints from the previous experiences and in this sense are equally unreal.

How is the doctrine meant to be used?

I think the practical side here, is that: once we know that the desirable or the frightening object (or situation) is a projection of our mind, we stop reifying it as something separate from the mind and so it loses it's power and grasp.

For example, I recently saw a dream in which I was physically attacked by someone stronger than myself. While I (kinda) knew it was a dream, I did not realize the enemy was actually my own projection. Then, as I knew I could not win that fight, I paused and contemplated an idea that both the villain in that dream as well as my sense of "I, the victim" were actually two parts of the same mind which was, therefore, fighting with itself! At this point my feeling of fear towards the attacker was gone and at the same time the attacker himself seemingly lost his hostility towards me. I was able to touch his forehead with mine and he was sucked into my head as a drop of melted metal from Terminator 2.

Several months after that dream, I had a conversation with someone intellectually smarter and emotionally tougher than me, whose judgement I was always afraid of. Habitually, I reflected on something I just said and thought that I must be looking very stupid from his perspective. Then suddenly, I remembered my dream and realized that my idea of his judgement was actually my own projection, since the guy actually never ever said anything or otherwise non-verbally indicated any negative opinion about my intellectual or emotional inferiority. As soon as I realized that this was my own projection, I was able to integrate the two parts of my mind (the judging one and the one being judged).

So I think the point of all this talk about dreams and projections, is that reification of our projections as something objective leads to suffering, and cessation of reification leads to cessation of suffering.

That said, as is shown in my dream example, knowing that objects are unreal is not enough. I too in my dream knew that it was a dream - and yet I kept fighting my attacker out of habit and disgust, following my emotional habits (latencies/imprints). It's only when I made a conscious effort to re-interpret the situation in different terms, to see it from a different perspective - is when the freedom from projections was attained.

For me, this all comes back to my teacher's verbal instruction, that our experience of reality is an interpretation we make, and that Liberation (aka Enlightenment) is freedom from attachment to any single interpretation (or "view").


Is Chant of Metta from Tipitaka? I came across 'The Chant of Metta' (Metta Gatha), in a beautiful rendition by Imee Ooi in this YouTube video.

Here is the full text in Pali, with English translation: THE CHANT OF METTA

Is this chant from the Tipitaka or is it a later composition? The Karaniya Metta Sutta from Tipitaka has different wordings in this translation.

The popular chant of metta is originated from the Theravada Tripitaka. This can be found in Kuddaka Nikaya->Patisambhidamagga->Yuganaddawagga Mettakatha

Read from page 130


What does Buddhism say about boredom? Very often when I meditate, or in everyday life, there are times when I get bored. I don't have to do anything. And often I go on YouTube to get busy.
It is the same in meditation, very quickly I get bored, I feel the time passing and it becomes heavy.

How do you manage all this?

Well, technically boredom is a form of tanha, craving. We crave for excitement, for fun, for an external source of energy. And according to principle of "this-that conditionality" craving is also a form of aversion -- meaning, when we are bored we have an inner conflict against "this". For some reason we think that "this", "here", "now" is not good enough.

My teacher explained, that every time we feel bored - that's really a signal from our inner mind that we have alienated. It's a reminder that we lost connection or integration. Because we lost connection, we feel something's missing.

From this perspective, every time we feel bored we should stop all activities, pause and look inside. Basically, meditation.

When we get more advanced on this path, we can learn to maintain this connection at all times, and then we don't feel boredom, we never have the sense of dissatisfaction, we learn to live in suchness more or less at all times.


Are there other people, according to Buddhism? When I was on a Self Inquiry retreat last year, I was explaining why I wanted to help other people. One of the two teachers looked at me and said, "There are no other people." That sort-of made sense to me. The next day I had a realization which made it make sense completely.

But the other day (is there another day?) I saw it in a different way: that it simply does not matter whether there are other people or not, because I can never have real insight in to them, so I am completely alone in my path. My image of two people is like spheres touching at one hypothetical point (Indra's Net). I cannot see much through a point-sized window on to (hypothetical) someone-else's world. This is like Vivekacudemani #515:

  I am Actionless.
  I am Changeless.
  I am Partless.
  I am Without Purpose.
  I am Eternal.
  I do not require any prop.
  I am One, without a Second.

If I am One, can I know anyone else? What does Buddhism say on this point?

The practice of a bodhisatvva

  The entire practice of a bodhisattva is divided into six perfections, which are generosity, discipline, patience, effort, meditative concentration, and wisdom.
  In order to fulfill the hopes of others, it is very important to engage in the practice of generosity, which in turn should be strengthened by a strict observance of ethical discipline, that is, of non-violence.
  The practice of discipline must itself be complemented by that of patience, because you will need to have forebearance when facing the harm inflicted on you by others.
  In order to succeed in these practices, your endeavour must be strong and stable.
  And without meditative concentration that effort will not be so effective.
  Finally if you do not have the wisdom that realizes the nature of all phenomena, you will not be capable of guiding others on the path that leads to enlightenment.

  The sweet taste of bodhicitta

  If there is one practice that is sufficient to bring about buddhahood, it is the practice of great compassion.
  Chandragomin, a sixth-century Indian poet, said that it is stupid to expect to change the taste of a very bitter fruit by simply adding one or two drops of sugar to it.
  In the same way, we cannot expect the fragrance of our minds, which are so contaminated by the bitter taste of delusion, to change instantaneously into the sweet taste of boddhicitta or compassion on the basis of just one or two sessions of meditation.
  Sustained and continuous effort is extremely important.

  As the Buddha himself said, on th strength of their wisdom bodhisattvas abandon all delusion, but through the vigour of applying compassionate methods, they never abandon beings.

The Dalai Lama's Little Book of Inner Peace -- The Essential Life and Teachings

There was also a video in which the Dalai Lama said,

  I never consider myself as something special. If I consider myself as something different from you, like I am Buddhist, or even more, I am His Holiness the Dalai Lama, or even if I consider I am Nobel Laureate, then actually you create yourself as a prisoner. I forget these things, I simply consider I am one of the seven billion human beings. We are mentally, emotionally, intellectually, we are the same.

He goes on to say that people get fulfillment of purpose, and "always feel happy", from helping others, etc.

It's not that other people "don't exist": it's that there are not "other" people, not different; i.e. "we are the same".


Would a stream enterer no longer need the "I am the owner and heir of my karma" reflection? The following sutta quote shows the reflection that would cause the diminishing or abandonment of misconduct.
However, this appears to be a method of skillful means for reflection by someone with self-view.
A stream enterer would have discarded self-view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi), which is the first of the ten fetters.
Therefore, would a stream enterer also automatically abandon the following skillful reflection or perhaps not need it anymore?
From AN 5.57:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

"the monk, when not loaded down, does not load himself down with pain, nor does he reject pleasure that accords with the Dhamma, although he is not infatuated with that pleasure. He discerns that 'When I exert a fabrication against this cause of dukkha, then from the fabrication of exertion there is dispassion. When I look on with equanimity at that cause of dukkha, then from the development of equanimity there is dispassion.' So he exerts a fabrication against the cause of dukkha where there comes dispassion from the fabrication of exertion, and develops equanimity with regard to the cause of dukkha where there comes dispassion from the development of equanimity. Thus the dukkha coming from the cause of dukkha for which there is dispassion through the fabrication of exertion is exhausted & the dukkha resulting from the cause of dukkha for which there is dispassion through the development of equanimity is exhausted. - MN 101

"I am the owner and heir to my karma" is a fabrication against heedlessness as a cause of dukkha. Other skillful reflections in AN 5.57 are fabrications against other causes of dukkha.

