As a Buddhist with a Muslim family, community, and background... how do you integrate/cope? Coming from an Islamic background and having a community/Sangha that is loyal to the religion of Islam, how do you harmoniously integrate yourself and your Buddhist study and practice with the community you were born in including within a mosque?

I'm 26 and I considered myself becoming Buddhist when I was 14. I come from a very loyal Islamic family and I totally think that Islam is a beneficial religion... containing within it the simplest and easiest spiritual practices of all Abrahamic religions because it has a meditation+yoga-like prayer system, calling all practitioners to Practice with single-mindedness towards a singular God every day five times a day (namaj).

I made a lot of mistakes over the years in expressing these ideas with simultaneous conviction and non-defensiveness that is my power now.

Islam is a very strict religion on the the level of the 1st two trainings:

morality: unconditionally forbids all intoxication and has many other moral codes
concentration: routine concentration practice of prayer, using mantra method combined with yoga

Thus, even though I am Buddhist I don't run away from Islam. I fully embrace it and espouse the half-muslims to actually practice it because it has many health benefits.
I go to mosque when I can and when I am required to with my family and community and I integrate Buddhist science of spiritual practice to practice with single-minded mindfulness and not the ignorant desire-filled prayer most people probably do.

Buddhism is a religion that is fully integrated within my Islamic community and if I speak about Buddhism I speak about it without ever mentioning the word Buddhism or Buddha. I merely reference the practices such as yoga and meditation and pranayama which are nondenominational and conducive to the actual reason for namaj (improve concentration and oneness with Allah--a concentration object).

Thus, when I speak about Islamic practices, I find myself always integrating the nondenominational, spiritual principles of Buddhism within the structure of Islam.

Islam is a great religion and can be fully subsumed into the spiritual science of Buddhism. Practice the Buddhist virtue of modesty and let no one know of your attainments and your vigorous concentration practice.

Mentally discard silly Islamic/religious that you know by Buddhadharma are only created to help people stay doubt-free and cultivating practice concept and enjoy spiritual practice with your community!

Use the phrases and phrases you learned from within Islam. Display complete devotion to Islam and spiritual science in general. Islam isn't that complicated at all... it is easy to blend in and be spiritual, continue to use the Buddhadharma but always appear Muslim by practicing Right Speech within your community.


Vedana: does it include feeling sleepy, dizzy, alert… I am a (somewhat lackadaisical) follower of S.N. Goenka's meditation teachings.  After a couple of 10-day retreats and reading some articles such as this: http://www.vridhamma.org/Why-Vedana-and-What-is-Vedana I'm still not sure how to regard sensations that at least in Western terms are not simple sensory input, but which also do not imply any attachment or revulsion —  feelings like the ones above, or hunger, fatigue  and so on. Are those vedana, and hence proper objects of mindfulness?

I'm still not sure how to regard sensations that at least in Western terms are not simple sensory input

In the Pali suttas, 'vedana' refer to: (i) pleasant; (ii) unpleasant &; (iii) neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feelings that occur with sense impressions.

When the mind lacks mindfulness-&-wisdom, pleasant feelings give rise to the defilement/urge of greed/lust/love; unpleasant feelings give rise to the defilement/urge of hatred/anger/irritation; and neither feeling can give rise to confusion.

  but which also do not imply any attachment or revulsion

Vedana/feelings are not attachment or revulsion. For example, if you break your leg, that is an unpleasant feeling. The revulsion (hatred) or attachment is a separate matter.

  hunger, fatigue and so on.

Hunger begins with an unpleasant/painful feeling but, ordinarily, quickly gives rise craving. You should try to separate the painful feeling from the craving. Feeling/vedana is not an 'urge' & not 'thinking'. Feeling is the mere painful sensation.

Fatigue is not a vedana. It is a lack of energy, either related to exhaustion of the physical body or defilements of the mind weighing down the mind. Fatigue is classed as a 'hindrance' ('nivarana') rather than a 'vedana' ('feeling').

Thus hunger is a proper object of mindfulness, where the meditator is vigilant towards & subdues craving & excitement towards food; thus attentive only to the painful stomach sensation.

Fatigue is a difficult & subtle object of mindfulness; unless one is a very skilled meditator. Generally, if fatigue arises, the meditator should focus on their physical posture; or change posture to standing or walking; or otherwise have some rest and sleep in bed. Refer to this link about 'sloth & torpor'.

  Bhikkhus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there
  arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a pleasant
  feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it, and remains holding to
  it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one. When one is
  touched by a painful feeling, if one sorrows, grieves and laments,
  weeps beating one’s breast and becomes distraught, then the underlying
  tendency to aversion lies within one. When one is touched by a
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one does not understand as it
  actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the
  danger, and the escape in regard to that feeling, then the underlying
  tendency to ignorance lies within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here
  and now make an end of suffering without abandoning the underlying
  tendency to lust for pleasant feeling, without abolishing the
  underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling, without
  extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, without abandoning ignorance and
  arousing true knowledge—this is impossible. MN 148


How can one apply the skills developed through Vipassana meditation to overcome FMO/PMO (fantasy, porn, masturbation, orgasm) addiction? As far as I understand, Vipassana meditation trains attention and equanimity. Both sound as great skills to have in order to battle addictions. However, after having attended a 10-day Vipassana course, I still don't fully understand how this technique can be applied to overcome a strong addiction to *FMO and **PMO. I mean, the technique, as teached in the 10-day course, pretty much trains you to be equanimously aware of your breath and the physical sensations in your body through continuous body scans. However, I'm left clueless about how that technique can be somehow generalized and applied in the concrete case of facing strong, compulsive cravings of PMO/FMO. In fact, the 10-day retreat forced me to go in such an abrupt, extreme cold-turkey abstinence that the cravings started to build up and during the middle and end of the course I was multiple times overpowered by the urge to fantasize, during the breaks and even during the meditation sessions. Thinking in hindsight, the urges to fantasize became stronger because in those days I experienced a lot of frustration due to reasons which had nothing to do with sex. I experienced back pain and also annoying breathing problems due to nasal congestion, and I guess that made me lose motivation and made me vulnerable to the urges to fantasize. I want to make clear though that I didn't masturbate nor watched porn during the whole retreat, because it was pretty much impossible due to the inexistent privacy (I was surrounded by people all the time, and the bathrooms were not very private either), and of course I didn't have access to any electronic device. So I didn't break the shila, unless you consider sexual fantasies as shila breaking.

After I came back from the retreat, I was immediately and magnetically drawn back to PMO/FMO, overpowered by the urges built up by my last day's constant sexual fantasies. On the bright side, though, this retreat was an excellent opportunity to learn more about myself and showed me how impressively strong my addiction to FMO/PMO is. In fact, even in a retreat environment and deprived of privacy and access to internet, I am still very vulnerable to sexual fantasies.

So, I would be very grateful of any practical advices on how to apply Vipassana to overcome PMO/FMO addiction. Has any body faced this addiction and successfully managed to break free from it by applying Vipassana? Is Vipassana meditation enough to overcome the addiction or should I resort to other meditation techniques, or other life style changes for that matter? Any practical tips/suggestions/help will be deeply appreciated.

*FMO = Fantasizing, Masturbation and Orgasm

**PMO = Pornography, Masturbation and Orgasm

I borrowed these handy accronyms from the NoFap community.

As you keep practicing vipassana correctly,  you will discover more and more subtle habits and addictions.

There are supportive practices for lessening sensual craving too such as  breaking the body up into pieces and contemplating them like hair, muscle, skin, blood, urine, feces, marrow,cartilage, bone, sweat, saliva, bile, snot. Viewing a decomposing body will lessen sensual craving and make you more aware of death too. It's very important to be aware of death.


What is Right Action for a Buddhist regarding talking about personal success? In this question
a comment stated in part "The old sense of transferring merit had to do with mudita, you tell other people about your success so that other people can be happy about that. Being happy about other people success is meritable, so it works like transfer."

The idea that telling people about your success is wholesome, is very surprising to me. I somehow had the impression that from a Buddhist point of view, being very modest and not making such things known was better.

Did the Buddha teach anything specific about this? Thank you.

I would suggest that it depends on how you relate to the success, your attitude to it. Relating an experience can be beneficial to the recipient in many cases, both in terms of use as a teaching and possibly of merit as you mention. In terms of telling about a successful experience as a teaching, this can be related to the Udayi Sutta in the Anguttara Nikaya, on how to teach the Dhamma.

  "It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching. Which five?

  "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak step-by-step.'

  "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'

  "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out of compassion.'

  "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.'

  "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without hurting myself or others.'

  "It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when these five qualities are established within the person teaching."

Interpreting personal success as in the interest of self promotion is not helpful in terms of the teaching - so again it comes back to the attitude towards what is told. If for the benefit of the recipient (in terms of the Path), it could certainly be helpful.

Mudita as a divine abiding is a wholesome state, and allowing mudita to arise in oneself and others by sharing a success experience would be beneficial. However, modesty and humility are beneficial traits to acquire, especially for those of us who have not entered the stream. For most of us, sharing success stories is more about self inflation than for the benefit of others, even though sometimes on a subtle level.

So this answer is 'it depends' - and hopefully the five guidelines above can be of help, when deciding whether to convey a success story, and how to.

