What increases the Anisanasa of Dāna (the rewards of giving)? I have an unclear thing about Anisansa (Rewards). Is it more powerful giving something to more religious person (Buddhist monks) than giving it normal person?
Could you please tell me a Sutra which talks about this.

Thank you.
Theruwan Saranai,
Tharindu

Ananda, there are these 4 purifications of giving (catu dakkhiṇa,visuddhi). What are the four?
(1) There is, Ānanda, the gift that is purified on account of the
giver, but not the recipients.
(2) There is, Ānanda, the gift that is purified on account of the
recipients, but not the giver.
(3) There is, Ānanda, the gift that is purified on account of neither
the giver nor the recipients.
(4) There is, Ānanda, the gift that is purified on account of both
the giver and the recipients.
(1) And how, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of the giver, but
not the recipients? Here, Ānanda, the giver is morally virtuous, good
by nature, but the recipients are immoral, bad by nature. Thus,
Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of the giver, but not the
recipient.
(2) And how, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of the
recipients, but not the giver? Here, Ānanda, the giver is immoral, bad
by nature, the recipient is morally virtuous, good by nature. Thus,
Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of the recipients, but not the
giver.
(3) And how, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of neither the giver nor the recipients? Here, Ānanda, the giver is
immoral, bad by nature, and the recipients are immoral, bad by nature.
Thus, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of neither the giver nor
the recipients.
(4) And how, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of both the giver
and the recipients? Here, Ānanda, the giver is morally virtuous, good
by nature, and the recipients, too, are morally virtuous, good by
nature. Thus, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of both the
giver and the recipients.”
These, Ananda, are the 4 kinds of purification of giving
-Dakkhina Vibhanga Sutta

So, yes it is more meritorious to give to  someone more virtuous. The best scenario is if both the giver and recipient are virtuous.
Other factors that make the gift great:

Gift is given attentively
Gift is given respectfully, in person.
Gift is given with the view that it is good Karma.
Gift is useful to the recipient


Why is a sotāpanna defined as unable to take another teacher and unable to commit matricide? Among the descriptions of stream-enterer (sotāpanna) is one which says that they is not capable of committing six wrong actions:

  Murdering one's own mother.
  Murdering one's own father.
  Murdering an arahant.
  Maliciously injuring the Buddha to the point of drawing blood.
  Deliberately creating a schism in the monastic community.
  Taking another teacher.

Question:

Do the scriptures and/or commentators say something about the significance of this particular selection of actions? Why are these (and not some other) actions the ones which cannot be committed?
Is it suggested hereby that creating a schism in the monastic community is as grave an action as patricide, matricide or murder of a holy and peaceful person?
Does it also mean that taking another teacher is like wounding one's teacher, which is as terrible an offence as patricide, matricide, murder etc?

A stream winner is not capable of creating schism and taking another teacher, because a stream winner has verified confidence (i.e. conviction resulting from experiential realization) in the Buddha, the Dhamma (his teachings) and the Sangha (the monastic community).

From the Vera Sutta:

  "And which are the four factors of stream-entry with which he is
  endowed?

  "There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed
  with verified confidence in the Awakened One: 'Indeed, the Blessed One
  is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct,
  well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer
  for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human
  beings, awakened, blessed.'

  "He is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is
  well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless,
  inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for
  themselves.'

  "He is endowed with verified confidence in the Sangha: 'The Sangha of
  the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who have
  practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who
  have practiced masterfully — in other words, the four pairs, the eight
  individuals [1] — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples:
  worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of
  respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.'

The Sangha referred above is composed of eight types of individuals:

  The four pairs are (1) the person on the path to stream-entry, the
  person experiencing the fruit of stream-entry; (2) the person on the
  path to once-returning, the person experiencing the fruit of
  once-returning; (3) the person on the path to non-returning, the
  person experiencing the fruit of non-returning; (4) the person on the
  path to arahantship, the person experiencing the fruit of arahantship.
  The eight individuals are the eight types forming these four pairs.

It doesn't say that those are offences. It says that a stream winner is not capable of these acts. Since a stream winner is fully convinced in the Buddha and his teachings, he is not capable of taking another teacher. A stream winner has also reached the level of spiritual maturity that makes him incapable of committing matricide, patricide and murder of an enlightened person.

Not just matricide, patricide and killing arahant, according to the Cakkhu Sutta, the stream winner "is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades." Also in this verse, The Buddha said "the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed."


How did the Buddha subdue fear and terror while standing, sitting, etc.? The Bhaya Bherava Sutta (MN4) states the following:

...I stayed in the sort of places that are awe-inspiring and make your hair stand on end, such as park-shrines, forest-shrines, & tree-shrines. And while I was staying there a wild animal would come, or a peacock would make a twig fall, or wind would rustle the fallen leaves. The thought would occur to me: 'Is this that fear & terror coming?' Then the thought occurred to me: 'Why do I just keep waiting for fear?
What if I, in whatever state I'm in when fear & terror come to me,
were to subdue that fear & terror in that very state?' So when fear &
terror came to me while I was walking back & forth, I would not stand
or sit or lie down. I would keep walking back & forth until I had
subdued that fear & terror. When fear & terror came to me while I was
standing, I would not walk or sit or lie down. I would keep standing
until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear & terror came to me
while I was sitting, I would not lie down or stand up or walk. I would
keep sitting until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear &
terror came to me while I was lying down, I would not sit up or stand
or walk. I would keep lying down until I had subdued that fear &
terror.

However, it does not say how the Buddha subdued the fear and terror while standing, sitting, etc. How could a practitioner understand and use this method?

Buddha has given a detailed answer to handling fear and trepidation in the Sutta SN 11.3. Below I quote the relevant part:

  “But, bhikkhus, I say this: If you have gone to a forest or to the
  foot of a tree or to an empty hut, and fear or trepidation or terror
  should arise in you, on that occasion you should recollect me thus:
  ‘The Blessed One is an arahant, perfectly enlightened, accomplished in
  true knowledge and conduct, fortunate, knower of the world,
  unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and
  humans, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.’ For when you recollect
  me, bhikkhus, whatever fear or trepidation or terror you may have will
  be abandoned.

  “If you cannot recollect me, then you should recollect the Dhamma
  thus: ‘The Dhamma is well expounded by the Blessed One, directly
  visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be
  personally experienced by the wise.’ For when you recollect the
  Dhamma, bhikkhus, whatever fear or trepidation or terror you may have
  will be abandoned.

  “If you cannot recollect the Dhamma, then you should recollect the
  Saṅgha thus: ‘The Saṅgha of the Blessed One’s disciples is practising
  the good way, practising the straight way, practising the true way,
  practising the proper way; that is, the four pairs of persons, the
  eight types of individuals—this Saṅgha of the Blessed One’s disciples
  is worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy
  of reverential salutation, the unsurpassed field of merit for the
  world.’ For when you recollect the Saṅgha, bhikkhus, whatever fear or
  trepidation or terror you may have will be abandoned.

To answer the question How did the Buddha manage fear? I would say that he recalled Dhamma. If anyone recalls Dhamma, all the fear will vanish or fade away.


The will, and rebirth This question made me want to explain my belief / theory of rebirth.

Does anyone ever at all even somewhat suggest that when we are "reborn" we do not inhabit the new birth in the sense of controlling or willing its actions. That (in a way UNLIKE being "reborn" into our future selves before death) people can only ever be responsible for e.g. their enlightenment - in this life?

Or is there not such a profound difference between life now (- and just now) opposed to life after death ?

Not according to U Dhammaratana's commentary on the Visuddhimaga... There it is said:

  It could be said that they [kamma-bhava and sankhara] are two
  different ways of sayin the same thing

Kamma-bhava is what recreates the next rebirth. Sankhara is kamma-bhava considered without the "associated mental states".

I think I see no way round this, besides questioning Buddhaghosa or the accuracy of the commentary. Unless sankhara is empty in a different way to kamma-bhava :/


Vegetarianism in Buddhism on different schools Namo Buddhaya

I want to ask something related to vegetarianism in Buddhism. This question started when I read about vegetarianism according to several schools of Buddhism such as Theravada and Mahayana.

According to Theravada, the Buddha allows Buddhist and monks to consume meat if it is not seen, heard, or suspected as a sentient being is not slaughtered only for the eater. This is stated in Jivaka Sutta, MN 55. There were also monastic guidelines in Theravada stated that Buddhists are prohibited to eat 10 types of meat such as humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, leopards, bears and hyenas. This is because these animals can be provoked by the smell of the flesh of their own kind, or because eating of such flesh would generate a bad reputation for the Sangha. This makes sense for me but why is cat not included ? So, the monks are not prohibited to eat meat and the rule is also not stated in the Vinaya (227 Patimokkha precepts).

According to Mahayana, the Buddha doesn't allow his followers not to eat any kind of meat. Even if vegetarian food has been touched by meat, it needs to be washed away before it can be eaten. The Mahayana's precepts refer to the Dharmadatu. It means when you eat the flesh of a sentient being, it is the same as you eat the flesh of a single dhatu. For example, when you eat a chicken's flesh, it is the same as you eat the flesh of the chicken's mother.

The 2 schools have made me confused which one is the right one? Why the Buddha's preaching about vegetarianism is not same in Theravada and Mahayana schools. Is the Buddha who preached about those not only Sidharta Gautama? However, because of this confusing, I take the own way or Middle way, that is, not to eat meat too often in order to save the world because of the green house gases.

I hope the Buddhists here can help me to attain bright explanation of vegetarianism in buddhism. I'm sorry if there are misintrepreted sentences from me. Thank you

Sabbe Satta Bhavantu Sukhitatta. I hope all sentient beings can live happily.