So he exerts himself with stress & pain, and while he is exerting himself with stress & pain, unskillful qualities decline in him, & skillful qualities increase. Then at a later time he would no longer exert himself with stress & pain. Why is that? Because he has attained the goal for which he was exerting himself with stress & pain. That is why, at a later time, he would no longer exert himself with stress & pain. - MN 101

Once the goal of a fabrication is achieved, there is no need to exert and load oneself with the pain of the fabrication.

"Now when a monk... attending to another theme... scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts... paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts... attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts... beating down, constraining and crushing his mind with his awareness... steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it and concentrates it: He is then called a monk with mastery over the ways of thought sequences. He thinks whatever thought he wants to, and doesn't think whatever thought he doesn't. He has severed craving, thrown off the fetters, and — through the right penetration of conceit — has made an end of suffering and stress." - MN 20


What works analogous to works of mercy do Buddhist monks practice? In Christianity monks and nuns practice works of mercy which include caring for the terminally ill or doing what St. Teresa of Calcutta did. What works analogous to what St. Teresa of Calcutta did do Buddhist monks practice?

I believe monks are enjoined to do the same for each other -- Kucchivikara-vatthu: The Monk with Dysentery
But  not to act as doctors for lay society in general -- reference

Thus, bhikkhus should not become doctors, full-time nurses or attendants to invalids. They were supposed to live a simple, unencumbered life sustained by sufficient nutriment, appropriate medicines and advanced health standards for the full-time pursuit of spiritual liberation."
"When the Buddha referred to tending the sick, he was referring to fellow monastics. The Commentary,... [has that] a bhikkhu may prescribe and supply medicine to... his parents, to those caring for his parents, to lay-attendants of the monastery and to those residing in the monastery preparing to ordain; a bhikkhu may also [etc.]

Some will act like chaplains occasionally, if invited to -- visiting someone terminally ill and their family in hospital.
Other "acts of mercy" are a fairly rigorous discipline of being harmless, including not killing animals or insects -- and accepting charity (on the theory that it's good for laypeople to practice charity) -- and teaching the doctrine -- and so on, carrying on the Buddhist discipline and relaying the doctrine.

What the Missionaries of Charity did or do is a bit unusual among Christian monastics, though as the French proverb says, "If they didn't exist one would have had to have invented them."
There may be some analous organization among Buddhist monastics, here for example -- Fighting addiction at a Thai monastery -- that's maybe a close parallel but unusual/atypical too though.


Questions About Views in Buddhism I have looked at a list of some wrong-views in Buddhism, and I'm somewhat confused about the meaning of the notion of 'view' [ditthi].

In Buddhism, what does it mean to hold a view?

1) I ask this because I'm unsure what the holding of a view means in this case. Does it mean merely believing the view? Does it mean believing and acting in relation to that view?

2) More so, I'm unsure whether the views listed as wrong are considered as definitive? Or, are there various types of wrong views and the lists consider only the greatest examples?

3) Finally, I wonder what views are in relation to emptiness. I can't help but feel wisdom linked with emptiness would dismantle views altogether. Wouldn't a view, in emptiness, exist only relatively and not in a definite manner? Wouldn't it be impossible to hold a view as true? I'm reminded of Nagarjuna who claims, for example, that those seeing emptiness as a view are misguided.

This is a long answer (below), so here is a summary up front:

"In Buddhism, what does it mean to hold a view?"

I think it means to get attached to a view, maybe to rejoice in or to delight in a view, like attaching to a sense-object -- especially a wrong view, such as "delight in being" (bhavaratā).
"Or, are there various types of wrong views and the lists consider only the greatest examples?"

If 62 of them are listed I doubt that's an exhaustive list -- after all, why not 63 then? There's no end to the number of ways of being wrong (or of views to attach to)!

I suppose that "right view" is defined more narrowly (4 noble truths, 3 characteristics, dispassion, etc.), and that attaching to or holding to views (doctrines) other than that and thus is 'wrong'.

Conversely though, there is "right seeing" or "seeing things as they are", which includes seeing their cause[s] and their cessation.

So a "view" is a diṭṭhi, defined here as follows:

  diṭṭhi: view, speculative opinion, belief, credo, dogma, doctrine. Generally designates a wrong view. Sammādiṭṭhi is the first constituent of the ariya aṭṭh·aṅgika magga, and consists in considering the four ariya·saccas. When the prefix sammā· is absent, the word diṭṭhi generally designates a wrong view. The Buddha exhaustively expounds the 62 wrong views in the Brahmajāla Sutta. Diṭṭhis are one of the seven anusayas. See also sammādiṭṭhi.

In MN 72 for example you can see that the word diṭṭhi can be given all kinds of qualifiers:

  Each of these ten convictions is the thicket of views, the desert of views, the trick of views, the evasiveness of views, the fetter of views.

  Sassato loko’ti kho, vaccha, diṭṭhigatametaṃ diṭṭhigahanaṃ diṭṭhikantāro diṭṭhivisūkaṃ diṭṭhivipphanditaṃ diṭṭhisaṃyojanaṃ

The dictionary gives diṭṭhisaṃyojana as "the fetter of empty speculation", by the way.

After that sentence in MN 72 the Buddha says,

  Seeing this drawback I avoid all these convictions.
  Imaṃ kho ahaṃ, vaccha, ādīnavaṃ sampassamāno evaṃ imāni sabbaso diṭṭhigatāni anupagato”ti.

  But does Master Gotama have any convictions at all?
  “Atthi pana bhoto gotamassa kiñci diṭṭhigatan”ti?

  The Realized One has done away with convictions.
  Diṭṭhigatanti kho, vaccha, apanītametaṃ tathāgatassa.

I wanted to know what diṭṭhigata (used there) means exactly. Because the dictionary defines it as ...

  a (false) view, a theory.
  a belief; wrong view.

... but I found it odd, it didn't make sense to me, that Vacchagotta would ask the Buddha, "what wrong views do you hold?" -- so I figured that diṭṭhigata would mean something slightly different than explicitly or literally "wrong".

As Andrei commented,

  Well, ditthi means view and gata means something like "settled in", so why wouldn't ditthigata mean a position or conviction?

I think that "settled in" is so -- see also for example gata used in Tathagata (usually translated as "gone" or "gone to") ... or for example sugata, and gata generally.

So, I guess, maybe diṭṭhigata means something like, "gone to a view", or "dwelling in a view" ... or "holding a view" (which is the subject of the question in the OP), perhaps conversely "being held by a view" (if you use non-anatta terminology), perhaps "stuck on a view", perhaps a "stuck view", maybe "an abiding view" or "a view of abiding", or something like that.

There's a whole sutta actually, itivuttaka 49 is titled the Diṭṭhigatasutta. That title is translated in English as "Held by Views". Read the whole sutta, it's not long:

  This was said by the Lord…

  “Bhikkhus, held by two kinds of views, some devas and
  human beings hold back and some overreach; only those with vision see.