(edit: A few notes on Right Action and Right Speech, since they're mentioned in the question)

Right Action

The question refers to Right Action - samma kammanto in Pali - which is part of the Noble Eightfold Path. Specifically, Right Action refers to action that is in accordance with three of the five precepts - namely abstaining from the taking of a life (i.e. not killing any living being), abstaining from taking what is not given (i.e. not stealing), and abstaining from sensual (or sexual) misconduct. I do not interpret sharing a success as related to Right Action. However, in communication, Right Speech may be more relevant.

Right Speech

As translated on ATI:

  "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech."

This may be helpful in deciding what to say, when to say it, and whether to say something at all:

  "Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which
  five?

  "It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken
  affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of
  good-will."

With metta.


How do Bodhisattva vow takers avoid stream entry? According to the suttas in SN13, a stream enterer (or stream winner or sotapanna) only has at most, seven remaining lifetimes, before they are permanently freed from suffering.

On the other hand, takers of the Mahayana Bodhisattva vow, would forego enlightenment for a very long time (apparently aeons), till they complete the full Bodhisattva training (which I presume is the development of paramitas and the attainment of bhumis).

However, this implies that they need to avoid stream entry, which could cause them to become released from suffering in seven lifetimes at most.

So, how do they avoid stream entry? Do they avoid it by avoiding the practice of insight meditation (vipassana) perhaps?

I think that Mahayana literature teaches that becoming an Arhat is a temporary rest, for example:

  Mahayanins are urged to instead take up the path of the bodhisattva and to not fall back to the level of arhats and śrāvakas. Therefore, it is taught that an arhat must go on to become a bodhisattva eventually. If they fail to do so in the lifetime in which they reach the attainment, they will fall into a deep samādhi of emptiness, thence to be roused and taught the bodhisattva path, presumably when ready. According to the Lotus Sutra, any true arhat will eventually accept the Mahāyāna path.

Or from The Jewel Ornament Of Liberation by Gampopa,

  III. HEARER FAMILY

  The family of Hearers consists of those who fear samsara and yearn to achieve nirvana, but who have little compassion. It has been said:

    One who is afraid upon seeing the suffering of samsara
    And yearns to achieve nirvana
    But has little interest in benefitting sentient beings—
    These three are the marks of the Hearer family

  IV. SOLITARY REALIZER FAMILY

  The Solitary Realizer family includes those who possess the above three attributes and in addition are arrogant, keep their masters’ identities secret, and prefer to stay in solitary places. It has been said:

    Fear at the thought of samsara, yearning for nirvana,
    Little compassion, arrogance,
    Secretive about their teachers, and enjoying solitude—
    A wise one should understand that these are the marks of the Solitary Realizer family

  So these two families, the Hearers and the Solitary Realizers, engage in their respective vehicles and even though they achieve the results of their practices, these results are not the final nirvana. How do they abide when they achieve their fruits? They maintain unafflicted states of meditative concentration, but those states are based on the psychic imprint of ignorance. Since their meditative concentrations are unafflicted, they believe that they have achieved nirvana and remain that way.

  If their states are not the final nirvana, then one might argue that the Buddha should not have taught these two paths. Is there a reason the Buddha should teach such paths? Yes. For example, suppose great merchants from this Jambudvipa are traveling the ocean searching for jewels. After many months at sea, in some desolate place, they become completely tired and exhausted and think, “There is no way to get the jewels now”. When they feel discouraged and prepare to turn back, the merchant captain manifests a huge island through his miracle power and lets all his followers rest there. After a few days, when they are fully rested and relaxed, the captain says, “We have not achieved our goal. Now we should go farther to get our jewels.”

  Similarly, sentient beings without courage are frightened when they hear about the Buddha’s wisdom. They believe attaining Buddhahood is a great hardship, and think, “I have no ability to do this.” There are other people who are not interested in entering the path, or who enter the path but turn back. To counter these problems, Buddha presented these two paths, and allows them to rest in these states.

  As said in the White Lotus of Sublime Dharma Sutra:

  Likewise, all the Hearers
  Think that they achieved nirvana,
  But they have not achieved the final nirvana
  Revealed by the Buddha
  They are only resting

  When these Hearers and Solitary Realizers are well rested in those states, Buddha understands this and encourages them to attain Buddhahood. How does Buddha encourage them? He awakens them through his body, speech, and wisdom mind.

Also this question has been asked on other sites, for example on reddit and on
Dharma Wheel.


Why did Mahayana leave out the Pali Canon? I'm quite familiar with Theravada and Zen but I can't understand the historical reasons for not keeping the original Buddha's teaching as a core.

The schools do not contradict each other, so why reinvent a wheel?

And also the Pali Canon feels more explicit. For example Heart Sutra of Avalokiteśvara is beautiful but it will not make as much sense to a newcomer as reading a Nikaya or two.

It did not. The Canon is an integral part of Mahayana, has always been.

In Chinese Mahayana, the Canon is included in the form of Agamas (translated to Chinese). In Tibetan Mahayana, the Canon is a part of Kangyur (translated from Chinese or Sanskrit to Tibetan). Most of those are the same sutras as in Pali, just with slightly different wording. Some are rather different, and shed new light on the teaching. Some are even more "explicit" (clear, straightforward):

  "It was a dark night, raining lightly, with flashes of lightning. The Buddha said to Ananda: "You can come out with the umbrella over the lamp." Ananda listened, and walked behind the Buddha, with an umbrella over the lamp. When they reached a place, the Buddha smiled. Ananda said: "The Buddha doesn’t smile without a reason. What brings the smile today?" The Buddha said: "That’s right! That’s right! The Buddha doesn’t smile without a reason. Now you are following me with an umbrella over a lamp. I look around, and see everyone doing the same thing."

...

  "At that time, Mahakasyapa stayed for a long time in a deserted meditation place, he came to visit Buddha, with long hair and beard, wearing old torn clothes. At that time, the Buddha was explaining dharma, surrounded by many people. The monks saw Mahakasyapa coming from afar, and were contemptuous of his appearance: "What kind of monk is this? Dressed in such ragged clothes, looking so uncouth." The Buddha knew what was on their minds, and he said to Mahakasyapa: "Welcome! Come share my seat. Now I am going to find out who became a monk first, you or me?" Those monks were shocked, their body hair stood up, wondering among themselves. "How strange! This respectable monk
  was offered to share Buddha’s seat."

  Then, Mahakasyapa put his palms together: "Most respectable one, the Buddha is my master. I am the disciple."

  The Buddha said: "True, true. I am the master. You are the disciple. Why don’t you sit down and make yourself comfortable?"

  Mahakasyapa touched his head to the Buddha’s feet and sat aside…"

...

  "Listen carefully and think. I will explain it to you. When the eye meets the matter, and you become aware that the matter is desirable, then practice detachment. If, on the other hand, the matter is undesirable, then practice non-avoidance… In this way, you will know that your desire arises from your eye meeting the matter, and this realization will make it cease…like a drop of water on an extremely hot iron ball, it will evaporate in an instant…"

These were extracts from Samyukta Agama. According to the sutra commentaries in the Yogacara-bhumi Shastra, the Samyukta Agama was the earliest agama collection. See my answer here for links to the full sutras.

Now, you have to understand that Mahayana sees itself as a living tradition, concerned first and foremost with the spirit of Dharma, not its letter. So from Mahayana's perspective to understand the point, the taste, and the style of teaching is much more important than to memorize the matrika-s. So in Mahayana making up new texts to convey the point in a new way suitable to the new generation of students in the new country is totally acceptable and even desirable. The Chinese and Tibetan people are very different in character from Indian - and so the outer wrapping on the medicine of Dharma had to be adapted to make it more attractive to them. The medicine itself is the same, just a different wrapping.

I suspect that modern Western people (Americans and Europeans) are more like ancient Indians than like ancient Tibetans or Chinese. So naturally the agama-sutra-style teaching is more appealing to us than the long-mahayana-sutra-style or the tantra-style. But whatever style teaching we take, it is critically important to understand that the point of Dharma applies to our immediate living experience, not to some far-fetched fantasy.

As one translation of Heart Sutra says:

  Far beyond mistaken fantasy, at last there is Nirvana.


miscarriage and abortion 3 years back i had to face with an relationships Problem with my ex boy friend and at that time i was pregnant. I had to abort my child at that time as a result of those problems.

Now i am married for 10 months and got pregnant 5 Months back. i was okay till to the 11th August and i was 25th week of my pregnancy then i got to know that my child's Heartbeat has stopped and he is no more live. This was unexpected and we cannot bear this pain.
I had that fear whether that bad karma of  previous abortion will be affect to this time.But according to the doctor everything was okay until baby's 25th week.
We are suffering lot with this and have a fear that i will have to face the same situation in the future as well.

I love kids so much. But once i had to done such a horrible thing due to the horrible situation with my ex.

Please advice me how can i prevent from this bad karma and what should i do to survive from this.

3 years back i had to face with an relationships Problem with my ex boy friend and at that time i was pregnant. I had to abort my child at
  that time as a result of those problems.

If necessary, please practise loving-kindness meditation to forgive yourself for this.

The ideal conditions for bringing a child into the world is a strong relationship & family support, including financially. There are many challenges in the modern world that put pressure on women to have abortions. Please grow in understanding & forgiveness.

  Now i am married for 10 months and got pregnant 5 Months back. i was okay till to the 11th August and i was 25th week of my pregnancy then
  i got to know that my child's Heartbeat has stopped and he is no more
  live. This was unexpected and we cannot bear this pain.