According to Mahayana, the Buddha doesn't allow his followers not to
  eat any kind of meat.

To my limited knowledge, this statement is not true. What I mean is that:

I do not know of any Mahayana sutra in which the Buddha proscribed the eating of meat.
There is no Pratimoksha vow (neither in the Mūlasarvāstivāda nor in the Dharmagupta linage) prohibiting even a monk to eat meat.

However, it is true that Mahayana tends to encourage the stoppage of meat consumption. For instance:

One of the 8 Mahayana 24 hours precepts says not to eat at inappropriate times. Most Mahayana institutions interpret it to mean (in addition to not eating after lunch) not to eat black food. In this respect, Lama Yeshe says:

  Fasting. The foods we shouldn’t have are onion, garlic, eggs, and
  meat—these are recognized as black foods. Also, radish has a bad
  element, a bad power. Taking these foods affects the pure power of the
  mind. If we are only concerned for the body, it is okay, but for a
  person practicing Dharma and following precepts the reason is keeping
  the body clean but not with attachment. These foods destroy the power
  of the body and the power of the mind, making one sleepy, unconscious,
  and so on.

Master Padmasambhava, the founder of Tibetan Buddhism, stated in his terma Jewel Lamp Commentary on the Three Roots: “The eating of meat should be gradually stopped,..."
In some countries where Mahayana strives, it is expected of monks and nuns not to eat meat. It is even expected of them to eat vegan. Such is the case of Vietnam, for instance, where I went last summer. It is not because of the Pratimoksha, but because it is expected of monks holding the bodhisattva vows to express compassion in this way. It is a matter of principle, since there is no bodhisattva vow prohibiting the eating of meat.

I do not think it is related to the Dharmadhatu, but simply to the notion that eating meat amounts to eating the flesh of a sentient being that used to be one's mother. If anything, it is related to karma, rebirth and compassion. It is because the seven-fold training to arise the mind of enlightenment - bodhicitta - includes remembering that all sentient beings have been our mother, remembering their kindness, wanting to repay their kindness, generating compassion, etc.

Although Mahayana tends to encourage the stoppage of eating meat, several Mahayana practitioners do eat meat in fact. For instance, there is a great practitioner who eats so much meat that, when she approaches our area, we say the cows are crying.

Khenpo Sodargye Rinpoche gives his view on vegetarianism.


Other than Nirvana , what else is not changing? It is said that Nirvana is not changing. But I found a text here which states that dharma of conditioned arising is unchanging.

  The Buddha said to the monk: “Conditioned arising was neither made by
  me, nor made by others. Whether a Tathāgata arises in the world or
  not, this element of dharma remains unchanging.

If sabbe dhamma anatta then how is it possible that Dhamma of conditioned arising is not changing ?
And is it possible that Nirvana and Dhamma of conditioned arising are the same?

This answer is in the context of the Tibetan Gelug School and is taught in modern Buddhist Monasteries of this tradition.

Uncompounded space (as opposed to the usual idea of space) is a permanent phenomenon. This is the standard example of an existing thing that is permanent. Like emptiness, uncompounded space is taught to be a non-affirming negation. So what is uncompounded space? First, we have to understand what compounded space is...

Compounded space is the vacuum between material things. Take two material objects (made of matter) that are spacelike separated. This means not only do they not occupy the same space, but that they have a vacuity between them. Imagine they are placed in the void of deep space with a meter of distance between them. In this meter of distance between them, there is no air, there are no molecules, no matter. This is what is meant by compounded space.

Uncompounded space is the complete absence of obstructive contact. Those two things we imagined above are spacelike separated and sitting in a void. They have no contact with anything. They have a complete absence of obstructive contact. They are sitting, if you like, in uncompounded space.

This is thought of as a permanent phenomenon and not dependent on causes and conditions. How can it be said to be independent of causes and conditions? Unlike compounded space, it does not rely upon matter. Whether there is something sitting in uncompounded space or not, the mere absence of obstructive contact remains. It is unproduced.

Objection! Doesn't this mean that uncompounded space contains a self? Doesn't it mean that it is inherently existent?

Answer... No, because it is a mere non-affirming negation. It is the mere lack of obstruction. No matter how hard you look "inside" of uncompounded space you will find nothing. There is no inherently existent self in uncompounded space that can be found. This is what is meant by a non-affirming negation. There is nothing left whatsoever to be reified.

Objection! But isn't uncompounded space an independent phenomena?

Answer... No, it is dependent upon name and designation. It is empty of inherent existence just like all phenomena.


When one analyzes Saṅkhāras, where does 'unconditioned' fit in? When one analyzes Saṅkhāras, where does 'unconditioned' fit in?

The word means 'formations'[1] or 'that which has been put together'
and 'that which puts together'.

I take this to mean something about parts and wholes, as well as causation. But what about "the unconditioned": will it appear as cognitive residue or by-product of establishing every conditioned thing, or is it an object of cognition one gets to? Or what exactly?

Formation is okay, back two other meaning are not okay.
Sankhara are coworker originators.
Sankhata are lucky men or victims.
Every aggregates must be many cause states (conditioners) and many effect states (conditioned).
There are only two unconditioned, Nibbāna and Illusion (Paññatti, included name).
Nibbāna, a reality, is not conditioned by any Sankhara because it is  the cessation state of Sankhara. It is the opposite of conditioned. Whoever , aggregates, knew Nibbāna must going to never born by conditioners again in 7 births. It is never arise but it is still a state either one know it or not. And  who want to know this reality must practice hard follow the Buddha only, except SammāSambuddha and PaccekaSambuddha.
Illusion (Paññatti, included name) is not conditioned because it is just imagination which must  imagined by  someone. It is not reality, not truth. And it is not the opposite of aggregates because erything, all aggregates, Nibbāna and all Illusions, can be imagined by thinking (mind;Cittu-Uppāda).
See Abhidhamma, especially Patthāna (24 conditions), for more information.


Question on Dhammapada 124 That is a question that emerged from a previous discussion, but here I would like to focus on this story.

From the background story:

"Venerable Sir, is the wife of the hunter who is a sotapanna, also not guilty of taking life, if she has been getting things like nets, bows and arrows for her husband when he goes out hunting?" To this question the Buddha answered, "Bhikkhus, the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed. The wife of the hunter was only obeying her husband in getting things for him. Just as the hand that has no wound is not affected by poison, so also, because she has no intention to do evil she is not doing any evil."

Question: Does it mean that if you work for a company that sells weapons or intoxicants and you do not directly sell or produce it, you also had no opportunity to find another job (it is what you got to pay your bills), you are blameless like the wife of the hunter?

It seems this was already answered sufficiently here:

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1421/18

(Posting as an answer just to get this resolved)


What is the difference between a habit and an addiction? Is it related to practice meditation ? Can I say that our respected individuality is a kind of 'self accepted and adopted' addiction ?

It's more like an English language question. A habit is a routine of behavior that can be good, bad or neutral. From a Buddhist perspective, one can define addiction as clinging(Upadana) towards sensations. Addiction results in bad habits.

Upadana paccaya Bhava - Paticca-samuppāda


Vipassana Meditation If I'm meditating for example with music and I am aware of the changes of the music that is impermanence right? If I breathe in and out that is impermanence? However, how do I see dukkha and not self (especially not self)? Dukkha can be a scratch for instance?

One last question: In Vipassana one experiences all three characteristics, but does one also contemplate on all threes or is that a seperate meditation? Thanks in advance!

Do not meditate with music. It's distracting. Go to a quiet place with the least number of distractions.

There's no such thing called 'breathing'. Breathing is a concept. What you should focus on is the feeling at the nose when the air hits inside. Do not make more than what the senses can feel. All that is felt is the cold, warm, smooth or rough sensations rising and falling. Simply keep noting that. If you happen to hear something, just note it as hearing. Don't make more out of it. Same attitude with any other sensation or thought.

Do not try to thinkup impermanence, suffering and non-self. That is like digging a hole in the ground, putting water to it and calling it a water well. The proper way is to keep digging until you find water. In the same way, keep noting the sensations/thoughts and the 3 characteristics will reveal themselves when the mind is matured.

Here is a handbook for you: https://www.sirimangalo.org/text/how-to-meditate/


Should my happiness be dependent on the suffering of others? Once I asked a wise man "Why should I be happy?" He said "Because there are people more miserable than you. Thank God that at least you are better than them."
There are couple of depressed kids living in my neighborhood(people call them mad). Sometimes I feel happy that at least I am not depressed or mad. I use their depression as a reason for my happiness.

My question is (from the Buddhist point of view): Should my happiness be dependent upon the suffering of others? In other words should my happiness be dependent upon my ability to find an example of new low in the human suffering?

For the question, "Why should I be happy?", if the answer is, "Because there are people more miserable than you. Thank God that at least you are better than them," I think this is not an answer appropriate for Buddhism.

The reason is that today there are other people worse off than you, but in the future, it is also possible that you are worse off than them. That's anicca - nothing is permanent. This answer also shows a lack of compassion and loving-kindness.

Instead, you can generate happiness through the Brahmavihara of loving-kindness (metta), to wish that both you and them would be happy, safe and at ease.

The other Brahmavihara is compassion (karuna). If you can't alleviate the sufferings of others, at the very least, you can contribute towards not increasing their suffering.

From the Karaniya Metta Sutta:

  Think: Happy, at rest,
  may all beings be happy at heart.
  Whatever beings there may be,
  weak or strong, without exception,
  long, large, middling, short,
  subtle, blatant, seen & unseen,
  near & far, born & seeking birth:
  May all beings be happy at heart.

  Let no one deceive another
  or despise anyone anywhere,
  or through anger or irritation
  wish for another to suffer.

  As a mother would risk her life
  to protect her child, her only child,
  even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
  with regard to all beings.