  “And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being, delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it. Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back.

  “How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of) non-being, asserting: ‘In as much as this self, good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.

  “How, bhikkhus, do those with vision see? Herein a bhikkhu sees what has come to be as having come to be. Having seen it thus, he practises the course for turning away, for dispassion, for the cessation of what has come to be. Thus, bhikkhus, do those with vision see.”

  Having seen what has come to be
  As having come to be,
  Passing beyond what has come to be,
  They are released in accordance with truth
  By exhausting the craving for being.

  When a bhikkhu has fully understood
  That which has come to be as such,
  Free from craving to be this or that,
  By the extinction of what has come to be
  He comes no more to renewal of being.

  This too is the meaning of what was said by the Lord, so I heard.

I note five things from this sutta:

The first two groups of devas and human beings are maybe (in my vernacular) "fooling around with" views ... i.e. they're "rejoicing" or "delighting" in views.

Perhaps that's analogous to what people do with sensuality -- i.e. they attach to it.

So maybe that is literally what's meant by "holding" a view -- i.e. people hold a view in the same way that people attach to sense-objects.

I like (or have attached to) this metaphor (quoting from What is attachment as per Buddhism?):

  To distinguish craving from clinging, Buddhaghosa uses the following metaphor:

    "Craving is the aspiring to an object that one has not yet reached, like a thief's stretching out his hand in the dark; clinging is the grasping of an object that one has reached, like the thief's grasping his objective.... [T]hey are the roots of the suffering due to seeking and guarding."

In this sutta, the views which they hold are views of something being still or static:

In the first case, it's a view of "being" -- as if "being" were something constant, or eternal, or even non-empty in the Mahayana sense.
In the second case, it's a view of annihilation-after-death.

What you're supposed to do instead ...

  How, bhikkhus, do those with vision see?
  Kathañca, bhikkhave, cakkhumanto passanti? -- (the dictionary says that passati is the same as one of the meanings of dassati)

... is to see the coming-to-be and the cessation.

And that (i.e. seeing coming-to-be and cessation) is the same as what the Buddha says in MN 72, immediately after he denies having Diṭṭhigata:

  Seeing this drawback I avoid all these convictions.”

  “But does Master Gotama have any convictions at all?”
  “Atthi pana bhoto gotamassa kiñci diṭṭhigatan”ti?

  “The Realized One has done away with convictions.
  “Diṭṭhigatanti kho, vaccha, apanītametaṃ tathāgatassa.

  For the Realized One has seen:
  Diṭṭhañhetaṃ, vaccha, tathāgatena: (note the use of Diṭṭhi again but here not implying wrong -- nor stuck/held/fixed)

  ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form.
  Such is feeling, such is the origin of feeling, such is the ending of feeling.
  Such is perception, such is the origin of perception, such is the ending of perception.
  Such are choices, such is the origin of choices, such is the ending of choices.
  Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’

  That’s why the Realized One is freed with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all conceivings, all worries, and all ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit, I say.”

  “But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where are they reborn?”

  “‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

  “Well then, are they not reborn?”

  “‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

  [etc.]

If you're worried about diṭṭhi being used to refer to both right views and wrong views, I think in summary the Buddha isn't stuck on any particular fixed view, but instead rightly-sees the arising, being, and ceasing of all the aggregates.
And, it's for the same kinds of purpose in MN 72 as in Iti 49: i.e. for turning away, dispassion, cessation.

There's another sutta (I forget which one) which says that something "in the stream" will reach the ocean (a metaphor for nibbana), unless it sinks or gets stuck on something along the way. Maybe that (being stuck) is another sense of "held", and why the Buddha warns against it -- i.e. given that he wants to teach "only suffering and cessation", speculative views and conceits and so on are an obstacle to cessation.
When the sutta said "delight in being" (bhavaratā bhavasammuditā) I took that as a reference to self-view (e.g. "I am"), but also as a reference to attaching to things, after not (truly) seeing the three characteristics (and so e.g. "this thing is not impermanent, this thing is desirable, and this thing is mine").

I think that "self-view" isn't the only 'wrong' view -- i.e. seeing the three characteristics of "things" is also 'right' (see also a a separate answer about 'emptiness', and AN 10.3 below).

I looked for other places where Diṭṭhigata is used.

Another place the word Diṭṭhigata is used in the last verse of Snp 4.8 which I think says that wanting to win arguments is a vain conceit.

That's inline with other suttas which say that conceit is a cause of arguments.
On the subject of "conceit" and "views" I recommend the answers to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? for example:

  A view is taking something to be true, whereas conceit falls in the category of a simple experience, which one may or may not hold to be valid. It is similar with greed; one may want something without believing it proper to want, and one may likewise feel conceit ("I am better", etc.) without actually believing in a self.

I assume that's similar to an addiction or an ex-addiction; e.g. the thought might occur and reoccur, to a former addict, "I want X (where 'X' is e.g. alcohol or whatever the object of addiction/attachment is)", and you then have to decide "No, that's a bad idea! I really don't want that." I guess conceit or egoism might be an addictive pleasure, or something, that people have to wean themselves from over time.
SN 41.3 is, again, speculative views about the afterlife. Ditto AN 10.3. A lot of the "held views" seem to be on that kind of topic.

Maybe debating such views was a custom then, e.g. among a "holy men" i.e. the wanderers or seekers in that society.
AN 10.3 also defines right view, as "what's created is impermanent, what's impermanent is dukkha, what's dukkha is when seen with right wisdom not mine, not me, and not myself".

That's a bit unusual in that, as I said earlier, instead of mentioning the three characteristics explicitly as it does in AN 10.3, other suttas tend to contrast Diṭṭhigata with seeing the creation (cause), being, and cessation of the five aggregates.
AN 7.54 also uses diṭṭhigata (translated here as "misconception"), to describe the various famously "undeclared points" or "unanswered questions" (e.g. "does a Tathagata exist after death?" etc.).

It also says that, it is due to Diṭṭhinirodhā (i.e. due to the "cessation of views") that "an educated noble disciple has no doubts" -- where "doubts" (vicikicchā) is one of the canonical fetters (see also e.g. the second half of this answer).

AN 7.54 appears to be the only sutta to mention Diṭṭhinirodhā, FYI -- and that's in the context of things that are avyākata ("not designated" -- if you want to research further you might want to check the usage of avyākata and of its antonym, byākata).

Given that the definition at the top of this answer says that diṭṭhi is one of the seven types of anusaya, you might also want to read this answer which helps to define anusaya.

You may or may not also find this helpful: Buddhaghosa on seeing things as they are (2)

One thing it says is ...

  Having a diṭṭhi is not the problem, being diṭṭhigata is.

... and then goes on to talk about seeing things as they are, yathābhūtadassana.

It ends with what I think of as a pun on the word "conclusion" (i.e. two separate meanings of "conclusion"):

One meaning of "conclusion" is "a theory", for example, "I made these observations and 'concluded' that such-and-such a generalisation is true".
Another meaning of "conclusion" is "cessation", "ending".

I think, I suppose, that in the suttas the Buddha is trying to point towards the latter (cessation), and not the former (sustaining generalisations, holding views, conceited arguments, etc.).