I am very sorry to hear this. I do not wish to ignore your personal pain & sorrow however I wish to say such pregnancy problems are common due to the fragile nature of the physical body. In the ancient Buddhist scriptures, we can read how many women & children perished during child birth. Fortunately, having children today is infinitely safer than in ancient times however loss of child still occurs today due to the nature of the physical body, which is fragile & can be abnormal.

  I had that fear whether that bad karma of previous abortion will be affect to this time. But according to the doctor everything was okay
  until baby's 25th week. We are suffering lot with this and have a fear
  that i will have to face the same situation in the future as well.

It is normal for a person to have the fears you have. It is normal to ask yourself: "Why did this happen?" & turn to religion for answers. However, I think it is the most wise & realistic action is to take the doctor's advice. I recommend to look to the modern medical profession for answers or assurances (rather than religion).

This said, about karma, the Buddha taught: "Kamma is intention". Since you did not have the intention to miscarry your baby, the miscarriage is not related to karma. An abortion is kamma but miscarriage is not kamma (unless there is direct action that leads to miscarriage, such as taking drugs, heavily drinking alcohol, playing violent sports or other carelessness).

  I love kids so much. But once i had to done such a horrible thing due to the horrible situation with my ex.

The Buddha taught in the scriptures if we see clearly we made a mistake in life, this is a positive step in our growth as a spiritual person. The Buddha had 100% understanding & forgiveness. It is good you have remorse because, as you know for yourself, abortion can make a woman unhappy. You must reflect (think) thoroughly about those good intentions for having the abortion & forgive yourself, with the understanding you have learned a lesson and you are now much more careful, wise, compassionate & loving in the future. Often in life, our real love for people & life grows from the mistakes & hurt we previously did. The Buddha taught it is from suffering the real spiritual path & development begins.

  Please advice me how can i prevent from this bad karma and what should i do to survive from this.

My advice is:

Attend grief counselling for your loss. This is very important.
Let go of the idea your abortion caused your baby's heart to stop beating. Generally, the reasons for such miscarriages are related to the body of the child. This webpage has explanations: Why Does The Fetal Heartbeat Stop?.
Realise miscarriage is common in women who have not had abortions.
Realise women who have had abortions & miscarriages have later successfully had children.
Respect yourself for the genuine remorse, love & future commitment you have towards children.
Wisely reflect the Buddha taught our sorrow is a measure of our love; the physical body is fragile; patient endurance overcomes sorrow & suffering; peace comes with goodness, compassion, wisdom & love.


Do we reincarnate into similar or polar-opposite lives I've read several reports of people remembering past lives. In many cases, in their current life they tend to have a very similar personality, repeat many of the same life patterns and often have many of the same interests they had in their previous life. This would suggest that we incarnate into lives which were similar to our past life, repeating similar karmic patterns.

However, I have also read many sources which claim that we incarnate into life situations which are the complete reverse of our previous life in order to experience the karma 'from the other side' of the situation. For instance, if you were an abuser in a previous life, many claim that in this life you would be the victim of an abuser who was your victim in your past life.

The two paradigms seem rather mutually exclusive. I was wondering if Buddhism could help shed some light on to this.

No matter how you slice it, Buddha said we have been in every situation many times over.  In one sutta said when seeing a wealthy man indulging in all fine things in life and in another sutta crippled man lying in the gutter, we have all been there.  For this reason, it is enough to be tired of samsara.
It is reasonably to assume we have been in every situation and every world many times (except for world of sutavassa-world for non-returners.)


Buddhist Monk - Travel by air Happened to watch Yuttadhammo's video on Life in a day project and also understood that Monks are not allowed to stay in a place with a woman.
Was wondering how do they actually travel by air in a confined space for hours,worst case if they were assigned to be seated next to a female?

The Bhikkhus' Rules - A Guide for Laypeople
says that the "spirit of the rule" is important:

FAQ 4: "It is mentioned in the Vinaya rules that a monk is not allowed to reside under the same roof with a woman. How does that apply to multistoried (condominiums, flats, apartments) and multi-compartment buildings (terrace houses), where the flats, terrace houses, share one roof?"
A: This has become a complex question with various interpretations because of modern conditions. The spirit of the rule is very important — avoiding possibilities of intimacy — while the interpretation will depend on the monk and the circumstances. In countries without proper monasteries there will always have to be something of a compromise. (See Staying Together for a discussion of this.)

This is clearer if you read the previous 3 FAQs, for example,

FAQ 3: "What is the rule if an eight-precepter unintentionally comes into [direct physical] contact with another lay person or eight-precepter or ten-precepter or monk or nun of opposite gender?"
A: As with the preceding cases with bhikkhus, there is no fault if there is no wrong intention.


What advice did the Buddha give to corrupt officials? I'm wondering if there were any such occasions, and what suttas/sutras this is recorded in.

Also if the Buddha gave advice to otherwise evil people besides Angulimala or Devadatta, or possible connections to psychopathy or sociopathy.

Corrupted officials: Dhanañjani Sutta

  "What do you think, Dhanañjanin? There is the case where a certain
  person, for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers
  ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his
  guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, does
  what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his
  unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell.
  Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is
  discordant, for the sake of the king. Don't [throw] me into hell,
  hell-wardens!' Or would the king gain anything for him by saying, 'He
  did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't
  [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

Other evil people(demon): Alavaka Sutta


Is Mr. S. N. Goenka's Vipassana Meditation a Buddhist tradition? It appeared that most students learning Buddhism will automatically assume Vipassana Meditation taught by Mr. S. N. Goenka synonymous with Buddhist meditation, methods taught by the Buddha, is it so?

=====

Remark Added 15/03/2017

The knowledgeable Suminda (@Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena) pointed to an article which attempted to establish the "U Ba Khin Vipassana method told by Mr. Goenka" its connection with Mahayana (of the Chinese Lineage), this should definitely be refuted. Mr. Goenka himself with his entire Insight Movement is completely unrelated to the Mahayanist teaching.

In the article Ven. Analayo wisely drew inspiration from the Mahayanist Sutra however, it's uncertain under what circumstance someone provided him an incorrectly translated work:

  念諸息遍身, 亦念息出入, 悉觀身中諸出息入息, 覺知遍至身中乃
  至足指遍諸毛孔, 如水入沙, 息出覺知從足至髮遍諸毛孔亦, 如水
  入沙.

Mindfulness [during] all breaths pervades the body, [while] being as
well mindful of the out- and in-breaths. Completely contemplating the
inside of the body [during] all out-breaths and in-breaths, awareness
pervades and reaches inside the body up to the toes and the fingers
and pervades every pore [on the surface of the body], just like water
entering sand, aware from the feet to the hair [while] breathing out
[and in], pervading every pore as well, just like water entering sand.

This should read as (translation is mine):

  Set the mind to all the breaths be aware of their permeating the whole
  body (念諸息遍身). Also be mindful of the breath going-out and going-in
  (亦念息出入). Thoroughly observe all the out-going and in-going breaths
  inside the body (悉觀身中諸出息入息), be conscious of their permeating from
  inside the body unto the toes and fingers even pervading all the
  pores, as if water entering sands (覺知遍至身中乃至足指遍諸毛孔, 如水入沙). [When]
  breath going-out, be conscious of it from feet unto the hairs
  pervading all the pores, also as if water entering sands
  (息出覺知從足至髮遍諸毛孔, 亦如水入沙).

It definitely has nothing to do with Mr. Goenka's "body-scanning" technique.

Here breath 息 is not simply the air coming in-out the nose-mouth that we do in breathing. Ānāpānasmṛti (Pali: Ānāpānasati) meditation taught by most of the general media is incorrect. There are at least 3 stages: counting, following, stillness; progressed gradually.

Goenka tradition seems to be most close to meditation instruction sourced directly from the Suttas. A course is divided into  parts:

Anapana - cultivation of Samadhis (1/3 of the length of the course)
Vipassana - cultivation of Panna (slightly less than 1/3 of the lenth of the course)
Metta - (1 or 2 days depending on the length of the course.)

Anapana closely follows that of the [Maha] Satipatthana / Kayagatasati Suttas.

In the Vipassana part, the main instruction is whatever the sensation contemplate its impermanence and be equanimous towards it.

  Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether pleasant, painful
  or neither painful nor pleasant.

  As regards to those feelings,

  he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;

  he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;

  he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;

  he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).

  When he dwells contemplating impermanence in them, contemplating dispassion in them, contemplating
  ending in them, contemplating letting go,
  he does not cling to anything in the world.

  Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.

  He understands,
  "Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, done what is to be done, there is no more for this state
  of being."

Pacalā Sutta

Similarly there many more Suttas which similar instructions re occur throughout the whole cannon. E.g.: Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2, Dīgha,nakha Sutta, Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta

  Bhikshus, just as if a man were sitting covered from head to foot with a white cloth, so that there
  would be no part of his body to which the white cloth did not extend; even so, the monk sits, permeating
  the body with a pure, bright mind. There is no part of his entire body that is not pervaded by pure, bright
  mind.

Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta

also

  so, too, a monk reviews this very body, wrapped in skin and full of various impurities, from the
  soles of the feet upwards and from the crown of the head downwards

Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta, Sati’patthāna Sutta

  As below, so above [upwards from the soles of the feet, and downwards from the tips of the hairs.]

Iddhi,pāda Vibhanga Sutta

This is similar in tone to the head to foot scanning technique.