  With good will for the entire cosmos,
  cultivate a limitless heart:
  Above, below, & all around, unobstructed,
  without enmity or hate.
  Whether standing, walking,
  sitting, or lying down,
  as long as one is alert,
  one should be resolved on this mindfulness.
  This is called a sublime abiding
  here & now.


Buddhist monks give advice for lay life Would you say that it is appropriate for a monk to give advice to the laity in how to live life/dealing with obstacles?

Now don't get me wrong, but monks certainly have "safer" environments. They are much less exposed to stimulating sensory input as well as life problems. I am by nature quite skeptical and cannot really take a monk serious if he gives tips and at the same time  does not follow these tips (or rather that lifestyle). How can a monk give relationship advice? Sure, the Dhamma gives such, but then it's just intellectual knowledge given by a monk, but that advice has not been practised by him.

I think the whole "problem" starts with titles like "venerable" or the admiration of monks/nuns. Again, don't get me wrong, seeing in them a role model and paying homage to them because they delivered proper dhamma is appropriate, but one should always keep in mind that they are UNIQUE, COMPLEX (in that they think, feel and do good, bad and neutral things) and FALLIBLE.

Anyone made same experiences? Advice? Opinions?

In the same vein as ChrisW's answer, I would ask you, "You and I live different lives.  I do not live your life.  Is it appropriate for me to give advice?"  The answer is generally "yes," especially in the position you have chosen to put yourself in, asking us for advice on this forum. =)  So what is the difference between me giving you advice on a life I don't live and a monk giving you advice on a life he or she does not live?  One may argue that it's a level of differentiation, but that immediately begs the question of what level of differentiation is appropriate?

Indeed, is it not reasonable to seek advice from everybody?  I know that, in my culture, we prize the ability of children to see things through their young eyes and reveal what we cannot see ourselves.  Of course, we aren't obliged to follow their advice either.  If we were, my toddler would have far more cookies in her diet!

You point to the title of "venerable" as an object of concern.  Alan Watts had a line of reasoning in one of his lectures that addressed this issue.  He focused on the concept of the teacher, and asked "From what does the authority of a teacher come from?"  What gives a teacher the right to tell you what to do.  The answer he offered: "The authority of the teacher comes from the student."  If someone wishes to learn from another, they might say "hey, tell ya what.  I'll call you teacher, and you call me student," and from that the authority stems forth.

As you say, they are fallible.  But they have also devoted a tremendous amount of time to seeing the world through eyes very different from your own.  If they are willing to share their advice with you, that should be seen as a blessing.

I can call myself "venerable" if I want.  It's just a word.  Whether anyone wishes to act upon my claim is entirely up to them.  However, as a general statement, we find that the lay society has decided that when a monk or nun is called "venerable," we really mean it.  There is something special there.  You obviously don't have to take my word for it.  I have no authority.  But the fact that lay society accepts that monks and nuns can and should be given this title is something worth noting, and you should decide what to derive from it.  If I were in a position of authority, I'd argue that it indicates that your peers have found their advice is worth heeding, but as I stated, no authority here besides that which you give me.


What reference to other powers are there in Buddhism? Does Buddhism, other than Amidism, describe or explain entities like Amida, or any other "other power," or intra-psychic, in yer mind, other.
I did not mean to consider whether Buddhism is theistic or not.

Pigeonholing Buddhism into theistic or atheistic category betrays ignorance of the relationship between reality and its description.
Theistic concepts such as gods, souls, afterlife, other realms etc. are all descriptions referring to certain phenomena observable in the real life.
Most of these phenomena are of such nature that speaking about them in other terms is hard or impossible. So over the centuries humanity developed a kind of partially metaphorical / partially exaggerated / partially simplified vocabulary that we now know as "the supernatural" and "the metaphysical".
Then, on top of that useful if a little inaccurate vocabulary, a hundred generations of people overlaid their fairy tales and anecdotes. Then on top of this folklore came systematizers who wrote down the canons and catechisms. The mixture of these three layers is what we know as a religion.
When we talk about Buddhism, the conversation would get a lot more clear if we were to drop the two later layers and focus on the original set of ideas used to describe phenomena that don't have adequate representation in materialistic let alone scientific vocabularies.
I claim that ideas such as gods, spirits, other worlds, and other seemingly fictional elements are simplified descriptions or real things going on in the real world you and I live in. There's no room in this answer for going in details but at least I have made the claim.
If we suspend our judgment and assume (hypothetically) that my claim is grounded in reality, then we will have to say that the difference between theistic and non theistic Buddhism is moot. In fact we would have to say that what we know as traditional Buddhism is probably more complete while secular Buddhism artificially restricts itself to a subset of reality that is included in the modern materialistic description while leaving the other important phenomena out just because we are not aware of them and don't understand them enough to describe in our own words.


If devas are real, than why don't they show us themself? If semigods/devas/dities are their, than why don't they tell us that they do exists, so that people will follow dharma with out doubt?

They are around, just that you don't see them. Likewise bacterias are everywhere, you don't see them.
Not seeing/hearing is not existing obviously is scientifically proven false, but people tend to dwell in this fallacy without remorse.
The way to learn is to improve the capacity. Bacterias can be seen by inventing microscope, but the Buddha seen them 2500 years ago. Maybe one day someone can invent devascope to see them; yet again you can learn what Buddha was capable and see them ?year ahead the inventor ~ :D

- The OP asks for elaboration, I extend my answer -
Dialogue for those who's minds are not contaminated by the neo-Buddhist. (Neo-Buddhists - those who believed in their "scientifically-authenticated-Buddha".)
Prelude:
Buddhists from tradition and Buddhists at heart are seeing the emerging of the trend of neo-Buddhism, a Buddhism invented by applying so-called scientific methods, surgical skills and dissecting analysis are callously utilized. Taking the convenient standpoint that Buddhism is a religion/(not a religion) appealed to reasoning, unlike Christianity or other faith-based. Therefore, anything that's not scientifically proven should be stripped, for it's either misunderstanding/mis-translating the words, primitive superstitions or later additions by fanatic religious... etc. In a nutshell, they want to reduce the Buddha to be a merely human, any feature of Buddha a Buddha is committing suicidal scientific fraud.
Traditional Buddhist and Buddhist at heart knows the Buddha is the Buddha, yet Buddha is also human therefore it completed the teaching that we humans can become the Buddha, or be liberated forever like the Arhat/Arahant by dwelling in Nirvana.
The blindness of the neo-Buddhist is that they equal reasoning with science. Science is only one of the many methods for searching the ultimate, science is not the ultimate. Reasoning includes scientific methods, but scientific methods not the totality of reasoning. Buddha's teaching is the teaching from the ultimate, he is not searching for the ultimate; reasoning is a method taught by the Buddha to realize the ultimate by oneself, reasoning itself is not the ultimate.
We are seeing science characterized by the ability to re-adjust itself, such as Newtonian physics disproved by Einstein's Relativity. The day will come when E=mc2 being disproved (I said the c, speed of light, is false. How do I know? I learnt it from the Sutras - not directly the Sutra with explicitly this saying but one has to really get it). This is the goodie of science - being able to adjust; the very way science survived is by disproving itself. Applicable is this rebuttal logic used by the Epicurean refuter on "pursuing happiness is the very reason happiness will never be obtained by the pursuer", likewise science is refuted. We can never predict what science will come up next, but surely can predict whatever come up next will be refuted late; hence a sound mind can infer thus see clearly that "scientific methods" we called nowadays can never obtain the ultimate. Therefore, can we trust scientific authentication? You know better than me. Do you trust someone who come up day after another day, time after another time, telling you, "Sorry, what I said before was wrong, in fact it should be so and so...?"
The Dialogue:
Why don't the Devas show us themselves? I don't think I can answer this question on behalf of the Devas, or as the envoy of the Devas ;). Ultimately one should get his own answer by knowing it directly himself. But I put in my two cents to enrich this investigation:
A) It's really as hinted above, they are around but we don't see them since we don't have the ability to see them, nor it's their duty to let themselves be seen by us.
Here is the incident I read in the Vinaya, that may illustrate this: A Bhiksu/Bhikkhu chopped down certain village sacred tree for building his little hut, the tree Deva's kid just playing around that tree accidentally being chopped off his finger. The tree Deva, devastated, went straight to complain to the Buddha... You see, here this Bhiksu is definitely unable to see, if, for example, he didn't get accomplishment in Dhyana/Jhana. Else he wouldn't chop off the Deva kid's finger, nor it's for the kid to make himself visible in normal circumstance; the Deva didn't file complaint to him directly since he wasn't able to see him.
B) Only with special cause that the Deva to the human can be seen.
A case to illustrate this is from a linked Sutta I read in this forum. In it talked about a Bhikkhu visited by a Deva requested to bring him to the Buddha for asking a question, for the Buddha was surrounded by many higher Devas he didn't have a chance to get near. The reason for this Deva to seek for his help was due to in eons lives before, they were relatives... or something like that.
Therefore, there must be cause (Karma) to fulfill the criteria. Likewise, Aishwarya Rai won't come to see everyone in Mumbai, but she may come to see her friend if she has one there.
C) It's not allowed for the Devas to take "mass-appearing" to induce people following Dharma/Dhamma, for it violated the rule:
(i) Another incident I read in Vinaya, about Maudgalyāyana/Moggallāna being accused faking Dhyana/Jhana for he told the rest that State A would win the battle against State B for he saw the Yaksas (city protecting Deva of State A) winning the other Yaksas in their battle. But it turned out the opposite for while M. reporting this the battle of the Devas made a significant turn...
(ii) Another case I read from the Sutra, said Śakra/Sakka paying tribute to the Buddha for Buddha's teaching turned more people to good hence it increased his citizens decreased the Asura's citizens.
Therefore it shows that the Deva worlds and human world are synchronizing, the battle of the Devas is playing out in the human world, so is the human world reflected back to the higher realm. Imagine, if the Devas made their mass-appearing to induce followers, then the Asuras will do the same, then the battlefield will be shifted to the human world... can the human world sustain such turmoil? (I think the Mahābhārata was such event happened eons ago when Planet Earth was the celestial realm, or semi-celestial realm, before it degraded to be only suitable for humans).
(iii) Last, the Parinirmita-vaśavartin (pleasure from other's pleasure), the highest of the celestial realm ruled by desire, the Lord of this realm is Mara, named Pāpman (Pali: Pāpiya or Pāpimant), his sustaining and joy is produced by the desirous activities carried out in the lower realms, particularly the human realm, he won't allow this mass-appearing, he would prefer humans staying in Samsara, being under his rule.
Ok, it's a bit too sophisticated for it related to ample studies in the Sutras, Vinayas and Sastras to understand, especially many of the sources are not available in English.
The above is very pictorial, vivid, narratively dramatic... for in the tangible it manifested as people, places, events... but in the intangible, it should be decipher differently.
... is it enough now to buy a Big Mac meal in McDonald's, huh?