What does this mantra Om Ah Hum Sarba Amrita Siddhi Hum Dze mean? This is some sort of meal gatha.

  ОМ А ХУМ САРБА АМРИТА СИДДХИ ХУМ ДЗА
  Om Ah Hum Sarba Amrita Siddhi Hum Dze

I'm stumped on translating it.

Source.

Mantras aren't complete sentences, so you can't really translate them, but the individual syllables usually have standard symbolic meanings, but there are always multiple layers of meanings in any given mantra, but here goes:

The first part, Om Ah Hum, is a very important set of syllables. Om represents the enlightened body of a Buddha, Ah represents the enlightened speech of a Buddha, and Hum represents the enlightened mind of a Buddha. Om is very commonly used to begin a Mantra and Hum is often used near the end of a Mantra, like in the famous Mantra for Avalokiteshvara, Om Mani Peme Hum.

Sarba I assume is a derivation from the Sanskrit word Sarva, which means all or every, and Amrita means nectar, so Sarba Amrita means all nectar.

Siddhi is a term that can refer to attaining magical powers through meditation, but I think it can also be used as a general term for spiritual attainments in general.

Hum is again, the representation of the enlightened mind of a Buddha, and as previously stated, it is often used near the end of a mantra.

I don't know the meaning of Dza however.


Breach of precept term What is the Pali or Sanskrit term for a breach of a precept?
I have checked http://dictionary.tamilcube.com/pali-dictionary.aspx and found
breach of morality defined as sīlabheda . Is there a broader or more inclusive term?

sīlabheda is not a common used term, I don't think. More common is sīlavipatti - transgression of morality. Another is vītikkama - transgression.

  tattha katamā sīlavipatti? yo kāyiko vītikkamo, vācasiko vītikkamo , kāyikavācasiko vītikkamo -- ayaṃ vuccati sīlavipatti. sabbampi dussilyaṃ sīlavipatti.
  (dhammasaṅgaṇī, nikkhepakaṇḍaṃ, suttantikadukanikkhepaṃ)

The common Pali term for an offence against the rules of the vinaya is āpatti. Another common, related word is dussīla, a person with bad moral character.


What is the destination of a Buddhist? Where should we go for the rest what is the rest ? In mundane life living is so tough , facing sorrow , troubles and need to struggle for achieve something physical things and we get hurt because craving. As I'm doing myself I'm feeling nothing and restless because craving and got nothing after craving and everything is over . So where to focus , what is aim of one Buddhist. I never practice and now I don't understand from where to start, not feeling to start.

What is the destination of a buddhist?

There is no particular destination a Buddhist aims for. The Buddhist goal is to be stress free eradicating the cause which is systematised as the 4 Noble Truths. Once you are stress free this is called Nirvana. The path to Nirvana is achived thought the 3 fold training.

Though the Abhidhamma classifieds Nirvana as a Lokuttara Bhumi, this is not a destination as such.

  Where should we go for the rest what is the rest ?

Rest is achived thought solitude. More on this see Viveka,nissita by Piya Tan.

  In mundane life living is so tough , facing sorrow , troubles and need to struggle for achieve something physical things and we get hurt because craving.

Mundane life is tough because of the presence of unwholesome roots which drive us. Will (chanda) to achieve a goal in the absence of craving hence there is no unwholesome root associated with it. [(Kosambi) Unnābha Sutta, Sangarava Sutta] So you should have the will to discharge duties and attain worldly goals without craving.

  ... So where to focus ...

You should keep your focus on feelings or sensations.

    With contact as condition, there is feeling; with feeling as condition, there is craving.
    But with the remainderless fading away and ending of that same craving comes the ending of
    clinging;

Source: (Samuday’atthangama) Loka Sutta

Also from one of Goenka's research papers: Why Vedana and What is Vedana?

    Eradicate the latent tendency of craving using pleasant sensations (by equanimous observation of the pleasant sensations understanding their changing nature), eradicate latent tendency of aversion using unpleasant sensations and eradicate the latent tendency of ignorance using neutral sensations.

Another passage from the same paper:

    Vedana is also a cetasikacetasika (mental concomitant). When the Buddha says, sabbe dhamma vedana samosaranasabbe dhamma vedana samosarana, it means that the experience of all mental concomitants includes and is inseparable from vedana. Hence according to my understanding of the teaching of the Buddha, not only do kayanupassanakayanupassana and vedananupassanavedananupassana involve the awareness of vedana but vedana also forms an integral part of dhammanupassanadhammanupassana and cittanupassanacittanupassana. A meditator whether practising kayanupassana or vedananupassana or cittanupassana or dhammanupassana, continues to be aware of vedana. He realizes the phenomenon of arising (samudayadhammanupassisamudayadhammanupassi) and the phenomenon of passing away (vayadhammanupassivayadhammanupassi) by maintaining awareness of vedana with the understanding of its impermanent nature. Thus he does not allow tanha to arise in response to vedana: He responds neither with tanha of craving towards a pleasant sensation nor with tanha of aversion towards an unpleasant sensation. A meditator maintains upekkha (equanimity) based on understanding of anicca (impermanence).

Ideally you should pratice the Vipassana to overcome craving and liberated your mind. You can try and take a course at http://www.dhamma.org/ or http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/. The level of support one can get in a forum or Q&A site like this is limited. To get rid of your pain you will have to take a formal meditation course.


How do you see this article fitting in with Buddhist principles? https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

Fascinating read, and I wondered what the wisdom of the crowd was on how closely they thought this notion fit with the principles of Buddhism, most notably the idea of reality being an illusion, and the liberation of ourselves from the chains of perception?

Buddhism does not state 'perception' ('sanna') is a chain. In fact, without perception, enlightenment (perceiving the true nature of things, including perception itself) cannot occur.
Instead, Buddhism lists the following chains (fetters):

belief in a self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)

doubt or uncertainty,
especially about the teachings (vicikicchā)

wrong use of morals and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa)

sensual desire (kāmacchando)

ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo)

lust for material jhana, lust for material things (rūparāgo)

lust for immaterial jhana, lust for immaterial things, such as status,
fame, etc (arūparāgo)

conceit (māna)

restlessness (uddhacca)

ignorance (avijjā)

Fetter (Buddhism) adapted from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the perception of the 'illusion of perceptions', if this was actually seen clearly, desires & attachments would end because, in reality, the mind only desires & attaches with concrete (solid) self-belief to concrete (solid) objects .
It is one thing for a cognitive scientist to create concrete ideas & theories about the illusion of perception, which may not end the desires & attachments of the scientist. It is another thing to actually see the illusion of perception meditatively, which will certainly end desires & attachments.

Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it &
appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it &
appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without
substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage?
In the same
way, a monk sees, observes & appropriately examines any perception
that is past, future or present; internal or external; blatant or
subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing
it & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void,
without substance: for what substance would there be in perception?
Phena Sutta


Last thought before death? I read somewhere (perhaps in an unreliable introduction to Tibetan beliefs) that rebirth is conditioned by the last thought before death (or perhaps affected by a thought or desire that you have after death).

Another belief that's similar, if not the same, is that a person may have had some (good or bad) life but that having some (bad or good) final dying thought determines their rebirth (e.g. into hell or heaven).