In Buddhism, common term is letting go. The Suttas on Letting Go sheds more light on how to do it. They are: Pahāna Sutta and Avijja Pahana Sutta 2. This is the exact way that is being taught by S.N.Goenka.

Also an interesting read might be: The Ancient Roots of the U Ba Khin
Vipassanā Meditation by Ven. Analayo, which quotes some parallel in the Mahayana Tradition which you (@Bhumishu 米殊) are from I believe.

Instead of intellectually debating on whether the course is this or that why not take the course and clear you doubts. You can apply through: http://www.dhamma.org/en/index and course are conducted in many centres around the world. You can choose a location convenient to you.

What matters if the techniques works for you or not than is it this or that. So best is just try it.


Does depicting Jesus as an Arahant show that Buddhism is inclusive and compassionate? I came across a book about the 500 Arahants, and it briefly mentioned that Jesus is depicted as an Arahant in a particular temple in China. After spending some time Googling, I found out that it's actually true! The Qiongzhu Temple (筇竹寺) in Kunming has an Arahant Hall containing Arahant-Jesus, along with some other Western figures. Here's a photo of it.
I'm perplexed as to why there is such depiction, and whether it can be considered a good idea. I read some news/articles about the temple, which used the reasoning that it shows the compassion and inclusiveness of Buddhism. There maybe an alternative explanation, unfortunately I have never been to the place, so this is the only one I could find on the Internet.
My question is: Is it true that making an 'Arahant-Jesus" shows that Buddhism is compassionate and inclusive? If not, is such depiction valid/acceptable in Mahayana or any other school of Buddhism?
I hope the title is not too ridiculous. Thank you :D

One of the five precepts is undertaking the training to abstain from incorrect speech, which includes abstaining from speaking untruth.
From Iti 25:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
heard: "For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you,
there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This:
telling a deliberate lie."
The person who lies,
who transgress in this one thing,
transcending concern for the world beyond:
there's no evil
he might not do.

To state that Jesus is an Arahant may be false speech, because who could say for certain that Jesus was an Arahant?
In fact, Jesus couldn't possibly have been an Arahant because his teachings were not similar to the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path.
Hence, to state or portray Jesus as an Arahant, is not acceptable, in my opinion, because it is untruth.
Furthermore, such a portrayal might not be in the best interest of Buddhists, as Christian missionaries could hypothetically make use of it when engaging lay Buddhists who are not well-versed with the teachings of the Buddha, by portraying Jesus as a Buddhist teacher, and the Christian Bible as a Buddhist teaching.


What are the Three Trainings and how are they practical? What are the Three Trainings and how are they practical?
Specifically how does one practice them?

The threefold training (Pali: sikkha) consists of: morality (sila); concentration (samadhi); and wisdom (panna).

Sikkha is meant to conquer and eradicate the defilements (kilesas).

Visuddhimagga XXII,49

  'The defilements are the ten states, namely: greed; hate; delusion;
  conceit; false view; uncertainty; stiffness of mind; agitation;
  conciencelessness, shamelessness. They are so called because they are
  themselves defiled and because they defile their associated states.'

Each of those defilements has 3 stages (bhumi) which are identical to the 3 stages of consciousness (latent - manifested - action).

the latent stage = anusaya-bhumi
the manifest stage = pariyutthana-bhumi
the action stage = vitikkama-bhumi

Through the threefold training, it is possible to conquer and eradicate these defilements in the 3 subsequent stages: sila-sikkha; samadhi-sikkha; and panna-sikkha.

The training itself is a strict personal affair: Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one can purify another (Dhammapada).


Can stream entry be reached by focusing on the links in dependent co-arising Can you gain stream entry by focusing on the links in dependent co-arising http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html.

The buddha says this: "And what is the noble method that is rightly seen and rightly ferreted out by discernment? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones notices:

When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that."

In reference to dependent co-arising, but I wonder whether it's actually a method.

It depends what you mean by "focussing on". If by that you mean thinking about mentally, then no, that is not possible, since the mind will be focussed on an abstract object and not be able to see impermanence, suffering, and non-self.

If by that you mean observing empirically then yes, since the links are ultimate reality. By focussing on them, you will see impermanence, suffering, and non-self, which is the path of purification, according to the Buddha.


AN 4.233 what exactly is the relation between kamma, saṅkhārā? AN 4.233 sutta passage here, in Pali, with my translation into English:
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/08/an-4233-what-exactly-is-relation.html
questions:

what exactly are those 3 sankharas (bodily, voice, mind)? If they're the same ones from MN 44, it would be strange that in breath and out breath would cause karmic consequence, or if unvocalized thoughts (vitakka & vicara) cause the same karma as vaci-carena (vocal conduct).

is citta sankhara the same as mano-sankhara?

looking at bodhi's translation, what is actually being 'performed' (abhi-sankharoti)?
Is the bodily-volitional-activity mean he just sets an intention to do a bodily action, such as hit someone. Or he actualizes the intention to hit someone, and actually hits someone?
Now the fact that the sutta shows kamma being done, being reborn in hell, must mean it wasn't just a volition or intention to do harm, he actually did harm with the body. But the pali abhi-san-kharoti, and kaya-sankhara, it's hard to actually read and understand what is happening.

'Abhisaṅkharoti' refers to 'generating', 'constructing' or 'concocting' using thought, as follows:

And why do you call them sankhara (mental formations)? Kiñca, bhikkhave, saṅkhāre vadetha?
Sankhara construct conditioned phenomena (sankhatam); that’s why they’re called ‘sankhara’. Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā
‘saṅkhārā’ti  vuccati.
SN 22.79

In AN 4.233, the word 'sankhara' most likely refers to 'sankhara' as the mental formation of 'intention', as follows:

And what are choices?
Katame ca, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā?
There are these six classes of intention:
Chayime, bhikkhave, cetanākāyā—
intention regarding sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, and thoughts.
rūpasañcetanā, saddasañcetanā, gandhasañcetanā, rasasañcetanā, phoṭṭhabbasañcetanā, dhammasañcetanā.
These are called choices.
Ime vuccanti, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā.
SN 22.56

The above is supported by SN 12.25, which refers to "intention" ("cetana") together with the same genre of terminology, including 'manosankhara':

Ānanda, as long as there’s a body, the intention that gives rise to bodily action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself.
Kāye vā hānanda, sati kāyasañcetanāhetu uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ.
As long as there’s a voice, the intention that gives rise to verbal action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself. By oneself one instigates the choice that gives rise to bodily, verbal, and mental action, conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself. Sāmaṃ vā taṃ, ānanda, kāyasaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti, yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. SN 12.25

Therefore, AN 4.233 most likely refers to constructing (abhisaṅkharontī) intentions (saṅkhāraṃ) related to the body (kaya), speech (vaci) or thought (mano).
Also, AN 4.233 looks like 'puthujjana dharma'; not to be mixed up with Noble MN 44 Dhamma.
The word 'mano' is about 'thinking', as found in the term 'manokey mind'. Where as 'citta' refers to 'the heart', which is something directly felt & observed in Satipatthana; similar to how kaya-sankhara is an object of Satipatthana.
In the lofty Dependent Origination, the Buddha taught about 'citta sankhara' rather than 'mano sankhara'. The Noble Disciple takes an interest in 'citta sankhara' rather than grasps the banana of 'mano sankhara'.
In conclusion, kaya-vaci-citta sankhara are internal objects of deep Noble meditators. Where as kaya-vaci-mano sankhara are external kammic behaviours of puthujjana. AN 3.233 & MN 44 are as far apart as hell from heaven. MN 117 says:

And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions?.... There are fruits & results of good & bad actions (kamma).
And what is the right resolve that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The thinking, directed thinking, resolve, mental fixity, mental transfixion, focused awareness & verbal fabricators (vaci sankhara) in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path.

Therefore, the Noble Kaya Sankhara is breathing (MN 44; MN 117; MN 118; SN 12.2) and the puthujjana kaya sankhara is physical behaviour.
Since physical behaviour is a form of 'becoming' or 'kamma-ripening' (AN 3.76), obviously the kaya sankhara of AN 4.233 is not the kaya sankhara of Dependent Origination because craving or intention in Dependent Origination is required before physical kamma can occur. SN 14.12 clearly explains this:

Mendicants, sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts arise for a reason, not without reason.
And how do sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts arise for a reason, not without reason?
The element of sensuality gives rise to sensual perceptions. Sensual perceptions give rise to sensual thoughts. Sensual thoughts give rise
to sensual desires. Sensual desires give rise to sensual passions.
Sensual passions give rise to searches for sensual pleasures.
An uneducated ordinary person on a search for sensual pleasures behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.
The element of malice gives rise to malicious perceptions. Malicious perceptions give rise to malicious thoughts. … malicious desires …
malicious passions … malicious searches …
An uneducated ordinary person on a malicious search behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.
The element of cruelty gives rise to cruel perceptions. Cruel perceptions give rise to cruel thoughts. … cruel desires … cruel
passions … cruel searches …
An uneducated ordinary person on a cruel search behaves badly in three ways: by body, speech, and mind.
SN 14.12


What Changes have Happened to the Pali Canon? In the 6th council changes have been made to the Disclosure in Establishing Mindfulness in the Middle Length Discourses according to Ven Sujato and Ven Analayo where the section on the 4 Noble Truths was expanded. 3rd Council the Abhidhamma as made officially part of the canon.