Do Mahayana Buddhists explain birth and extinction in the same way? Nirvana is the extinction of rebirth, and birth is its arising. Right?

Is the debate throughout Buddhism on the "difference" between samsara and nirvana one of how to explain, rather than describe or reach etc., the two? So that when we read the Buddha say the two are the same, that means that they are explained in the same way, not that they appear to be the same thing.

From the beginning of the wikipedia article

  In the Buddhist tradition, Nirvana has commonly been interpreted as
  the extinction of the "three fires", or "three poisons", passion
  (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidyā). When these
  fires are extinguished, release from the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra) is
  attained.

I believe all extant Buddhist traditions, including theravada, believe that we are reborn from moment to moment: a lifetime as much as the aggregates at an instant. Also, see 'dependent origination'.

  Both the Sarvāstivāda [the Mahayana's tripitaka] and the post-canonical Theravāda constructed a
  radical doctrine of momentariness (Skt., kṣāṇavāda, Pali, khāṇavāda)
  that atomizes phenomena temporally by dissecting them into a
  succession of discrete, momentary events that pass out of existence as
  soon as they have originated

This is true of the Abhidhamma, see Karunadasa:

  in the Pali Suttas, unlike the Abhidhamma, the notion of change is not
  presented either as the doctrine of momentariness or as a formulated
  theory of moments... the Pali suttas say that it is peculiar to the
  Abhidhamma.

And this from Charles Bartley

  After the death of an enlightened one there is no rebirth

Or this from Keown

  At the age of 80 he passed away into final nirvana, from which he
  would not be reborn

Moreover, non-abiding is likewise the end of rebirth. Tharpa:

  Non-abdiding in nirvana in the irreversible cessation... of all rebirth

The Buddhists personalists -- which no longer exist and shared in much the same sutta basket -- believed not just that only a sentient being could create -- in series -- a new mind-body after death -- all Buddhists claim this -- but that something was the same during its life.

  it is the pudgala that appropriates and sustains a body for a
  certain amount of time.

There is no difference in manner or extent between the rebirth we experience from moment to moment and the rebirth we experience from life to life. To misunderstand this is to misunderstand the subtlest meaning of the Buddha's teachings on emptiness or anatta.

Therefore, think about what this means for your question. When an enlightened one first becomes enlightened and reaches nirvana does an enlightened one continue to exist from moment to moment? Does he not exist from moment to moment? Both exists and does not exist? Neither exists nor not exists? Whatever the answer... then to that exact same extent and manner an enlightened one will continue to exist from life to life. To say otherwise is to assert that something has materially changed such that after nirvana an enlightened one continues in that very life, but utterly ends or is annihilated at the end of that life. This cannot be the case. It would mean an enlightened one substantially existed or inherently existed in some way and that this ended or was annihilated at death.

It is important to know the manner in which the three poisons end. The real liberation comes through knowledge or the extinction of ignorance. From this, the other poisons are extinguished as they rely upon ignorance to sustain them. Nirvana is nothing more than waking up to the knowledge of reality as it really is rather than by perceptions and conceptions clouded by ignorance.

Think about what Nagarjuna is saying here:

  It is not asserted that the Blessed One exists after his passing away; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and does
  not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
  Even while he is living, it is not asserted that the Blessed One exists; nor is it asserted that he does not exist, both exists and
  does not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist.
  There is no distinction whatsoever between samsara and nirvana; and there is no distinction whatsoever between nirvana and samsara.
  The limit of nirvana and the limit of samsara: one cannot even find the slightest difference between them.

Verse 17 and 18 assert that there is no distinction between the way an enlightened one exists from moment to moment as compared to life to life.

Verse 19 and 20 draw on the prior verses to show there is no distinction between nirvana and samsara. Nothing has materially changed except where before there was ignorance now there is knowledge.

It is like waking up from a dream even as the dream perceptions continue... there is no longer any doubt that one is perceiving a dream. Not one iota of doubt. The ignorance of the dreamer has been replaced with the sure knowledge of an awakened one.


Buddhism and social roles Is a buddhist's goal to transcend a culture's social roles? How do enlightened beings see social roles?

As buddhists try to not make distinctions between people, I would imagine that they are not particularly concerned with social roles. Is that true?

In India, the word "jati" ("birth") refers to "social role". In the Buddhist suttas, "jati/social role" is called "sattanikāye" ("category/group/class of beings"). For example, in the Angulimala Sutta, the life of a monk is called "Noble Jati/Birth" ("ariyāya jātiyā").

In moral teachings, the Buddha strongly emphasized social roles. However, in enlightenment teachings, the Buddha pointed out social role brings suffering. For example, if your social role is a mother or father, you often suffer about your children. This is why enlightenment is described as the ending of identification with social role ("khīṇā
 jāti").

For example, upon his enlightenment, the Buddha declared: "This is my last jati/birth (social role)". The Buddha fully accepted his social responsibility as The Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, the leader of the Sangha and the liberator of the wise.

However, for the Buddha's Fully Enlightened Disciples, they declared: "Jati/birth is exhausted" because they had no special social status, apart from being strictly conforming disciples of the Buddha (unlike monks today, who each try to create their own sect & own teachings).

For laypeople, the Sigalovada Sutta is the most detailed of many suttas that strictly define the social roles of laypeople.


How to address wrong view Did the Buddha give any teachings on how to deal with individuals spreading wrong view?

If someone is expounding their beliefs in a public forum under the guise of the Buddha's teaching, given the possibility that these views may misinform and lead others astray, does one have any responsibility to try to rectify this, and if so, what would be the proper way of addressing such an issue?

Of course others have responsibility to rectify the wrong views. There were several individuals spreading wrongly grasped views on Dhamma even during Buddha's time like Arittha, Sati and Sunakkhattha. Buddha's and other monks' reactions on such situations are detailed in Alagaddupama sutta and Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta.

Buddha explains the plight of such people, as if grasping a snake from it's coils in the water snake simile in Alagaddupama sutta.

  there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma... Having studied the Dhamma, they don't ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don't come to an agreement through pondering. They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.
  Alagaddupama sutta

But for people studying the Dhamma for its real purpose, that is the cessation of suffering, Buddha's advice is to question him or an experienced monk when there's doubt.

  "Therefore, monks, when you understand the meaning of any statement of mine, that is how you should remember it. But when you don't understand the meaning of any statement of mine, then right there you should cross-question me or the experienced monks.
  Alagaddupama sutta


Can anyone explain the hua-yen sutra accroding to tendai, to me? Can anyone explain the hua-yen sutra accroding to tendai, to me?

I've read a few books of secondary literature on tientai and tendai, a few translations of Zhiyi, the lotus sutra, some of the hua-yen sutra, some translations of hua-yen, some seconadry literature on hua-yen, and assorted scholarship (both ch'an based and otherwise) on east asian Buddhism.

I'm at a complete loss though!

i am a student of Hua-Yen philosophies, have read a handful of western derivative works and am currently working my way through Cleary’s translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra.  I have, however, no experience with TienTai.  I know how difficult it can be to find perspectives on Hua-Yen so I wanted to volunteer my effort here, but I need a little more to work with in terms of a query.  Avatamsaka Sutra is a very large collection of work, as you know.
Regarding the metaphor of Indra’s Net, this spiderweb analogy is a good one.  The idea is that of an infinite net with glass beads at every node.  As light shines through the beads one can examine any bead and see the reflection of all other beads in this single bead...and also the reflection of all beads that appears on each bead is visible if we have strong enough perception.
This also relates to a Fazang teaching regarding li and shi.  The absolute interpenetrates all phenomena non-obstructively AND all phenomena interpenetrate non-obstructively.
So, my personal interpretation here is not that identity is annihilated by the light of the absolute, but despite the uniqueness of each bead (even if all beads are clear glass, they may have random bubbles or chips and scratches) any and all other beads can be discovered by studying only one.  But none can be found at all that does not have the light of the absolute shining in and through it, no matter how chipped, scratched, cloudy or colorful it may be.  For me that light represents Tathagatagarbha...Buddha Nature.
I hope this is somehow helpful and if not that you will forgive the clumsiness of my effort.


Does any sect claim that only Shakyamuni will ever achieve great nirvana ARe there any schools which say that Shakyamuni the historical Buddha, alone, will ever be a Buddha?

I understand that some might identify him fully with the dharmakaya, but isn't it completely canonical that there is a Buddha vehicle for others, at some point in time?

No, there are no schools that claim this. All the schools accept that there were previous Buddhas before Buddha Shakyamuni and that there will be Buddhas after him as well.