When (historically) was this view introduced into scriptures?
What is the evidence and/or reasoning for this view?
Is this view espoused by all schools of Buddhism, or do different traditions have different views?

It seems to me that my mind has or generates lots of semi-random thoughts: they're like memories, or dream fragments, etc., they come and go. That kind of ideation (often visual images, fragmentary visions of people I've known or of places I've seen) is especially apparent when I'm asleep-and-dreaming. They're also apparent if I'm feverish and/or delirious. I expect that people often aren't at their most mentally acute when they're dying.

Are we supposed/expected to have some kind of control over such thoughts/ideas/images? Or are these too anatta, and neither 'self' nor 'controlled by self'? If it's true that they are not self, and not subject to control-by-self, then how are they associated with the kamma which affects rebirth? Or is it some other, different kind of "last thought" which affects rebirth?

Googling to try to begin to research this topic I found this brief article which describes 'the Last Thought Moment' and which says for example,

  Later still, the theory developed that the last thought moment (cuticitta) a person has before they die will determine their next life. This idea, now current in Theravāda, seems to be an unjustified development of the Buddha’s teachings and at odds with his idea of kamma and the efficacy of morality.

Is this article reliable, i.e. is true as far as you know, or does it say some things that would contradict or add to?
The account of the Buddha's own death is of his having mastered jhanas, and making use of that ability at the time of his death:

  And the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Rising from the first jhana etc.

Is this what everyone is supposed to do when they die? Must we (and can we) hope that we will be so lucid at the time of death? Aren't people often unconscious or asleep or perhaps in a coma or something when they die?
Can you summarize what conclusion you draw, about

How to practice Buddhism now?
What if anything to expect or hope at time of death?
Whether death and rebirth are even especially worth thinking about (or whether we're even capable of thinking about them), or whether it's more important/useful to think about this life?

"I read somewhere (perhaps in an unreliable introduction to Tibetan beliefs) that rebirth is conditioned by the last thought before death (or perhaps affected by a thought or desire that you have after death).

Another belief that's similar, if not the same, is that a person may have had some (good or bad) life but that having some (bad or good) final dying thought determines their rebirth (e.g. into hell or heaven).""

In the pali canon there are suttas that suggest the "state of mind" in the last moments before death has a strong influence on where one reappears after dying. Two suttas on this subject:

  "It would be better, bhikkhus, for the ear faculty to be lacerated by a sharp iron stake burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in a sound cognizable by the ear. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features, and if one should die on that occasion, it is possible that one will go to one of two destinations: hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus."

  -- SN 35.235

And:

  (i) “Now, Ananda, there is the person who has killed living beings here… has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But (perhaps) the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But since he has killed living beings here… has had wrong view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence.

  (ii) “Now there is the person who has killed living beings here… has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. [...]

  (iii) “Now there is the person who has abstained from killing living beings here… has had right view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death.  [...]

  (iv) “Now there is the person who has abstained from killing living beings here… has had right view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But (perhaps) the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death.

  -- MN 136:

That is, SN 35.235 discusses the danger of having consciousness tied to the gratification of sensual pleasures at the time of death. Also, even though we read frequently in the suttas that wrong view leads one to reappearing in hell, MN 136 discusses the (seemingly proeminent) role of right and wrong view at the time of the death.

"[...] Are we supposed/expected to have some kind of control over such thoughts/ideas/images?"

Sure, to the extent we can think over, investigate, train and, thus, transform our thoughts, ideas, convictions, beliefs, and knowledges.

Naturally, an untrained mind might easily produce thoughts, ideas and images against one's desire and a non virtuous person might easily incline her mind to unwholesome states.

"If it's true that they [thoughts/ideasi/images] are not self, and not subject to control-by-self, then how are they associated with the kamma which affects rebirth?"

  "It is volition, bhikkhus, that I call kamma. For having willed, one acts by body, speech or mind"

  -- AN 6.63

Thoughts (perhaps specially the ones manifesting inclinations) are kamma. That is the association.

EDIT: I don't believe that, say, if the thought of ceasing to exist after death, or if the thought of having a permanent soul (or any other wrong view) appears in one's mind, that it would constitute wrong view -- one needs to actually believe these. Additionally, I'm sure that a thought about hate is not a thought of hate -- otherwise, it would be impossible to be virtuous and think & talk about such things. Furthermore, I understand thoughts originated by will are kamma, but still, one should ask what was that will that manifested such thoughts.

"Is this article reliable, i.e. is true as far as you know, or does it say some things that would contradict or add to?"

From the above we can conclude there is a basis in the suttas for the idea that the last moments may have a strong influence in determining one's destination (but I don't see how "the last thought moment a person has before they die will determine their next life." could be based on the suttas).

I fail to see this as conflicting, given the teachings on kamma -- specially the ones above, and this next one:

  Any kamma, bhikkhus, fashioned through [greed, hatred, delusion] [...] rippens wherever the individual is reborn. Wherever that kamma rippens, it is there that one experiences its result, either in this very life, or in the [next] rebirth, or on some subsequent occasion.

  -- AN 3.34

[there is a some polemic surrounding that particular passage, but the quote above should be safe to further elucidate these points].

"The account of the Buddha's own death is of his having mastered jhanas, and making use of that ability at the time of his death [...] Is this what everyone is supposed to do when they die? Must we (and can we) hope that we will be so lucid at the time of death? Aren't people often unconscious or asleep or perhaps in a coma or something when they die?"

I don't think most people are unconscious, asleep or confused when dying -- some, surely. Though I'm sure that some people are very lucid when dying (not necessarily buddhist monks).

I can't say for sure going through jhanas is the "de facto itinerary" for parinibbāna, only that this what the Buddha seemed to have done. And that if we know how to attain jhana, that that is probably what one wants to do before dying, if one hasn't attained arahantship:

  "Here, bhikkhus, secluded from sensual pleasures [...] some person enters and dwells in the first jhāna [...]. He relishes it, desires it, and finds satisfaction in it. If he is firm in it, focused on it, often dwells in it, and has not lost it when he dies, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of Brahmā's company.

  [...] some person enters and dwells in the second jhāna [...]. If he is firm in it, focused on it, often dwells in it, and has not lost it when he dies, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of streaming radiance. [...]"

  [...] some person enters and dwells in the third jhāna [...]. If he is firm in it, focused on it, often dwells in it, and has not lost it when he dies, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of refulgent glory. [...]"

  [...] some person enters and dwells in the fourth jhāna [...]. If he is firm in it, focused on it, often dwells in it, and has not lost it when he dies, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of great fruit. [...]"

  -- AN 4.124

Also, following the same formula of AN 4.124, AN 4.125 associates:

loving-kindness to the company of Brahmā's company
compassion to the company of devas of stream radiance
altruistic joy to the company of devas of refulgent glory
equanimity to the company of devas of great fruit

[Additionally, it also states that a Buddha's disciple, at the end of the life span in these realms, attains nibbāna there, contrasted with a wordling that, after dying in such realms, reappears in a lower realm. AN 4.126 adds to the formula the contemplation of the three marks, which makes one reappears in companionship with the devas of the pure abodes -- a destination not shared with wordlings].

"Can you summarize what conclusion you draw, about..."

In regard to the subject in question:

"How to practice Buddhism now?"