Is there other known instances where changes to the Pali Canon happened either at this council or elsewhere?

The Scriptures or the Doctrine of the Supreme Buddha is called the Sutta Pitaka, and consists chiefly of instructive discourses delivered by the Buddha to both the Sangha and the laity on various occasions. A few discourses, expounded by disciples such as the Venerable Sariputta, Moggallana, and Ananda, are incorporated and are accorded as much veneration as the Word of the Buddha Himself, since they were approved by Him.

The Sutta Pitaka consists of the following five Nikayas(Collections):

Digha Nikaya (Collection of Long Discourses)
Majjhima Nikaya (Collection of Middle-length
Discourses)
Samyutta Nikaya (Collection of Kindred Sayings)
Anguttara Nikaya (Collection of Gradual Sayings)
Khuddaka Nikaya (Smaller Collection)

There are no changes made to the first four, but the fifth got expanded with time. Khuddaka Nikaya, the fifth, is a minor or smaller collection. Although termed "smaller", it is in fact the largest as more and more books have been added to it over the years. It has grown to 15 books in the Thai and Sri Lankan versions. In 1956, the Sangha Council in Burma added another 3 books, which are not the Supreme Buddha's own words. These 3 additions are additions are Questions of King Milinda, Petakopadesa and Nettipakarana. This is how the Khuddaka Nikaya grew from a minor collection to become a major collection! In the future, say in 500 or 1000 years' time, this would definitely create more confusion. Out of the 18 books now, probably only 6 are reliable in that they do not contradict the earliest 4 Nikayas. These 6 reliable books are the Dhammapada, Sutta Nipata, Theragatha, Therigatha, Itivuttaka and Udana.. This is how the Khuddaka Nikaya grew from a minor collection to become a major collection! In the future, say in 500 or 1000 years' time, this would definitely create more confusion. Out of the 18 books now, probably only 6 are reliable in that they do not contradict the earliest 4 Nikayas. These 6 reliable books are the Dhammapada, Sutta Nipata, Theragatha, Therigatha, Itivuttaka and Udana.

But I personally would trust the Questions of King Milinda and Nettipakarana a whole lot more than the Abhidhamma, which got added much later on. I will not go into Abhidhamma (the third basket of the Tipitaka) as it will confuse things in my humble openion. When there are nearly 18,000 suttas that are found in the canonical texts why would one want to check the Abhidhamma? It came only after the 3rd Buddhist Council. So my advice to you is to please limit yourself to reading only canonical texts (Sutta Pitaka) until you are fully established in the Path. Do not go even into the Visuddhimagga – it is only a thesis that Buddhagosha Thera wrote to show his qualifications.


What is the Buddhist view, if any, on witchcraft? I don't think I've seen any talk about this on the Buddhism SE and I'm genuinely curious, since I've heard that Christianity takes a very dim view of the practice. Have any Buddhist texts or teachers made reference to witchcraft or religions that practice it, and if so, was it in a positive / neutral / negative light?

Please note: I'm not really asking whether answerers personally believe that magic / witchcraft exists, so I ask that you stick to the actual question when answering.

This is an interesting question.

But "witchcraft" is a vague term. In Western culture, it often associates with negative meaning.

If witchcraft is just a board terminology to cover any practice that's outside common sense and general knowledge, you may say Buddhist texts mentioned about it. Often the text retells the story to forbid such practice.

I've read the full Mahisasakas Vinaya, in it mentioned several stories related to witchcraft. Often it's due to some Bhiksus were originally Brahmins they brought it to the Samgha. For example, it mentioned the spell to cure snake bites, spell to call upon spirit to animate corpse, or fortune telling, etc. In it it even mentioned the Precept of Not to Kill included the killing by witchcraft (I will need to check the text to cite properly, it's very interesting).

As said, Buddhist texts notice and understand the practice of witchcraft existed, but banned it, or discouraged it. From the Vinaya, if the Bhiksu continued his practice after its made as breaking the precept, he would be expelled. But the texts never mentioned any prosecution of any practitioner.

From the central teaching of Buddhism, Prajna-paramita is the greatest witchcraft. If anyone wants supernatural power, the best investment is to invest in cultivating wisdom and virtue.


How is dharma formed? I believe that the word 'dharma' (among other things) refers to the constituent elements of a body and mind, and that the Buddhist should find those dharmas void of a person, and perhaps any substantial quality whatsoever.

How is dharma formed?

"Form" is one of the skandhas, what a body-and-mind (I believe 'nama-rupa' in the sanskrit word for that?) has contact with in order to generate the rest of us.

Is there a Buddhist philosopher who talks or debates, perhaps at length, and ideally grounded in sutras, about how dharmas depend upon form?

I suspect there's a major / basic teaching on this, just wanted to make sure I'm not missing anything, when i research this question, which I find interesting because the contemporary world seems to make its ideas out of "form".

I guess you are asking about Dependent Origination?

You can find detailed information in "Learning materials for Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda) in Theravada Buddhism".

For a perspective from the Abhidhamma, "The Abhidhamma in Practice" may be helpful.


Is stream entry in 20 or 30 years of practice realistic? The founder of the Triratna Buddhist Community, Sangharaskshita, stated that he thinks stream entry is realistic after twenty or thirty years

  In fact, it would be surprising if, after 20 or 30 years of life in
  the Order, you were not a Stream Entrant. It would seem to be very
  surprising, if you have done all the other things - maybe you have
  founded Centres and written books and given so many lectures and gone
  on so many retreats, that you were not a Stream Entrant: why not?

It's obviously a very bold statement. Does anyone else give that kind of timescale for stream entry or do any modern traditions give any kind of timescale at all. Or is Sangharaskshita a complete outlier with this kind of estimation.

Note: Tiratna is my Sangha which I think is right to acknowledge in the question. That said it doesn't stop me finding some of Sangharaskshita's statements bold or even controversial and I'm always interested on outside perspectives on his statements.

It can be difficult to give an exact timescale since there are different factors involved in the practice, for each being.

Some beings might have done extensive and concentrated practice in past lives allowing them to reach stream entry quickly in this life or future lives.

Other beings might not have accumulated that kind of practice. All beings have different kamma.

It might be dangerous to put a timescale on the achievement of stream entry since it takes one out of the present moment and into the future. It can also build expectations to the practice which can hinder ones progress.

One might not solve all problems in this life or the next one but by practicing diligently one is altering ones habits towards goodness and these habits is what eventually leads us to enlightenment. If one does good things and practice diligently then the mind is inclined towards Nibbana. This means that when one is on the path it will eventually lead to liberation. Don't worry too much about when it's going to happen.


Possibility of Unsuitable Technique Upon (re)-reading this answer, I conjectured perhaps there are techniques unsuitable for some.

It does seem to be the case with the breath for me, in my experience, despite the popularity and near universality of the breath as meditative object. In context, I'm extremely sensitive to what people call experiential avoidance, and focusing on the breathing to the exclusion of all else seems to trigger this. More so, I read here that in some cases of dissociative people the breath may be difficult to focus on.

My question is mainly:

Given these conditions, could even the breath (or any object of meditation) be truly unsuitable for some? Is it possible that other objects would be much more suitable? How would one actually know/discover this?

I'm particularly tempted to conclude compassion (which has a visual and affective component) might be a better alternative. Yet, I'm always brought back to the breath because I keep concluding that its a universal object that should work for everyone. Am I wrong?

Thank you

I don't think the idea that breath meditation is universally suitable has any explicit basis in the texts. I'm not sure if you are aware or interested, but the Visuddhimagga has an explicit opinion on which types of meditation are suitable for which sort of individual:

  As to suitability to temperament: here the exposition should be understood
  according to what is suitable to the temperaments. That is to say: first, the ten
  kinds of foulness and mindfulness occupied with the body are eleven meditation
  subjects suitable for one of greedy temperament. The four divine abidings and
  four colour kasiṇas are eight suitable for one of hating temperament. Mindfulness
  of breathing is the one [recollection as a] meditation subject suitable for one of
  deluded temperament and for one of speculative temperament. The first six
  recollections are suitable for one of faithful temperament. Mindfulness of death,
  the recollection of peace, the defining of the four elements, and the perception of
  repulsiveness in nutriment, are four suitable for one of intelligent temperament.
  The remaining kasiṇas and the immaterial states are suitable for all kinds of
  temperament. And anyone of the kasiṇas should be limited for one of speculative
  temperament and measureless for one of deluded temperament. This is how the
  exposition should be understood here “as to suitability to temperament.”

  Path of Purification 3.121

I think it is proper to question the assumption that any meditation practice would be suitable for all individuals, though one might say that sati or "mindfulness" in general is universally applicable.


What is Death? What did Buddha say regarding the experience of Death? What is death according to Buddhism? When does it occur? Why do so many people die simultaneously in natural calamities? What did Buddha say about death? Please give references of Buddha's teachings.

What is death acoording to Buddhism? Here is one definition

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/viewdeath.html

  Death and the impermanence of life

  In the teaching of the Buddha, all of us will pass away eventually as
  a part in the natural process of birth, old-age and death and that we
  should always keep in mind the impermanence of life.  The life that we
  all cherish and wish to hold on.

  To Buddhism, however, death is not the end of life, it is merely the
  end of the body we inhabit in this life, but our spirit will still
  remain and seek out through the need of attachment, attachment to a
  new body and new life. Where they will be born is a result of the past
  and the accumulation of positive and negative action, and the
  resultant karma (cause and effect) is a result of ones past actions.