What is this personality split I'm feeling since practicing Vipassana? Ever since I've started practicing Vipassana, I'm starting to feel two distinct and diametrically opposite intentions are developing within me.

The first one says "I've suffered enough, not any more! I'm prepared to do anything to experience Nirvana. Enough of supporting these cravings and desires, they have only lead to great suffering. I don't want to take another birth."

Au contraire, the second one says "I want to enjoy the basic things in life. Though I've undergone a lot of sufferings, I should enjoy at least a little before leaving this world, its only fair. Is it wrong to enjoy things?"

Whilst I vaguely used to feel this divide since long, its only since I've started practicing Vipassana that it has become more pronounced. Its as if like a big battle is going on between these two forces, and I'm just a spectator. Is this feeling normal, or my case is any different?

I would say dont bother with any of them. Simply note them as mental formations. They belong to the 4th aggregate and are under the effect of the 3 signs of existence.

Note them and see how they arise and cease like all other conditioned phenomena. There is no "self" experiencing this - there is only the arising and cessation of mental and physical phenomena.

Dont identify with them. Dont take ownership of them. These phenomena are impersonal and empty of any substance.

You should look up Conventional & Ultimate reality - Sammuti sacca & Paramattha sacca.

Or

Check out the discourse on the Anattalakkhana Sutta by Mahasi Sayadaw. In this discourse it is described thoroughly and in detail why the 5 aggregates cannot be taken as a "self".


Problem concentrating during Vipassana meditation I am having trouble maintaining concentration for long periods of time.
I make my breath slightly hard and then pull my mind back to it and then carry on as normal. But it's quite hard to have a long sustained period of breath observation.
Once maintained I try to move from head to feet taking large body parts such as head, abdomen, arms and legs. Do this for a while and then the mind wanders away again and come back to breath.

At times the mind wanders for long periods of time until I realise it's wandered away. I haven't been able to penetrate and observe smaller, subtler sensations since a year now.
I know it's harder to do this at home than at a retreat but I am wondering if this has something to do with my Silas.

Although they are not the most perfect I do try my best to maintain them.

Anyone stuck in similar phases and overcame it? Suggestions are welcome.

Ps. I am a Goenka student and very faithful towards it and have never tried anything else and don't intend to as I am very happy with the results this technique has brought me.

When you breath be mindful of the start to end of the in and out breath. For each breath in and out breath be mindful of whether your mind wandered away during this time. Also note the length of the breath in and out breath.

When scanning the body keep your concentration anchored on the breath and sensation on the base of the nose as well. If your mind wanders away bring it back to Anapana and then continue the scanning. For each in and out breath see if your mind has wondered away for that period. Also note the sensations that arise when your mind wanders to an alternative object and the sensation when it is with the chosen object.

In some parts stay for a while (but not too long) also focusing on the breath. Sometimes this helps sharpen the mind to see clearly the sensation arising and passing away in the particular section of your body.


Is there any Buddhist society / group / organisation in Mumbai, India? Where we can meet similar like minded people, attend cultural events I am looking for some kind of Buddhist society/group/organization in Mumbai, India, where we can meet similar like-minded people, attend cultural events, discuss/talk/teachings (dharma talk) on Buddhist ideas/concepts, etc. I am looking for Theravada Buddhism & not neo-Buddhism. Any kind of help is highly appreciated.
I know there's COVID situation going on but I just need to know if there's any, will attend when the situation becomes normal.

There are 9 listed here -- that search is filtering on "Mumbai" and "Theravada".


What is the opinion of Buddhism on the caste system and untouchability of Hinduism? The Varnashrama dharma (caste system) is the backbone of Brahminism (Hinduism), untouchability is a part of that social order. We all know that Gautama Buddha was against Varnashrama dharma, and rejected the Vedic religion. But unfortunately, we see caste system and untouchability in many 'Buddhist' countries. For example, the Burakumin/Eta in Japan, Baekjeong in Korea, Ragyabpa in Tibet, etc. As we know as Buddhists that the Buddha was no hindu, then why this system is also in the societies of Buddhist countries?

Actually, Gautama Buddha was not against the caste system in mainstream non-Buddhist Indian society however he did emphasize social status ('caste'/'jati') was dependent upon here-&-now kamma rather than on physical & social birth (refer to MN 93, MN 98 and other suttas in the Brāhmaṇa Vagga). For example, he often emphasized a Brahman priest or caste member that does not adhere to the five moral precepts is not a Brahmana or Holy Man.

The Pali suttas have the following examples:

It was declared the Buddha "does not seek any harm for the line of brahmins" (MN 95).
The Buddha criticised Brahmans who marry & have sex with non-Brahmans. (AN 5.191)
The Buddha said wives who are immoral are expelled or caste out from families (MN 37.30).

The Pali suttas show no opposition to the non-Buddhist Indian caste distinctions however the Pali suttas do explicitly say when a person joined the Buddhist Community (Sangha) they automatically lost their former caste status or name (AN 8.19).

  (4) “Just as, when the great rivers … reach the great ocean, they give up their former names and designations and are simply called the
  great ocean, so too, when members of the four social
  classes—khattiyas, brahmins, vessas and suddas—go forth from the
  household life into homelessness in the Dhamma and discipline
  proclaimed by the Tathāgata, they give up their former names and clans
  and are simply called ascetics following the Sakyan son. This is the
  fourth astounding and amazing quality that the bhikkhus see in this
  Dhamma and discipline….

As for contemporary Asian societies, many of these societies were previously or concurrently Hindu in relation to the arrival of Buddhism. Similar to when the Buddha was alive, Buddhist monks generally do not act to oppose & destroy other religions. Buddhism is not like Judaism or Christianity. Thailand is an excellent example, where most religious people still follow other religions, such as spirit, ancestor or Brahma worship (even though they consider themselves "Buddhist").


How to deal with our aversions & judgements? There’s one issue that seems to be very divisive in my conversations. And I realize that it is because of me and my own aversion & anxiety.
I have done drugs. But one drug that always bothered me since I was young was cocaine. My father abandoned my mother when I was young and was very much involved with it as an abuser and a seller. For this reason I was always sure to not use it. I’ve been around it a few times & each time I get extremely uncomfortable. Not only that, but when somebody close to me talks about it in a nonchalant way, it tends to make me so uncomfortable that I can’t help but get defensive & agitated. I feel very hypocritical because I have done other drugs like acid and mushrooms and feel no aversion to that. And I feel like I am being very judgemental in my reactionary ways when it is discussed.
Is there any Buddhist guidance when it comes to how to deal with our aversions & judgements?
I’m mostly sober now & plan to stay that way, but just because I’m on my own path, I feel that I shouldn’t judge others on theirs.

But one drug that always bothered me since I was young was cocaine.
I used to feel that way about alcohol. :-)
Not only that, but when somebody close to me talks about it in a nonchalant way, ...
Yes unfortunately it can be massively insidious. IMO it's a bit like smoking cigarettes but more so -- addictive, people who try it like it, and IMO their liking its (transient) effect affects their judgement and will-power, self-control -- and physically people can do it a lot, repetitively, and for a very long time, without its killing them immediately.
... it tends to make me so uncomfortable that I can’t help but get defensive & agitated.
I think I'd call that "a defence mechanism" according to pop psychology.
Buddhism might judge this kind of thing, according to whether it's "skilful", whether it's "beneficial".
There's plenty of advice in Buddhism for lay people, about not getting involved with bad friends and bad habits, wasting money and time and health, and everything -- see for example Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31), which I think of as the sutta about the "six directions".
Your friends' nonchalance might imply they're comfortable with their actions (and possibly that they're "in denial" about their own anxieties and/or the disadvantages of their own drug habits). Normally your innate human sympathy might suggest that therefore (because they are nonchalant) you ought to be happy/comfortable too, but in this case I reckon it's wise that you shouldn't, and wise not to agree with them, even if (or even, because) that anxiety you feel isn't pleasant ... and isn't neutral.
I mention "neutral" because there's Buddhist doctrine that feelings can be categorised as pleasant (and associated with craving), unpleasant (associated with aversion), and neutral (associated with ignorance). I think it warns that unenlightened people aren't good with neutral feelings, don't recognise them, don't know what to do with them -- and instead only crave what's pleasant and flee from what's unpleasant.
I feel very hypocritical
I'm not sure that's "hypocritical" -- I think that hypocritical would be blaming others while thinking that you can do no wrong -- for example, "It's fine for me to abuse the drug, but it's wrong of you" would be hypocritical IMO.
And I feel like I am being very judgemental in my reactionary ways when it is discussed.
I guess that being judgemental is a bit contrary to the ethos of the drug culture (which might also want you to share drugs)
Someone who's judgemental isn't popular (and in general doing and saying whatever makes you unpopular might arouse anxiety too).
And I suspect that people who are (still) into drugs suffer from a relatively poor sense of judgement. Conversely I think that Buddhism (especially as described in the early texts) is about not suffering, and as a result of making good judgements (e.g. having "right view" and so on).
I also suspect that taking drugs will impair judgement, in various ways and for several reasons. Some drug users see that as a reason for taking drugs -- to "escape reality" or to have "an altered view" of it.
Is there any Buddhist guidance when it comes to how to deal with our aversions & judgements?
Yes, doctrine about the Brahmaviharas might be helpful:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

I summarise them to myself as,

I hope you're alright, "may you be well"
I don't want to hurt you
I'm happy when you're doing well (or doing good)
and equanimity