Stay away from unwholesome acts of body, speech and mind, nurture wholesome acts, restrain the 6 senses (sigh this is hard). Study, investigate, meditate. Rinse & repeat... (at least, this is what I try to do).
"What if anything to expect or hope at time of death?"

If jhana is not an option, at the time of my death, I would like to remember to be mindful and equanimous while it happens -- no expectations or hope.
"Whether death and rebirth are even especially worth thinking about (or whether we're even capable of thinking about them), or whether it's more important/useful to think about this life?"

I see no danger in thinking about it. It concerns our existence, after all. Moreover, many religions emphasize the prize of the after life -- this seems to be an important ad to gather adepts.

In the canon, I think a particular sutta might tackle this, titled by Thanissaro Bhikkhu as "A Safe Bet" (MN 60):

  A1. "Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves' — it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives & brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing.

  A2. "Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view.

  A3. "With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is no next world, then — with the breakup of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: [2] one who holds to a doctrine of non-existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad throw twice: in that he is criticized by the observant here-&-now, and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him, covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the skillful.


Strong desire to serve/ordain every meditator at a point in his her life goes through a dilemma of whether to ordain or to live a lay life. Although it's a wholesome disposition, I wonder if its a lack of strength to face problems as a veil that shadows the decision. (It's proven so for me)
But sometimes the emotion to give up lay life is so strong(and then again it's just a emotion-state of mind which is also annicca) that the more I look back, the more I get the feeling I should have done it a long time ago because the fruits even as a lay person are so evident and clear (wonder what pool of calm monastic life will bring around)

The question remains, how can one determine ones decision to ordain, whether it's a strong volition or not (because if it's not I would hate to go back to lay life as a failure and discouraged on the path of Dhamma)

This is a great question and the answers here (from Bakmoon and Suminda) are wonderful. I'll complement with something from my personal experience.

"how can one determine ones decision to ordain, whether it's a strong volition or not"

It may be that going forth ultimately is the single thing one can do to know the true nature of his disposition. But since disrobing may come with a lot of practical difficulties, taking precautions is very valuable: become used to a life without luxuries, familiarize with the monastery, monks and retreats, etc.

But giving the ear to advices may be troublesome, depending on who one seeks out to get advices. There is a common discourse that people looking to become a monk often hear in the west: "you are running away from [blank]".

It may be more articulate than that, when it focuses on debunking the romance of becoming a monk: the idea that things will be so beautiful, you will have 100% of the time to meditate (or do prostrations, or read suttas, or perform all rituals you fantasize about, and wisdom will come quickly, and your teacher will be so and so, etc).

Or it may focus on the idea that a monk's life is easy and therefore, not very fruitful for evolving one's practice: "the lotus grows in the mud, so you should do your practice in the real life, not in the top of a mountain", they say.

On one hand, these are very unhelpful advices, and very disconnected from what monastic life is, and from what buddhism is -- at the minimum, from this rhetoric, no one is suited for monastic life, or should become a monk ever (it is also a little disrespectful, drawing an image of monks as cowards).

On the other, there is a risk of fantasizing with a romantic idea of being a monk and there is a risk of using the going forth as an excuse. I think the best strategy for the first is what others have said here, try to become familiar with monastic life, in order to dispel any fantasies you may have. The antidote for the second is to try to identify if the intention of going forth is the going forth itself, and not just the relief of not having to deal with "[blank]" anymore (its ok to feel good about not having to deal with "[blank]" anymore, but I think this should not be the reason for going forth).


Can a human being reside both in this world and Nirvana at the same time? I've heard Samsara as the term to describe a world with suffering. And it's my simple understanding that Nirvana is the absence of suffering. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

My question is fairly simple, i.e., do all beings in this world "get reborn" through karma, or are there ascended beings in this world, living as human beings, free of all suffering?

My question is fairly simple, i.e., do all beings in this world "get reborn" through karma, or are there ascended beings in this world, living as human beings, free of all suffering?

It is correct, that beings get reborned due to their kamma. Kamma means action, but not just any action. The type we are talking about here is volitional action, i.e. actions where intentionality is present. This type of action is kamically potent. Kamma is created by body, speech and mind. It originates from the Mind and is based in either wholesome or unwholesome roots. Volitional actions have consequences, we call that vipakka which means "ripening" or phala (fruits).

The ripening need not to come right away, i.e. in this life. It can also come in the next life or operate across the succession of lifetimes. If you are interested in reading more about kamma and rebirth, references by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, can be found here.

There are beings in this world that are free some suffering, i.e. Arahants and possibly Pacceka Buddhas (silent Buddhas). These Buddhas are self-enlightened and arise between the time of two fully enlightened Buddhas, e.g. our Buddha, Gautama and the next Buddha to be, Maitreya.

If you would like to read more about Arahants, Pacceka Buddhas and Buddhas, Ven. Yuttadhammo has written about all of them in this answer.


Neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feeling vs not feeling What's the difference? I'm having difficulty thinking of any real neutral feelings I actually experience.

For example, there's eating a food that is perceived as pleasant, and eating a food that is perceived as unpleasant. If your senses were unguarded, you would then experience respectively a pleasant or unpleasant feeling. But, when I eat something that is bland or that could not be considered pleasant or unpleasant, then even thinking back to when I didn't remain mindful and guarded, I can't remember ever feeling neutral about it. I didn't feel anything about it. I just ate it.

Is it simply a matter of how I'm using and understanding the word "feeling" itself?

Edit: It seems what I was getting hung up on was simply a translation/language/connotations issue.
This page explains that it's somewhat different from the common way the word feeling is often used in English. Thank you for your responses.

This is a classic dilemma for almost every new practitioner of Buddhism. The question goes into so much depth and even lead to Nibbana if studied in proper detail. Apologies for the long answer, but there is no shorter way of explaining this.

First things first, everyone feels through their senses. Even the Arahath feels. Otherwise, we would be able to attain Nibbana, by severing the nervous connections. What matters to the Buddhist is not what you feel through the senses; rather, what value you assign for that sensation. Unless you are aware of the process of your mind assigning values to sensations Moha (inability to see things as they are) tricks you to either hold onto that sensation (Lobha) and form attachments or to desist that sensation (Dwesha) and form hatred/dislike towards it. Simply put, we translate the actual sensations into a totally different set of values in out mind.

Wait a minute, those values help me survive. So how can they be bad?
Of cause, some of them will help your survival. As an example moving away from dangerous situation. So, obtaining sensory data is important. But forming attachments and pursuing them or forming hatred and dislike and trying to rid them is the path to generating both 'Sansara' habits (habits that could perpetuate from this life and next) as well as Karma. In Buddhism, all forms of likes and dislikes are attachments. You form attachment to some sensation by liking it, or disliking it.

Not all attachments are bad! If these attachments help you stop the cycle of birth and death, it will bring you positive results. In fact you need such attachments to obtain Nibbana. Be warned, there is a fine line here. At some point in the path to Nibbana you have to sever these attachments. Huh? Yes even the ones which help you attain Nibbana. This is why Budhdha taught us to take Dhamma as a vessel to cross the treacherous river of Sansara, and leave the vessel at the banks rather than carrying it along.