  This would lead to the person to be reborn in one of 6 realms which
  are; heaven, human beings, Asura, hungry ghost, animal and hell.
  Realms, according to the severity of ones karmic actions, Buddhists
  believe however, none of these places are permanent and one does not
  remain in any place indefinitely. So we can say that in Buddhism, life
  does not end, merely goes on in other forms that are the result of
  accumulated karma. Buddhism is a belief that emphasizes the
  impermanence of lives, including all those beyond the present life.
  With this in mind we should not fear death as it will lead to rebirth.

  The question about when death occurs is even more important, because to a practitioner of Buddhism, death is not an eventuality that will arrive someday. Death and meeting death is part of our daily practice of meditation. We don't think of the body dying but day by day we face and face again the temporal nature of life and ask ourselves if we are making the most of life for spiritual advancement by learning to come to terms with death.

Here is an illustrative story from a PBS special on Buddhism
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tibet/understand/dying.html

  An example of this attitude can be found in the bioraphy of Milarepa,
  who began his meditative practice after having killed a number of
  people through black magic. The realization of his impending death and
  the sufferings he would experience in his next lifetime prompted him
  to find a lama who could show him a way to avert his fate. His concern
  with death was so great that when he was medititing in a cave his
  tattered clothes fell apart, but he decided not to mend them, saying,
  "If I were to die this evening, it would be wiser to meditate than to
  do this useless sewing."1

  This attitude epitomizes the ideal for a Buddhist practitioner,
  according to many teachers. Atisha is said to have told his students
  that for a person who is unaware of death, meditation has little
  power, but a person who is mindful of death and impermanence
  progresses steadily and makes the most of every precious moment. A
  famous saying of the school he founded, the Kadampa, holds that if one
  does not meditate on death in the morning, the whole morning is
  wasted, if one does not meditate on death at noon, the afternoon is
  wasted, and if one does not meditate on death at night, the evening is
  wasted.

Here are a couple quotes attributed to the Buddha that imply what Buddha thought most important, cessation of suffering and Nibbana.
http://www.life-changing-inspirational-quotes.com/buddha-quotes.html#Death

  Buddha Quotes on Death

  "Even death is not to be feared by one who has lived wisely."

  "It is better to travel well than to arrive."

This trend of thinking beyond life and death continues here
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

  Even death is not to be feared by one who has lived wisely. As quoted in Wisdom for the Soul: Five Millennia of Prescriptions for Spiritual Healing (2006) edited by Larry Chang, p. 193 This is actually a pithy modern-day 'summary' of the "Abhaya Sutta" (AN 4.184). It appears in "Buddha’s Little Instruction Book" by Jack Kornfield (p88).

Another example that Shakyamuni Buddha reveals his lack of concern about death is under the Bodhi tree before his realization.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

  Let my skin and sinews and bones dry up, together with all the flesh
  and blood of my body! I welcome it! But I will not move from this spot
  until I have attained the supreme and final wisdom. The Jatka (From
  the Attainment of the Buddhaship. Also is in the Nirvana Sutta.)

The essence of the Buddha's teaching is not to cling to physical existence and in the same line do not fear death. What dies is the life we conceptualize in our mind. What is untouched by death is the consciousness that the Buddha invites us to develop in our practice.


What is a Sangha? Do you have to be a Buddhist to join a Sangha? What is a Sangha?
I know that a sangha is group of Buddha’s followers!
But I want to have a more thorough understanding of what a sangha is!
Do you have to be a Buddhist to join a Sangha?

According to the Wikipedia article about Sangha,

It's a Pali word meaning meaning "association", "assembly," "company" or "community"
It usually means the monastic community of ordained Buddhist monks or nuns
As a separate category, those who have attained any of the four stages of enlightenment (for example Sotāpanna), are referred to as the ariya-sangha or "noble Sangha".
The word Sangha sometimes also includes laymen and laywomen who are personally dedicated to the discipline of Dharma-Vinaya
Some lay practitioners in the West these days use the word "Sangha" as a collective term for all Buddhists, but the Pali Canon uses the word parisā (Sanskrit, parisad) for the larger Buddhist community — the monks, nuns, lay men, and lay women who have taken the Three Refuges — reserving ‘Sangha’ for a more restricted use.

So according to these conventional (non-inclusive) definitions, only Buddhists (and of those, not all Buddhists) are in the "Sangha".


What are the 10 Samadhis of the Avatamsaka Sutra? I'm referring to the chapter in the Avatamsaka. Here is one summary:

The Great Samadhi of Universal Light
The Great Samadhi of Wondrous Light
The Great Samadhi of Sequentially Going throughout all Buddhalands
The Great Samadhi of Purifying the Activities in the Depths of the Mind.
The Great Samadhi of the Magnificent Treasury of Knowing the Past.
The Great Samadhi of a Treasury of Wisdom Light
The Great Samadhi of Fathoming the Adornments of Buddhas in all Worlds.
The Great Samadhi of Distinguishing the Bodies of Living Beings.
The Great Samadhi of Ease and Comfort in the Dharma Realm.
The Great Samadhi of the Unhindered Wheel.

Here is outline of the whole thing that mentions the 10 Samadis.

3 is clear enough, there is a chapter in the Avatamsaka that does this, (chapter 4 I think).

5, 7, and 8 are results of meditation rather than steps leading to it.

Were these Samadhi's something that a lay or monastic bodhisattva would be expected to practice, or are these Samadhis that an already enlightened or nearly englightened Bodhisattva would engage in?

(Sorry I don't have a link to the full text, I only know of the Cleary translation which is available on Amazon.)

My take on these kinds of lists in Mahāyāna sūtras, especially late ones like the Avatamsaka, is that they are literary devices. The Avatamsaka is a particularly literary text. It's mainly a work of imagination, a kind of elaborate, surrealist Buddhist novel.

The link appears to be to a summary rather than a translation. There's a ( illegal) copy of Leary's translation from the Chinese online here. (Chapter 27, page 811-862). A quick skim suggests that it may not give you the kind of information you are interested in.


What *is* intrinsically real? Is the "unconditioned", "absolute", or "ultimate" intrinsically real? To better see the relative, insubstantial nature of phenomena, maybe it is helpful to think about this another way, that is, seeing what is not relative, not conditioned, not empty.

It has been said that all phenomena are conditioned, not intrinsically real, empty of independent, self-existence.

What is intrinsically real?  Is nibbāna intrinsically real?

  O bhikkhus, what is the Absolute (Asaṃkhata, Unconditioned)? It is, O
  bhikkhus, the extinction of desire (rāgakkhayo) the extinction of
  hatred (dosakkhayo), the extinction of illusion (mohakkhayo). This, O
  bhikkhus, is called the Absolute

When the terms unconditioned, absolute, and ultimate are used, as in the above and below quotes, do they not mean the same as intrinsically real? Does un-conditioned not mean "independent of conditions" and hence self-existing?

  Bodhicitta literally means “awakened heart.” On the relative level it
  is compassion, expressed in the bodhisattva vow to save all beings; it
  is the aspiration to awaken from ignorance in order to live one’s life
  for the benefit of all. On the ultimate level, bodhicitta goes beyond
  the concepts of self and other. It is the empty, aware nature of the
  mind itself.

The first draft of this question was partly motivated by the question, "is compassion real?", however, from reading One Dharma: The Emerging Western Buddhism (Joseph Goldstein), my understanding is now that compassion is relative (not intrinsically real), i.e. as Joseph Goldstein puts it:

  I realized that the relative level is the expression of the ultimate:
  compassion is the activity of emptiness.

Since that part of my question has been answered, it has now been revised.

You can't walk under a rainbow - in this sense it is an illusion. And yet rainbow is a meteorological phenomenon that actually occurs - in this sense it is not an illusion.

In Mahayana Buddhism we say that the rainbow is "empty". Meaning, if we disassemble it, there is nothing inside, no core, no secret ingredient. If we examine it closely, we will see the water droplets, the sunlight, the reflection, refraction, dispersion, and the observer looking at it from a certain angle - all these things combined lead to appearance of an arch in the sky - but in actuality there is no arch.

When you see a homeless person, and out of pity give him money for food - on one hand that's real metta-karuna operating in you. On the other hand, giving him money won't really change anything. Perhaps it actually makes it worse, by enabling him to buy alcohol. Perhaps if you took him home by force and taught Dharma - that would be actual help, but you don't do that. So maybe it's not metta, maybe it's ignorance operating in you. Or perhaps, who knows - may be the homeless person should feel pity for you, because he can wander unfettered and you have to go to work every day. In that sense, maybe it's not metta, maybe it's conceit operating in you. In that sense, our metta is not real. Who can judge whether our kindness is real kindness or fake kindness? It depends on the judge. And yet we try to be as kind as we can, and as wise as we can. So metta is like rainbow - depends on the object, the situation, and the position of the observer.

According to Mahayana (specifically the part called Madhyamaka - "the meaning of the middle way"), everything is like that: on one hand it's real - and on the other hand it's not; on one hand it exists - and on the other hand it's an illusion; it looks solid from afar - but falls apart under careful examination. Nothing is real - and yet everything is real.

They say even this ^^^ understanding above is not "real", because it is only a conceptual map - and map is never exactly the same as the territory.

In this sense nothing is intrinsically real. All our experiences are like "rainbows" in some sense. All our concepts are like "maps". Even Nirvana is just a word that gives a label but does not really explain anything. Entire Dharma is a map or a guidebook that only approximately explains what happens in real life.