IMO nothing there requires you to be happy about the fact that people are abusing drugs, but the attitudes might be a good alternative to enmity/hatred/aversion (the Dhammapada too, says, "hatred is never appeased by hatred, only by loving-kindness").
Another thing you should consider is whether these people are good friends. I think that Buddhism is keen to recommend that you spend time with, learn from, associate with good friends -- and avoid bad friends (see e.g. DN 31 again, Kalyāṇa-mittatā, the Rhinoceros sutta etc.).
I might say that in my own experience, if you're going to keep bad friends, then it's especially important (at least for your own well-being if not for theirs as well) for you to also find and get good advice from, counsel, from "good friends" -- people who are virtuous, sensible, self-controlled, knowledgeable, perhaps professional.
You might even (among other places) learn something from Nar-Anon -- learning from other people's experience -- or perhaps (from a more explicitly Buddhist context) https://5th-precept.org/ (though unlike -Anon I've haven't experienced that .org).
Another thing that Buddhism recommends is "seeing things as they truly are". I don't know a lot of doctrine about that. I guess that includes the doctrine of Dependent Origination, i.e. seeing how senses (sense-impressions, sense-contact, sense-consciousness) give rise to perceptions and feelings and cravings and so on and so on and so on. I guess it might also include accurately assess the advantages and disadvantages of, you know, different courses of action, different intentions, different reactions and decisions. And I think it means viewing things without craving and aversion, so it's a bit of a circular definition. :-) But I think it doesn't mean trying to see things with altered senses (acid and mushrooms) -- more to do with having a wise and non-grasping attitude towards reality (see also "suchness").
Finally (or firstly) I'd mention the four noble truths of Buddhism -- especially the second and third, i.e. that suffering is associated with craving, and, the cessation of suffering with the cessation of craving. My stereotype says that addicts get attached to drugs. That it was also because of the poisons that they turned to drugs in the first place (so now they have two problems, i.e. their original problem and now the drugs). That craving (for the drug) and therefore suffering ceases when they take the drug (which is why they take it) -- but only temporarily (that effect of taking-a-drug is impermanent, as well as being long-lasting in other ways, hence the temptation to take it again). So I'd recommend (and you probably agree) that what's better (than taking drugs to stop the craving) is to avoid the condition in which that craving arises, i.e. by not taking/becoming/remaining addicted in the first place.
One more thing, which might be a bit subtle but I think ties into to the doctrine of the Brahmaviharas. This answer associates "conceit" with "comparisons". And I think this is an opportunity for making comparisons (e.g. "being addicted is inferior to not being an addict" and "I am not an addict and they are"). Still, that answer says, a characteristic of semi- or relatively-enlightened people is that they make "true" (accurate) comparisons. However see also what Wikipedia says about conceit (Māna):

It is defined as an inflated mind that makes whatever is suitable, such as wealth or learning, to be the foundation of pride. It creates the basis for disrespecting others and for the occurrence of suffering.

Perhaps that's part of what you mean by not wanting to be "hypocritical" -- i.e. it's not wanting to be "disrespecting others" and so on. Conceit is also said to be a basis for (counter-productive and hurtful) sectarian arguments.
There’s one issue that seems to be very divisive in my conversations.
Perhaps it's normal to have preferences.
I'd personally prefer not to hear stories about people getting injured, or being cruel to each other, or horror movies, though I couldn't honestly say that it never happens. And in theory there are more or less tactful (adult, graceful) ways to listen -- ask if you can help -- or say you'd prefer not to, change the subject...
There's a whole bit of the Buddhist "noble eightfold path" -- i.e. Right Speech.


Were there 27 more Buddhas before Siddhartha Gautam Buddha? Were there 27 more Buddhas before Siddhartha Gautam Buddha? If so, are there any evidences of it. How about the finding of Buddhist Stupas and Idols in Harappa civilization?Is it linked with this fact?

Were there 27 more Buddhas before Siddhartha Gautam Buddha?

Yes, the Buddha speaks of them in his suttas, many of them from different times/planets throughout the universe(s).

If so, are there any evidences of it.

Other than the suttas themselves, yes in various other religious traditions.

How about the finding of Buddhist Stupas and Idols in Harappa civilization? Is it linked with this fact?

Yes it could be but rather than spending our lifetime endlessly trying to settle historical matters and learn other histories, let us be grateful for what the Gautama Buddha has provided us: a complete, methodical practice towards Enlightenment. We will need to devote whatever spare time aside from job and other duties to achieve what he achieved and the Buddhas after him (Padmasambhava). The other Buddhisms that stemmed from Hinayana Buddhism suggest there is a greater journey towards Complete Enlightenment and complete power, even after initial srotipanna and escaping the force of rebirth.
No need to excavate skeletons--it was hard enough for the Buddha to leave behind what he has and those after him.


Buddhist perspective how humans can communicate with spirits? I have seen lot of paranormal activities videos about scientists who have done lot of research in spirit communication and are successful in doing so. Can this be done or possible? What are the ways this can be achieved according to Buddhism?

Yes this can be done if you develop abhiññā. It will be through ceto-pariya-ñāṇa. In order to do this you have to develop at least the 4th Jhana.

Also there are more recent documented instances where this has been done in Venerable Ãcariya Mun Bhuridatta Thera's biography. The general training that was followed recorded in Patipadā Venerable Ãcariya Mun’s Path of Practice. (Ajahn Mun Bhuridatta Thera was a teacher of Ajahn Chah)

Also refer:

p369, CH. XII THE SUPERNORMAL POWERS, The Path of Purification, 4td Ed., Bhikkhu Nanamoli (trans.)
p206, The Path Of Freedom (Vimuttimagga) of Arahant Upatissa Translated from the Chinese by Rev. N. R. M. Ehara, Soma Thera, Kheminda Thera
Ways of Attaining Dhyana by Piya Tan
Miracles by Piya Tan

Also be warned that only a few a successful in developing supernormal powers and this can become a hindrance, hence you are better of working towards liberation.


Original reference for 'The essence of all religions is love, compassion and tolerance' by the HH the Dalai Lama Friends,

Does anyone know of the original reference for the saying attributed to His Holiness the Dalai Lama that starts 'The Essence of all religions is love, compasion and tolerance. Kindness is my true religion.'   I would be grateful if the reference includes the translator.

As a personal note, as a Christian, I find ths very close to the truth.  I expect you know that Jesus said: 'The first commandment is this: Love the Lord your God with all your heart ... the second is 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'  All the law and the prophets hang on these two laws.'

Thanks in anticipation,

Richard

The phrase appears verbatim in Handbook for the Spirit, in the first essay (the opening chapter) which is titled "Love, Compassion, and Tolerance".

The author of that essay is given as (and copyright is attributed to) His Holiness the Dalai Lama, without any translator.

A copy of that essay can be found here: http://www.ofspirit.com/dalailama1.htm


7 lives/years: maintainability and significance of the number 7 How valid or verifiable is the claim that a sotapanna leads no more than seven lives? Or a once returner returns once?

There is another claim that practicing earnestly for seven days or seven weeks or a maximum of seven years should be enough to attain nibbana.

Whereas as far as I can see, nibbana doesn't seem too common at all. Certainly not the kind of numbers one would expect if it was possible in a few years.

Is there present day evidence for the latter? If there isn't then shouldn't it also lead me to wonder about the former?

(Note: I'm not saying arahatship or lesser ariya states are impossible, just not very sure about the maintainability and significance of the number 7)

What is the learned opinion here?

The Zen approach of nowhere to go, nowhere to arrive seems more commonsensical to the extent that there is nothing to disprove. On the flip side one can be really only wearing out one's cushion in the Zendo, and there'd be no way to verify one's attainment.

Ajahn Brahm addresses this in his book Mindfulness, Bliss, And Beyond. He notes that most people are not correctly practicing mindfulness such that it will allow them to attain stream entry.

Although this is an alluring promise from the Buddha, understanding it requires a measure of brutal personal honesty: Are we in-fact practicing true, unwavering mindfulness during all waking moments of our lives for seven days straight? Such a task is actually quite difficult; even when we get a good, mindful groove going, it is exceedingly easy to lapse out of mindfulness and have to start again.

I imagine that much of the meditation average folks do is primarily aimed at cultivating (i.e. learning, developing, and strengthening) mindfulness. It takes full mastery of mindfulness to be able to apply it long enough to break down our delusions to attain enlightenment.

One final point Ajahn Brahm notes: depending on an individuals level of attainment (i.e. once-returner, arahant, etc) it may be very difficult to truly identify them. Traditionally, only the Buddha himself could verify these attainments. Thus, we should be careful in assuming how likely or unlikely occurrences of enlightenment are, though it is clear that even basic stream-entry requires serious work.


Metta phrases about safety in ancient and modern times Background

I've been practicing with metta phrases adapted from the Visuddhimagga, and i've seen the same thing in other places: Part of the meditations focuses on safety, which is perhaps not as relevant in our modern world where we are better protected from physical injury than in the ancient times

(Example: "May i be safe and free from injury")

Question

I'd like to find an alternative to metta mediation phrases related to physical safety so that the phrases that i practice with are more relevant to me and others

What i've found so far

So far i've been thinking about maybe exchanging phrases about physical safety to mental/emotional safety, or a feeling/perception of safety. In our modern society many people are suffering from anxiety

Grateful for any help you can give

I don't know if I'm missing something but it sounds like you want to be partial to just the people that you know, the people who are in your area or you think we live in some kind of  utopia for some reason.

I mean, it doesn't sound like you are talking about all of us on Earth 2018.

Have you heard what's going on in  Myanmar lately? No physical injury there to receive your metta? What about  Detroit Michigan? Did you hear how North Korea feeds it's defecting soldiers or punishes it's prisoners? Have you heard what's going on in Afghanistan? Have you heard of the rising threat of World War 3 breaking out? What about all the drought and starvation going on in 3rd world countries? What about all the rioting? What about all the hurricanes, wildfires, tsunamis, tidal waves and earthquakes? What about global warming?