So, how can I distinguish between good attachments and bad?
Simple, if that attachment help you to attain Nibbana, help you to understand Dhamma that is a good attachment. A productive attachment. If the attachment blocks your path to Nibbana, that is a bad attachment. Be warned, we can easily fool ourselves in to classifying even the most notorious actions under this category. Again, a fine line to walk.

So everything is centered around Nibbana?
Yes it is, for a Buddhist. As Buddhists the ultimate freedom from all forms of suffering is Nibbana. Buddhism teaches us that Sansara is a treacherous cycle of endless birth and death, in different forms and planes. As long as there is YOU (one capable of suffering) there will be suffering. Suffering is the way of the world. No one can escape and no one can finish suffering, through the act of suffering. The only way to stop suffering is to remove the sufferer. That is Nibbana, which makes it the most important thing to achieve. It is the solution to ALL your problems!

Why is it bad to assign values to a feeling?
The process of assigning value to feelings is the primary reason for all beings to be slaves of Moha. Moha means the inability to see things as they are.
Lets take an example: Say your partner brings you a piece of cake. And tell you 'I made this specially for you'. You eat the piece of cake and it tastes wonderful. Halfway through, you find lots of dead insects in the cake and get to know that it is from a bakery with some questionable hygiene. If you take the next bite from the cake would it taste as good as before? Would you eat it at all? what changed between learning about the piece of cake, before and after? did the cake change? or your mind?
This is how Moha plays tricks on you. The piece of cake has a taste, a smell and a form. But what you perceive is not the reality because Moha had tricked you. That's why the initial bites before learning more information about it tasted better. You were tricked by Moha into forming Lobha or likeness. Because of that, you feel the form, smell, taste much more than the reality.
Once you learn more information about the cake, Moha tricks you again, by forming Dwesha/dislike towards the cake. You feel betrayed and angry and the cake tastes terrible and you simply don't want to eat it anymore. If we plot the events on a crude graph:

Everything above and below the dotted line which depict the actual taste, smell, feel of the cake are the effect of Moha. When Moha is not operating (at Arahath state) you would be able to feel the true taste of the cake. Nothing more, nothing less. Just the actual. This is why Arhath state is known as 'the awakened state'.

Does this mean most of the time we are perceiving more than we actually feel?
Yes of cause. Until one is Arhath, they will be a slave to Moha, which means they don't see the world as it is. They see their own perception of the world as interpreted through assigned values. This is the main reason for the endless wandering in Sansara.

So how can I guard myself against it?
Stop trying not to feel. That won't work. Try to see the reality of things through understanding of Dhamma. Being mindful and perceiving your thoughts is key. When you see the reality, as an effect of your effort to see things without any bias (without the effects of Moha), you will form less and less attachments, ultimately none - Arhath.

EDIT:
As a person who did not study Buddhism in English, my terminology could be different. So, I have put down some explanations on how certain terms should be taken.

Feeling - What is felt by your senses
Value assignment - Based on our habits and biases, and based on what we uphold as 'good for us', we constantly assign values to what we feel. Our actions are governed by the values we assign. If we take for an example; you have tickets to a musical show and on the same day at the same time you can attend a Dhamma discussion. You have to choose one from the other. Your choice of selection depends on how much you value each experience. (A simile to this is popular among native Americans: "There are two wolves in each person in constant battle. One is good; one is bad. Which one would win the battle?" - The answer is 'the one you feed the most'). Similarly the feelings you pursue define your actions.


Is it necessary to use a whole variety of meditation techniques? I have been practicing samatha, vipassana and metta meditations for over a year.

I came frequently across articles (and questions on this site, primarly this one) describing other types of meditation, which can be rather confusing, because it is not often very clear what differenciate one from another, nor what is their purpose.

Should I worry about all the other meditation techniques out there ? How far should one expect to go by practicing only a combination of samatha, vipassana and metta ?

I found experimentation helpful before I realised that some meditations require some form of mental application or you could refer to it as volitional noise. This, as I learned, became averse to me and so my practice is meditating while 'not doing'. This means I am just simply an observer of bodily phenomenon. It goes much deeper than this as one can observe with a kind of gentle organic intuitive processing which is helpful when seeing the threes marks of existence within the skandhas. Many people have given this meditation different names but I don't concern myself with that. Find your own comfortable technique but use Buddha's guidance as a framework. Here's a beautiful quote from the Diamond Sutra that illustrates this message.

  Awakening does not come from a set method of teachings but an internally intuitive process which is spontaneous and part of one's own inner nature.

Here's an audio version of the Diamond Sutra...

https://youtu.be/HK9u7Jz-vNA


Question about Nichiren Buddhism More specifically, I am refering to the Soka Gakkai movement of Nichiren Buddhism. In one excerpt from the Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, it, in essence, states that every time one says "nam-myoho renge kyo" that is the equivalent to reading the Lotus Sutra one time.

That doesn't really make any sense to me, so, why is that? I have a photo below of the direct excerpt:

Prior to Nichiren's time, reading the Lotus Sutra in its entirety was said to result in benefit, or good effects, in this life and the next. As part of Nichiren's efforts toward his goal of "saving all people" as he put it, he said that reciting the title (prefaced by the Sanskrit word Nam) was enough to gain the same benefit. It is in this context that Nichiren wrote. Here is a quote from the same letter (gosho), The One Essential Phrase, where he provides a rationale. As can be seen, he refers to earlier writers in support of his teaching.

  The spirit within one’s body of five or six feet may appear in just one’s face, which is only a foot long, and the spirit within one’s face may appear in just one’s eyes, which are only an inch across. Included within the two characters representing Japan is all that is within the country’s sixty-six provinces: the people and the animals, the rice paddies and the other fields, those of high and low status, the nobles and the commoners, the seven kinds of treasures and all the other precious gems. Similarly, included within the title, or daimoku, of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is the entire sutra consisting of all eight volumes, twenty-eight chapters, and 69,384 characters, without the omission of a single character. Concerning this, Po Chü-i[1] stated that the title is to the sutra as the eyes are to the Buddha. In the eighth volume of his Annotations on “The Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra,” Miao-lo states, “When for the sake of brevity one mentions only the daimoku, or title, the entire sutra is by implication included therein.” By this he means that, although for the sake of brevity only the title of the sutra is spoken, the entire sutra is contained in the title alone.
  Everything has its essential point, and the heart of the Lotus Sutra is its title, or the daimoku, of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. Truly, if you chant this in the morning and evening, you are correctly reading the entire Lotus Sutra.

And another, similar, quote from a different letter, Expedient Means and “Life Span” Chapters -

  First of all, when it comes to the Lotus Sutra, you should understand that, whether one recites all eight volumes, or only one volume, one chapter, one verse, one phrase, or simply the daimoku, or title, the blessings are the same. It is like the water of the great ocean, a single drop of which contains water from all the countless streams and rivers, or like the wish-granting jewel, which, though only a single jewel, can shower all kinds of treasures upon the wisher. And the same is true of a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, or a million such drops of water or such jewels. A single character of the Lotus Sutra is like such a drop of water or such a jewel, and the hundred million characters[6] are like a hundred million such drops or jewels.

(the quotes were added in response to a request in the comments.)


14 questions left unanswered I am questioning myself and my practice of answering questions and was stopped by the following website.