In Mahayana we say that going beyond these rainbows and maps (="Realizing Emptiness"), is a big step towards Enlightenment.

Now, depending on a particular school we either say that the actual "ground reality" beyond the rainbows and maps (=ontological reality behind experiences and descriptions) is intrinsically real. OR we say that there is no such absolute ground and everything is completely relative. If you belong to Nyingma or Kagyu - then you say that the ground reality is real, just indescribable and not accessible to direct experience, but we actually are living it. And if you belong to Gelug, then you say that this ground is only an abstraction in our mind, leaving us with nothing to stand on. This is known as
the Rangtong-Shentong distinction.


Do fully enlightened "persons" still meditate, and why? Do fully enlightened "persons" still meditate, and why? I get why they keep living, to help sentient beings. But does meditation help in that way?

Yes, Buddha did meditate. This is for the pleasant abiding here and now.

From the discussion, What did Buddha do to pass his time? --

  Some relevant info:

    Then the Blessed One, having emerged from seclusion after the passing of
    three months, addressed the monks: “Monks, if wanderers of other sects
    ask you, ‘By means of what dwelling, friends, did Gotama the
    contemplative mostly dwell during the rains residence?’: You, thus asked,
    should answer them in this way: ‘It was by means of the concentration of
    mindfulness of breathing that the Blessed One mostly dwelled.’ …

  This means that right mindfulness functions not only as a factor of the path,
  but also as a pleasant pastime for those who have fully developed the path and
  tasted its ultimate fruit.

This quote is originally from the Icchānaṅgala Sutta  (SN 54:11).


Inter-relation between the four brahmaviharas? I read once, online, someone (perhaps in the Tibetan tradition if that matters) saying that the four brahmaviharas are inter-related -- in particular, that too much of one is counteracted by a bit of another.

For example:

Feeling too sorry for someone (too much compassion/karuna) is counteracted by a bit of mudita (remembering the ways in which that person is virtuous or fortunate)
Similarly, too much of each of the other three is counter-balanced by a bit of each of the others

I was reminded of it by this answer ("in good there is seed of bad").

I don't remember the explanation I read, though, and I wasn't able to find the reference again.

Is that anything you've heard before? If you know the explanation but don't know a reference for it, that's OK too (I'd be happy to read just your explanation of it even without a reference).

Uppekkha is what is used to straighten Karuna. Not Muditha. Compassion can easily turn into sadness. When that happens you view the situation in terms of Karma and Vipaka: “All beings are the owners of their karma; their happiness and unhappiness depends upon their actions, not on my wishes for them.”

Metta(kindness) can turn into lust when practiced towards attractive women. Then you can use a mental technique like thinking of them as mothers, sisters, daughters or you can meditate on the repulsiveness of the body.


What Buddha taught by his knowledge about human life? Buddha taught that everything is ephemeral and everything is grief. What a seeker should do in the above circumstances?

Buddha taught all worldly things are ephemeral but did not teach everything is "grief". "Grief" is an emotion created by the mind rather than a characteristic of things.

The seeker keeps reflecting & examining how all worldly things are ephemeral until the mind realises completely that ephemeral things cannot be any other way or 'suchness' ('tathātā').

This will result in the mind giving up desires & expectations towards ephemeral things.

This is described at the end of the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta, as follows:

  O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception,
  gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness.
  Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he
  is emancipated.


If we have the law of karma, why do we need other laws, or do we? Since we have the law of karma then there should be no need for laws or prisons? The law of karma will issue out punishment automatically. So if you murder someone there will be equal consequences regardless. Is this correct?

Even in a world where the law of karma is real and in effect, one needs laws and punishment for a few reasons.

Karma doesn't "issue", and its effects are not "punishment"; in Buddhist view it's a blind process of cause and effect and the effects of karma are not to be known or speculated about. This is one of the four imponderables:

  § 22.    "These four imponderables are not to be speculated about.
  Whoever speculates about them would go mad & experience vexation.
  Which four? The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers
  a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha]... The jhana-range
  of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may
  obtain while absorbed in jhana]... The results of kamma... Speculation
  about [the first moment, purpose, etc., of] the cosmos is an
  imponderable that is not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates
  about these things would go mad & experience vexation."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html#causes

It's not known when the effect of karma comes to fruition, in what way, or if they come to fruition at all. If karma comes to fruition, one doesn't necessary realize: "This is because of my bad karma, I should change my ways."

Therefore, the concept of karma doesn't:

repel those who want to commit crimes
remove those who commit crimes (temporarily) from society
rehabilitate those who have been found guilty

Which, in an ideal justice system, laws and prisons do.


Equanimity in extreme disturbance cases Equanimity is one of the central points of buddhism practice. I am curious what would happen to that state in cases of extreme disturbance.

Imagine that you were in immediate danger, like being killed by someone , robbed or raped.

I guess Equanimity would not be helpful on those cases, unless we are talking about calmness to think better how to counter-attack.
But that would require action, and not only being observer, how equanimity states.

With base of these circunstances, i would like to hear your opinions.
What would happen to an equanimity state in case of extreme disturbances?

Equanimity is not the central point of practicing the Dhamma but a high end tool. The central task is discrimination of phenomenas, mindfulness (on the four frames of reference).

In doing so, there is seen where a possible disturbance actually comes from, arises, and by uprooting the disturbance (inwardly), recognicing that one can be not really touched but it is just the grasping, of what is not real, by oneself, there such equanimity with phenomenas arise.

What is an extreme disturbance really? The perception of a mouse, news on TV, a day without food, an executor, a tiger in front, a lost leg, a wounded belly, sreeming child, broken computer? What disturbes? The own missing coffee or missing food for the third world? Minimum 50 years more to suffer here, and not to speak after, again and again?

My person found "Equanimity is one of the central points of buddhism practice" merely disturbing, therfore:

  AN 4.100: Potaliya Sutta: Potaliya {A ii 100} [Bodhi]. Here the Buddha points out to an wandering ascetic that alienation and equanimity are not the higherst virtues in regard of praise and blame.

and maybe: The Integrity of Emptiness

Because if having started practicing one will soon know for oneself, without building on disturbing thought constructions.

Enjoy solution, discriminatingly, direct perceived.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


The Buddha who knew there were 31 realm but didn't mention anything about a round earth Why didn't the Buddha, who knew there were 31 realms of existence, not talk about the roundness of the earth and planets?

The basic project of Buddhism is solving the problem of suffering (or sometimes some other variation of the fundamental problem), usually through a realization about who we really are.

In addition to that, the Buddha didn't bother to challenge many of the other ideas of his day regarding the realms, or karma. (He did take on caste, the economic system, to some degree the inequalities of men and women) He didn't challenge the world's thoughts on a lot of other issues, like medicine, astronomy, geography and so on.

The sutras were written 100s of years later, and accumulated all sorts of unrelated material. By 700 AD, when Vajrayana was well established, the Buddhist canon included books on medicine, astrology and more.

There are many varieties of Buddhism, the secular version dispenses with the cosmologies as instructive myths and the core project of Buddhism remains.

On the other hand, traditional Buddhism still holds the realms to be literally true, necessary for the Buddhist project and proponents like to call doubters "scientist", "materialist" or dismissive of "faith".

If the basic project is to stop the cycle of rebirth and enter a sort of heaven (nirvana), then the realms are essential to Buddhism, without them the basic goal becomes incoherent. If the basic project to end suffering, that is a goal that can imaginably be achieved in this lifetime and it's validity is unaffected by what may happen after we die.


What is Buddhism's view on past lives? I have often come across this - our past karma will bear its fruits in the present life or in the future one. So how does one identify the events is the because of past karma? Where is information about previous life stored? Is it recorded in the soul? Does soul have answers of all our questions? How do I access this information? Am I delusional? I wonder.

So how does one identify the events in the present life caused by karma of previous lives?

The Buddha was able to do so (able to see in detail the consequences of karma); but it's an unusual ability.

See Wikipedia's Enumerations of special knowledges, which includes,

  "Remember one's former abodes" (pubbe-nivāsanussati), that is, recalling ones own past lives;
  "Divine eye" (dibba-cakkhu), that is, knowing others' karmic destinations;

and which ends with,

  The three knowledges are mentioned in numerous discourses including the Maha-Saccaka Sutta (MN 36) in which the Buddha describes obtaining each of these three knowledges on the first, second and third watches respectively of the night of his enlightenment. These forms of knowledge typically are listed as arising after the attainment of the fourth jhana.[11]

  While such powers are considered to be indicative of spiritual progress, Buddhism cautions against their indulgence or exhibition since such could divert one from the true path of obtaining suffering's release.

Where is information about previous life stored?

I think that's not explained in the (relatively early) Tipiṭaka.

I think that maybe later schools of Buddhism introduced various theories, for example:

Ālaya-vijñāna ('storehouse-consciousness')
Citta-santāna ('the stream of mind')
Antara-bhāva or bardo ('intermediate state')

I think this subject causes much discussion and different opinions, perhaps because it's not clearly explained by the Buddha.