Besides, people are injured all the time no matter how free the medical benefits are or how advanced the technology is.

Although, with today's medical technology a company has cured hepatitis C...if you can afford $100,000-$300,000. In the USA there is no free health care for all so just having no money can result in unnecessary suffering, death & injury.

What about the physical injury danger police officers, firemen and soldiers go through?

Aren't  prison inmates, gang members, drug dealers, alcoholics, drug abusers, intravenous drug abusers and prostitutes all at high risk for physical injury?

What about football players, race car drivers, stunt doubles and fraternity pledges?

Are you sure we are more safe than the time of the Visuddhimagga?

Even if it is true that  physical injury happens less now, why would physically injury be any less relevant?

Remember also the world's population is far greater than ancient times. Doesn't that make far more people to potentially get physically injured?

I would send metta concerning both physical and mental injury safety.

May all beings be safe from physical injury.

May all beings be safe from mental injury.

-Metta


Why can't private buddhas just tell people what they did to achieve enlightenment I mean I don't know if they do but apparently private buddhas don't put forth a teaching, so my question is why can't they just tell people what they did to attain enlightenment.

Because they themselves don't know. It's not like when you become enlightened you automatically understand what happened; the only necessary difference is that you no longer have any craving for anything. Actually understanding how you got there takes a much greater degree of wisdom.

It's much like having an epiphany - you realize something about your life, but you don't likely know what exactly you did to give rise to that realization.


Ways to strengthen the perception of the breath I would like to hear all the ways to strengthen the feeling of the breath so i will know when it enters the body and when it leaves it

i tried to put a hand on the stomach and feel the air go out and in of the nose - with limited success

would like to hear tips on how to do the standard methods people use above - maybe i can improve them - and also i wonder if there are different ways to know strengthen my ability to know when the breath enters and leaves the body   -   any interesting way you have i would love to hear about it - it dosnt have to be buddhist in any way it can involve equipment even - whatever can help improve my skill of sensing the breathing

I am not looking for different ways to meditate without the breath (only for ways to iprove my breath sensing skill) - thats a different subject and it can be addressed in another thread i created :

Can't notice the breath

You could also "breathe strongly, firmly and rapidly", as they do in Sunlun's method. Rapidly means really rapidly, see the last part of this video.


How personality view disappears? Personality view disappears at once at the stage of stream entry or is it gradual ?

I guess you mean identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) - please see this question for examples.

Eradicating identity view is different from eradicating all traces of self - please see this question.

A view is a kind of belief. For example, a person may have the view that the Earth is flat. However, this person may change his view, based on the opinion of trusted credible scientists, without making a direct scientific validation of his view.

Views may affect one's behavior and in turn result in particular outcomes. For example, if you have the view that you don't have to clean yourself when you get dirty and before you eat, this may cause you to contract diseases due to lack of hygiene. By changing your view from the wrong view to the right view, you can reduce your suffering.

But you don't have to change your views on hygiene after experiencing disease. You can adopt the right view on hygiene, after listening to trusted credible sources.

Similarly, the Buddha is the trusted credible source who taught us that all phenomena is not self. He also taught us that eradicating self view will reduce suffering. For example, when someone insults you as being fat, you may become angry and experience agony due to the fetter of conceit, but you can snap out of it quickly and not dwell on it, due to your not having the view that your body is your self. By snapping out of anger quickly, your suffering will be reduced. And that's how not having identity view will result in the reduction of suffering.

You don't lose your identity view after stream entry. Rather, you have to overcome identity view in order to reach stream entry. You don't lose the wrong hygiene view after becoming hygienic. You have to lose the wrong hygiene view and gain the right hygiene view, in order to achieve a good state of hygiene.

A stream winner could become angry due to clinging and conceit (tanha-mana), when someone insults him as being fat or stupid. But he would snap out of it quickly, due to not having identity view. Conceit is a deep-seated tendency that is hard to uproot. But a view can be changed through learning, reflection and understanding. A fully enlightened arahant has uprooted all the deep-seated fetters. Please also see this answer.

Gaining the Right View is always the first step on the Noble Eightfold Path.


What is the Universal Mind? As far as I know, the concept of the Universal Mind (一心, yixin) was first coined in the 'Awakening of Faith'.

In studying Zongmi, Yanshou, Chinul and Wonhyo, I found different translations such as: Universal Mind, All-encompassing mind, One Mind, One Nature, Pure Nature.

Some say it is synonymous with mind-nature (xinxing).

But neither alternative translations nor synonymous tell me what it is.

In studying Yongming Yanshou systematically, I have come to identify what he says it is, its characteristics, and its functions. The issue is that it ends up being identified with so many phenomena that it becomes confusing.

Its entity:

The dharmadhatu
The mind of suchness
The mind of arising and ceasing
A mind that is unperturbed and enters the dhyanas
A mind that arises in dependence upon practicing concentration and contemplation
The mind that is transmitted from a Chan patriarch to another patriarch

Its characteristics:

The origin of nature and characteristics
The basis of all things
A phenomena in which pure and impure, samsara and thusness intersect
A principle that unifies all the teachings of the buddha
The great tenet
The grand progenitor
The source of all truth
‘Universal’ in that it includes mundane and supermundane dharmas.

Its function:

Illuminating the myriad dharmas as if reflected in a mirror.
Entering the dhyanas.
Producing prajna.
Perfecting [the actualization of] cessation.
Perfecting observation.

The best explanation I have found so far explains that the One Mind is identified with so many phenomena because it is all of them. Do you know of a more more detailed account, a clear explanation, or an authoritative reference? In 'Wŏnhyo’s Theory of One Mind', Eun-su Cho says:

  The One Mind is an evolution and merger of the concepts of
  ālaya-vijñāna and tathāgatagarbha. It is a well-known fact that the
  ālayavijñāna and the tathāgatagarbha originate from different branches
  of Buddhist thought. The womb of the Tathāgata is a concept developed
  from the optimistic idea that any sentient being has the possibility
  of becoming a Buddha, a concept already described since early Buddhism
  as the “innately pure mind.”

And:

  The One Mind is at times equivalent to ālayavijñāna, to the
  tathāgatagarbha, or to original enlightenment, but its characteristics
  contain the attributes of all. The One Mind represents an optimistic
  and all-encompassing philosophy of the mind, surpassing both
  ālayavijñāna and tathāgatagarbha. Additionally, the One Mind possesses
  the meanings of unity and concentration.

From Zen Master Chinul's 'Straight Talk On the True Mind', ~1205 CE. Translated by Robert E. Buswell, Jr.

  ...
  Question: We have already given rise to right faith, but we are still uncertain what is meant by “true mind.”

  Zen Master Chinul: To leave behind the false is called “true.” The numinous speculum is called “mind.” The Suraligama Sutra sheds light on this mind.

  Question: Is it only named true mind or does it also have other appellations?

  Zen Master Chinul: The names given to it in the teachings of the Buddha and in the teachings of the patriarchs are not the same. First let us explore the teachings of the Buddha.

  In the Bodhisattvasila Sutra it is called the “mindground” because it produces the myriads of good dharmas.

  In the Prajnaparamita sutras it is referred to as “bodhi” because enlightenment is its essence.

  The Avatamsaka Sutra names it the “dharmadhatu” because it interpenetrates and infuses all dharmas.

  In the Diamond Sutra it is called “tathagata” because it does not come from anywhere.

  In the Prajnaparamita sutras it is also referred to as “nirvana” because it is the sanctuary of all the saints.

  In the Golden Light Sutra it is said to be “suchness” because it is true, permanent, and immutable.

  In the Pure Name Sutra it is named the “dharma-body” because it is the support for the reward and transformation bodies.

  In the Awakening oj Faith it is termed “true suchness” because it neither arises nor ceases.

  In the Mahaparanirvana Satra it is referred to as “Buddha-nature” because it is the fundamental essence of the three bodies.

  In the Complete Enlightenment Sutra it is called “dharani” because all meritorious qualities flow from it.

  In the Srimaladevisimhananda Sutra it is named “tathagatagarbha” because it conceals and contains all dharmas.

  In the definitive sutras it is named “complete enlightenment” because it destroys darkness and shines solitarily of itself.

  As Zen Master Yen-shou’s Secrets on Mind-Only says, “The one dharma has a thousand names: its appellations are each given in response to different conditions.

  The true mind appears in all the sutras, but I cannot cite all the references.

  Question: We now know what true mind means in the teachings of the Buddha, but what about the teachings of the patriarchs?

  Chinul: In the school of the patriarchs all names and words are severed; not even one name is sanctioned, let alone many.

  In response to stimuli and according to faculties, however, its names are also many.

  Sometimes it is referred to as “oneself,” for it is the original nature of sentient beings.

  Sometimes it is named “the proper eye,” for it makes visible all phenomena.

  At other times it is called “the sublime mind,” for it is empty yet numinous, calm yet radiant.

  Sometimes it is named “the old master,” for it has been the supervisor since time immemorial.

  Sometimes it is called “the bottomless bowl,” for it can survive anywhere.

  Sometimes it is called “a stringless lute,” for it is always in harmony.

  Sometimes it is called “an inextinguishable lamp,” for it illuminates and disperses delusion and passion.

  Sometimes it is called “a rootless tree,” for its roots and trunk are strong and firm.

  Sometimes it is referred to as “a sword which splits a wind-blown hair,” for it severs the roots of the defilement.

  Sometimes it is called “the unconditioned kingdom,” for the seas are calm there and the rivers clear.

  Sometimes it is named a “wish-fulfilling gem,” for it benefits the poor and distressed.

  Sometimes it is called “a boltless lock,” for it shuts the six sensedoors.