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level4_deepening_understanding_path/interferences/fourteen_questions_which_buddha_rem.html

  There are fourteen unspecified points (lung-du ma-bstan-pa bcu-bzhi),
  which are points about which Buddha did not specify an answer when
  asked. Often this set of fourteen is referred to as the “fourteen
  questions to which Buddha remained silent.”

  The Mahayana Version To those who believe in a true findably existent
  “me” or “self” (bdag, Skt. atman) and a true findably existent
  universe, Buddha did not answer when they asked are the “I” or the
  “self” and the universe:

  eternal, not eternal, since they undergo gross impermanence at the
  time of their destruction, as both, in the sense that some beings and
  their environments, like the Creator Brahma and his heaven, are
  eternal; while all else, such as his creations, are not eternal and
  end at the time of their destruction, neither, since it is impossible
  to  know?  Are “I’s” or “selves” and the universe:

  finite, infinite, both finite and infinite, in the sense that limited
  beings (sentient beings) are infinite in number, but the universe is
  finite in size, neither, since it is impossible to know?  Does the “I”
  or the “self” of a Buddha:

  continue to exist after death, not continue after death, both, in the
  sense that the body does not continue, but the life-force (srog) does,
  neither?  Buddha did not answer these because there is no such thing
  as a true findably existent “me” or “ self” for either limited beings
  (sentient beings) or a Buddha, and no such thing as a true findably
  existent universe. Therefore, there can be no question whether such
  things are eternal or not eternal, or finite or infinite. It is like
  asking do rabbit-horns, turtle-hair or chicken-lips last forever or
  only a limited time. If Buddha said the “me,” and so on are eternal,
  these people would fall to the position of eternalism. If he said they
  are not eternal, they would fall to the position of nihilism, since
  they would not understand his answer. Therefore, it was more skillful
  not to specify an answer at all.

  To those who believe in a true findably existent body and life-force,
  Buddha did not answer when they asked are the body and life-force:

  the same entity, totally separate and different entities?  He remained
  silent for a similar reason, since they would only misunderstand
  anything he said.

The question is in 2 parts, but they are really part of the same question of how questions and answers benefit our practice.

A) Do you agree that the Buddha did not address these points in his sermons?

(B) How does this questioning and answering aid our practice that moves toward awakening and what benefit can be derived from asking the type of questions we ask and answering the type of questions we answer?

I think the answer is in the article. They were not answered because they were formulated around finding the consequences of premises which are not true, the findably existent self or universe.

There is at best no sense in answering them "I believe the moon to be made of cheese: is it Wensleydale or Gorgonzola?"; more likely they would lead to misunderstandings and cause suffering.


is the 'magical'/spiritual world another dimension of mind and thus an illusion I have a question. is the 'magical'/spiritual world another dimension of mind and thus an illusion to leave through meditation whether it is obviously part of life and not one men's mind time?
in my experience, I'm very happy and easily, but still straggle with 'the magical/spiritual world (sorry I don't use scholars words, or being careful enough) starts to be clearer and nice. I start to like it after many years. but I still got the feeling - although its my daily reality, and I need to deal with it in the best way I can and learn it - that it might be also a level of illusion, that I have to get out of. I still like the simple life. its easier and lovely enough... so I'm between - 1. maybe that is my ego denying the real truth... should I focus on something special, or just go on with this nice tour. 2. I admit, a lot of that is west of time for me when it comes to others differences: like again and again. ok there is no me, but we know that already, and your angry still, and I'm tiered, or at that point I don't know what to do.... the good side is the 'little monks' (nick name) with them its at home and happy, joy, not u me, and good perspective, wisdom... but because of the duality, pleasant not pleasant... it always like maybe I should stop talking at all - like treat all of that like mind, time - yes not only mine, but still the same, and just let it flow in silence, meditate. is that the answer? it sounds like a good answer. is it to lie, to insist emptiness is the truth, or sort of miss understanding the world.
thank you <3

To insist emptiness is the reality without having realized what the words mean brings no benefit..  in order to become realized one must train in both merit/virtues and wisdom.  Through gathering the two accumulations of merit and wisdom one can arrive at the perfectly awakened state.

What is your question?  The entire world is rather magical!


How did Buddha's teachings about samsara differ from earlier Indian tradition? Even before the Buddha, the wheel of birth and death was a common teaching in India, with the six stages or realms. This is something that has passed down into Buddhism (even today). What did the Buddha add to this traditional teaching, and how does the Buddhist conception of samsara differ from this older teaching?

I’m not sure what you mean by six stages here.  Actually, it seems that the rebirth/samsara concept was not that old when Buddhism came on the scene.  Gananath Obeyesekere is an anthropologist who wrote a book about rebirth across a range of cultures.  He begins by trying to situate the Buddhist idea of ethical rebirth in the history of Indian religion:

  I will begin with Hinduism and the problem of origins.  The association between karma and rebirth is not at all clear in the earliest texts and discourses on Indic religions.  There are virtually no references to rebirth or to an ethical notion of karma in the Vedas or in the BrāhmaNas, the oldest texts belonging to the Hindu tradition.  The first significant references appear in an early Upanishad, the BRhadāraNyaka UpaniSad, probably composed sometime before the sixth century BCE, followed by the Chāndogya and the KauSītaki.  A hundred years or more later these theories appear in full bloom in the so-called heterodox religions – particularly in Buddhism and Jainism – that have karma and rebirth at the center of their escatological thinking.  Soon afterward these ideas surface in mainstream Hinduism itself and become an intrinsic part of the eschatological premises of virtually all Indic religions.

Karma in the Vedas and karma in Buddhism are different:

  The word karma, which etymologically means “action,” has the meaning of “ritual action” in Vedic (pre-Buddhist and pre-Upanishadic) thought, where it is neither fundamentally ethical nor related to rebirth.  By contrast, in Buddhism karma refers to intentional ethical action that determines the nature and place of rebirth, and this definition of karma has influenced the many Hinduisms that came after.

In The Wonder that was India, A. L. Basham writes about “transmigration” as a new development in Indic religion:

  As Āryan culture pressed further down the Ganges it absorbed new ideas about the after-life.  In the Rg Veda the fate of the dead seems to have been finally decided when they died – they went either to the “World of the Fathers” or to the “House of Clay”, where they remained indefinitely.

Basham cites the same Upanishad text as Obesekere as the first appearance of the rebirth doctrine, but in a “primitive” form.  In this text, he points out,

  this doctrine [...] is put forward as a rare and new one, and was not universally held at the time of the composition of the UpaniSad.  Even in the days of the Buddha, transmigration may not have been believed in by everyone, but it seems to have gained ground very rapidly in the 7th and 6th centuries BC.

It’s impossible for us to know if the rebirth concept came from some other tradition within India, since no texts have survived.  Anyway, it seems to have been “in the air” during the Buddha’s lifetime.  Probably the intellectual appeal of the concept, the justification it gives to ethical behavior, helped Buddhism spread and establish itself.  Also, the whole point of Obeyesekere’s book is that this idea is not unique to India – you also find it in Native American cultures, for instance.

Sources (bold text is my emphasis):

Gananath Obesekere, Imagining Karma:  Ethical Transformation in Amerindian, Buddhist and Greek Rebirth (U. of California Press, 2002), pp. 1-2.

A.L. Basham, The Wonder that was India, (Rupa 3rd ed., 1967), p. 242.