  It is also called “a clay ox,” “a wooden horse,” “moon of the mind,” and “gem of the mind.”

  It has such a variety of different names that I cannot record them all.

  If you penetrate to the true mind, you will fully comprehend all of these names; but if you remain dark to this true mind, all names are only a block.

  Consequently, you must be precise in your investigation of the true mind.

  ...

  If we have faith in this, we should realize that all the bodhisattvas of the three time periods are studying the same thing -- this mind. All the Buddhas of the three time periods have the same realization -- the realization of this mind. The teachings elucidated in the tripitaka all elucidate this mind. The delusion of all sentient beings is delusion in regard to this mind. The awakening of all cultivators is the awakening to this mind. The transmission of all the patriarchs is the transmission of this mind. The search in which all the patchwork[-robed] monks of this world are engaged is the search for this mind.

  ...

    The mind: it is vacuous, empty, sublime, and exquisite; it is clear, brilliant, numinous, and bright. It neither comes nor goes, for it permeates the three time periods. It is neither within nor without, for it pervades the ten directions.

  ...

  This essence is not only the Buddha-nature with which all sentient beings are innately endowed but also the basic source of creation of all worlds.

  ...

    The wind moves but the mind shakes the tree.

  ...

    Those who are aware of it know that it is the Buddha-nature; those who are not -- call it soul or spirit.

To me, this sounds synonymously with Rigpa, Awareness of the Ground.

If you're looking for a straightforward contemporary explanation here is mine: The Universal Mind is Information at large. Or more accurately, it is the informational aspect of the energy flow in thermodynamically non-equilibrious systems.

Although, in my personal opinion, all these reifications of the absolute are dangerous and misleading. This is why I prefer the supra-conceptual teaching style of Zen and Dzogchen/Kagyu, because it turns your eyes to the moon, instead of talking about the fingers.


Spinning sensation during meditation? This other day I was meditating and I got a feeling as if I spinned around on an axis, counterclockwise wise and really fast. Later on it became more of a left>right feeling alternating feeling in short bursts, and eventually it subsided.

What is this? Is it a sign of progress?

What is this?

It's merely a feeling. Just note it, observe its characteristics and return to the primary object. If you get attached or interested in it, then note that and take it as an object. Then move back to the primary object.

In Vipassana meditation one treats every object equally.

  Is it a sign of progress?

Yes, ie. if you were mindful during the processes of the object, not after or later, but while they were happening.

You noticed it proceeded in bursts, meaning its not permanent but ever-changing. You noticed that it eventually subsided meaning you saw (if you were mindful of it) that it was subject to cessation and uncontrollability.

Whether you saw these things, I cannot know, only you can know. But if you saw these characteristics, you have seen the Three Marks of Existence, which all compounded phenomena are subject to.


Did Buddha ever met Mahavir(Jain GOD)? Mahavir(Jain GOD) was the contemporary of the Buddha of his time. Buddha did knew some details about Mahavir, Jainism(as its mentioned in the text) & about its own way of enlightenment which he tried only to discover the 'Middle Path'. They even lived & preached in & around the area of 'Vaishali' (ancient city in Indian state Bihar) for certain period of their time.But did they ever met?

No. There is no known record of Gautama Buddha meeting Mahavira (also known as Nigantha Nataputta in the Pali Canon). Jains are known as Niganthas in the Pali Canon.

It appears however that Mahavira was indeed alive but very old at the time of the Buddha according to DN2:

  Your majesty, there is Nigantha Nataputta, the leader of a community,
  the leader of a group, the teacher of a group, honored and famous,
  esteemed as holy by the mass of people. He is aged, long gone forth,
  advanced in years, in the last phase of life.

However, there have been examples of the Jains confronting the Buddha and attempting to challenge him.

The teachings of the Buddha and of Jainism are obviously in conflict. You can read about it in this question.

Here is an example from the Devadaha Sutta (MN101):

  "When this was said, the Niganthas said to me, 'Friend, the Nigantha
  Nataputta is all-knowing, all-seeing, and claims total knowledge &
  vision thus: "Whether I am walking or standing, sleeping or awake,
  knowledge & vision are continuously & continually established in me."
  He has told us, "Niganthas, there are evil actions that you have done
  in the past. Exhaust them with these painful austerities. When in the
  present you are restrained in body, restrained in speech, and
  restrained in mind, that is the non-doing of evil action for the
  future. Thus, with the destruction of old actions through asceticism,
  and with the non-doing of new actions, there will be no flow into the
  future. With no flow into the future, there is the ending of action.
  With the ending of action, the ending of stress. With the ending of
  stress, the ending of feeling. With the ending of feeling, all
  suffering & stress will be exhausted." We approve of that [teaching],
  prefer it, and are gratified by it.'

  "When this was said, I said to the Niganthas, 'Friend Niganthas, there
  are five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Which
  five? Conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by analogy, &
  an agreement through pondering views. These are the five things that
  can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. That being the case, what
  kind of conviction do you have for your teacher with regard to the
  past? What kind of liking? What kind of unbroken tradition? What kind
  of reasoning by analogy? What kind of agreement through pondering
  views?' But when I said this, I did not see that the Niganthas had any
  legitimate defense of their teaching.

MN 56 is another great sutta, which shows the Buddha not talking directly with Mahavira (Nigantha Nataputta), but through Mahavira's disciples:

  At one time the Buddha was staying near Nālandā in Pāvārika’s mango
  grove. At that time Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta was residing at Nāḷandā
  together with a large assembly of Jain ascetics.

A Jain ascetic called Tapassi had a discussion with the Buddha and then went to Mahavira and relayed the conversation. Hearing this, Mahavira and his wealthy lay benefactor disciple Upali praised Tapassi for explaining Mahavira's teaching to the Buddha. Then, Upali offered to go and debate with and embarrass the Buddha. Tapassi warned him and Mahavira that Upali might get converted by the Buddha's magic. Mahavira said that is impossible and that it is more likely that the Buddha would become Upali's disciple rather than the other way round.

Upali went to debate with the Buddha, but ended up becoming his disciple. The Buddha did not gloat, but rather told Upali to consider his decision carefully and not to stop giving alms to the Jain ascetics that he had supported for a long time. Upali was impressed with the Buddha's kindness and humility. The Buddha taught him the Four Noble Truths.

Later, Upali instructed his gatekeeper to not allow Jain ascetics enter his house, but told his gatekeeper to give them alms. The gatekeeper was however instructed to allow Buddhist monks to enter the house. Hearing this, Mahavira and his large assembly of Jain ascetics visited Upali. Upali let them in, but did not give Mahavira the best seat in his house. Rather, Upali took the best seat. Seeing this and hearing that Upali became the Buddha's disciple, Mahavira became offended and scolded him.

Upali then explained to Mahavira that although Jain teachings look good on the surface, they don't stand up to scrutiny unlike the Buddha's teachings.

Mahavira said to Upali that the king knew the famous and rich Upali to be the disciple of Mahavira, and asked him to confirm who he follows now. Upali sang proses in praise of the Buddha and said he has become the Buddha's disciple now.

The sutta ends like this:

  “But when did you compose these praises of the ascetic Gotama’s
  beautiful qualities, householder?” “Sir, suppose there was a large
  heap of many different flowers. An expert garland-maker or their
  apprentice could tie them into a colorful garland. In the same way,
  the Buddha has many beautiful qualities to praise, many hundreds of
  such qualities. Who, sir, would not praise the praiseworthy?” Then,
  unable to bear this honor paid to the Buddha, Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta
  spewed hot blood from his mouth there and then.


When are you a Buddhist? I know labelling people is not in the spirit of Buddhism.  I am for example member of a Buddhist society, not because I'm so eager to be one but because in my country each religious society gets quite some money for having members (and if your not a member,  the church gets the money).

But when do people (not born into a Buddhist country) call themselves Buddhists?

I live in a country where most people are either atheist or christian. Estimates are that between 0.4 and 1% of all people here call themselves a Buddhist.

It's been my experience that there isn't a single agreed upon definition about when you can call yourself a Buddhist. Some people say you are a Buddhist if you consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher. This being said, most people I know (but certainly not all) regard the ceremony of 'taking refuge' as the moment when they became a true Buddhist.

Personally I like the view of Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche who has written a book on the topic called "What Makes You Not a Buddhist":

  It’s whether you agree with the four fundamental discoveries the Buddha made under the Bodhi tree, and if you do, you can call yourself a Buddhist (source).

Disclaimer: this answer is largely based on my own answer on a similar question


Is there anything in Buddhism analogous to the Christian Eucharist? I hope to have a go at reading a little about the Eucharist. Because my religious sympathies largely lie with Buddhism, I thought it'd be good to know of anything comparative therein.

Your question asks if there is "anything analogous." In my experience, the tsok feast fits that bill. Sharing the food gifts that were offered leads to a similar virtuous and calm mind, with feelings of gratitude and appreciation of community.


How is Osho seen in the Buddhist community? Is he considered a great leader? an unusual leader? Does he represents Buddhism? Are his books largely accepted as Buddhist books?

The reason I asked is that Osho is (whether you like it or not) very popular in the west, and many people associate him with Buddhism. Once my grandpa came to me saying, "I finally read a book on Buddhism!", showing a book by Osho. So, before giving my personal view I would like to understand the point better. (some of his books are sold in Buddhist libraries!)

Is he considered a great leader?

He isn't.

  Does he represents Buddhism?

He doesn't.

  Are his books largely accepted as Buddhist books?

They aren't.

There's really not much more to say.  Why would you even think Osho was considered a great leader by the Buddhist community? He wasn't even a Buddhist. He lived a luxurious lifestyle and wrote in an eclectic, typically New Age-y way, mixing all kinds of influences and traditions that shouldn't be mixed.