In his article titled Rebirth and the in-between state in early Buddhism, Bhikkhu Sujato wrote,

  So right away we get a good sense for the soteriological significance of rebirth within Early Buddhism. But we have learned little of the mechanics of it: How does it happen? What makes it work? How do we analyze the process in detail? We must admit that the Āgama Suttas do not offer us a detailed explanation of such matters. But this itself has its own significance: for the Āgama Suttas, the underlying basis of rebirth is not the issue. The issue is that rebirth is suffering, and practice is needed to find freedom. A detailed ‘scientific’ understanding of rebirth is marginal to the liberative teachings of the Āgama Suttas.

Is it recorded in the soul?

Actually, talk about a "soul" doesn't sound like conventional Buddhist doctrine.

Buddhist doctrine includes Anatta.

Here are a couple of quotes about Anatta.

Egolessness (Anattaa)

  There are three teachers in the world. The first teacher teaches the existence of an eternal ego-entity outlasting death: that is the Eternalist, as for example the Christian. The second teacher teaches a temporary ego-entity which becomes annihilated at death: that is the annihilationist, or materialist. The third teacher teaches neither an eternal, nor a temporary ego-entity: this is the Buddha.

Miln III.5.6: Soul

  The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is a soul to be found?"

  The elder replied: "According to ultimate reality, your majesty, a soul is not to be found."

  "You are clever, venerable Nagasena."

  Note:
  Vedaguu: a "knower," permanent subject of experience, soul. Vedaguu is an interesting word, originally a brahmanical term related to mastery of the Vedas. The Buddha appropriated it to mean "one who has attained highest knowledge," i.e., synonymous with "arahant." However, as the PED notes: "A peculiar meaning of vedaguu is that of 'soul' (lit. attainer of wisdom) at Miln 54 & 71."

Buddhist doctrine teaches not to view, as permanent 'self', what's found in the present six consciousnesses (i.e. what we see, hear, taste, smell, touch, and think about).

If there is no ego-entity (self-entity) now, then "rebirth" becomes kind of moot.

And in this answer Yuttadhammo Bikkhu wrote,

  The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old. etc.

Does soul have answers of all our questions?

Therefore probably not: 'soul' doesn't have answers to all our questions.

The later schools of Buddhism do introduce ideas like Buddha-nature (however I don't know whether that corresponds at all to what you might want to call "soul", and I won't try to describe it here).

In the (earlier) Pali suttas, the Sabbasava Sutta warns that there are questions which should not be attended to:

  This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

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

You asked in the OP, "Am I delusional?" Maybe this is an explanation: i.e. attending to questions about self-in-the-past and soul, is a recipe for becoming "inwardly perplexed" and "a fetter of views".

(The antidote, i.e. what should be attended to instead, is the four noble truths etc.)

See also The unanswered questions.


What is the Pali word for mundane knowledge ? What is the Pali word for mundane knowledge

Lokīya ñāṇa, as opposed to lokuttara ñāṇa (supramundane knowledge)


The noble truths and eight fold path aren't holy than a learner. when a learner becomes a teacher? I want to accept the Noble Eightfold Path (somewhere it is 10). I know what I can do. I know how many positive possibilities are surging inside me to come out. I know I am all alone to mark my words by adapting everything that I say. By breathing and watching my beloved resting I feel so relaxed. I want to share this feeling with everyone.

Do I really need to devote my life to the Noble Eightfold Path? Life as it seems is not that bad, even without the Eightfold Path. Is it necessary to adapt whatever I read in Buddhism? Can one reciprocrate what he/she has never read before? (My English isn't much good, I am learning. I welcome you (especially Andrei with his best guess and Crab Bucket) if they can improve the question.

The 'Noble' in the "Noble eight-fold path" is that you become a Noble one (Arya) by following it.


How does one become a lay Buddhist? I'm well aware that there are many different types of Buddhism, so I'm looking for the fortune-cookie sized description of the various kinds of induction/process/rituals/ceremony involved for the lay follower.

For Theravada and some Mahayana traditions becoming a lay Buddhist is as simple as taking refuge in the Triple Gem of the Buddha,  Dhamma, Sangha and taking the 5 precepts. This is usually at a ceremony and "given" by the monks however the true taking  of refuge is something done in the mind,  not recited or given.

You are in short taking refuge, showing trust in the Buddha and his awakening,  the dhamma as the truth,  and the sangha as the keepers of that path,  more specifically the aryan(awakened)  Sangha and also all monastics.  Then you attempt to live a more skillful life that is beneficial to yourself and others by following the precepts to the best of your ability.

The ceremony usually involves a recitation in the Pali for Theravadan or the cultural language for the Mahayana.

This link to Bhikkhu Bodhi's article on the subject is great for further reading on the subject.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel282.html

Going for refuge,  recited x3

Buddham saranam gacchami
I go for refuge to the Buddha;

Dhammam saranam gacchami
I go for refuge to the Dhamma;

Sangham saranam gacchami
I go for refuge to the Sangha.

And precepts:

(1) the training rule of abstaining from taking life;

(2) the training rule of abstaining from taking what is not given;

(3) the training rule of abstaining from sexual misconduct;

(4) the training rule of abstaining from false speech; and

(5) the training rule of abstaining from fermented and distilled intoxicants which are the basis for heedlessness.


In what sutta/suttas did Buddha stated "I never admire samsara/bhava"? I have read it somewhere and can't remember now. Buddha told Bhikkus that he never admires a disiple who stops his effort after attaining "sotapanna" state. He should still work hard until he is completely clean and attains Arhat status.

The thing you are looking for is probably a misinterpretation of this passage from Maha-Parinibbana Sutta:

  ... among these five hundred bhikkhus even the lowest is a
  stream-enterer, secure from downfall, assured, and bound for
  enlightenment."

  And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish.
  Strive with heedfulness!"

Handa dani bhikkhave amantayami vo: Vayadhamma sankhara appamadena sampadetha.

And this one in regards to Samsara:

  “Just as even a little dung stinks, so I do not recommend even a
  little becoming, not for so much as a finger snap”


What is New Age Buddhism? I've noticed that we have a tag on the site for New Age Buddhism which has a couple of questions associated with it (one more now I've asked this!). What is New Age Buddhism though. Can anyone give a reasonable concise definition of it, maybe point to some links for more detail and give a few teachers that follow or expound this line of Buddhism. Does it have anything that uniquely differentiates it from other forms of Buddhism. Or it is a not genuine concept at all?

I think we should differentiate Buddhism from New Age movements, they may share some goals (happiness), some tools (meditation) and some teachings, however they are very different in some key aspects, usually the ones related to money, intoxocants, sexuality and "enjoying life" (generally speaking)

There are new age gurus and teachers trying to reconcile the Buddha's teachings with our modern society and other believes, some of them attract a lot of people, I do respect them, but I don't see it as "New Age Buddhism", I see it as "New Age movements with some Buddhists teachings inside".


What is the definition of passa ? The answer on this question mentions passa in the comments.

Having never encountered the term in my studies, what is an overview of the term? What school of Buddhism does it originate from?

As per my dictionaries:

Phassa (sanskr. sparça): contact, touch, tangibility, tactile sensation, a momentary union of the sense-object, sense-door, and sense-consciousness.

It's a standard term coming all the way back from the Pali Canon and used widely by Theravada and Abhidhamma.


What is the difference between destruction of craving and cessation of craving? There are two suttas, SN 46.26 about destruction of craving and SN 46.27 about the cessation of craving.

I was thinking that destruction of craving is same as cessation of craving but the pali word for each of them is different(destruction of craving - taṇhakkhayāya ;cessation of craving -taṇhānirodhāya)
. However I am not clear what difference does it make when we say cessation of craving instead of destruction of craving? In both the cases there should be cessation of suffering.

My question is : What is the difference between destruction of craving and cessation of craving?

According to Sanskrit dictionary, the two words have different connotations that I think are important for correct understanding of Buddhist doctrine.

Pali kkhaya or Sanskrit kṣayā (kshaya) means "destruction, termination, ruin, perish, wane, decay, end, vanish, disappear". (kṣayā-ya means "for destruction")

Pali and Sanskrit nirodha is made from the root rodha which basically means dam, fence, wall, barrier -- and prefix ni- that means "within", "down into" or niḥ- which means "out", "away". Combined with rodha, both prefixes seem to support the image of containment, blocking something from getting in or getting out. Hence the dictionary meaning of Sanskrit nirodha: "confine, imprison, restrain, control, suppress, obstruct, hinder, keep back". Interestingly, "Nirodh" is a condom brand in India. In modern-day Hindi - a language that grew out of Proto-Magadhi Prakrit, the word निरोध (nirodha) means "contraception", "protection", "detention", "control", "prevention", "restraint", "check", "repression", "preclusion", "obstruction", "constraint", "inhibition", and gives rise to such modern words as "insect repellent" (nirodhaka) and "strangehold" (nirodhana).

So the meaning of nirodha is more like not allowing something to happen, while the meaning of kshaya is more like decaying, falling apart & vanishing from existence.

The common English translations of nirodha as "cessation" and kshaya as "destruction" have it a little backwards, in my opinion. A better translation IMO would be nirodha => "prevention" and kshaya => "ending".

As I understand, Buddha of Pali Canon uses "nirodha" a lot more frequently than "kshaya" because he wants to make it clear that dukkha is something we actively prevent (by not giving rise to craving, by uprooting the ignorance, by developing signlessness, by abiding in suchness), instead of it simply ending by itself when we reach some fantasy state.


Lord Yama's identity I've been reading up on cosmology and am curious if Lord Suyama of Yama heaven and Lord Yama as judge of the recently deceased are the same figure. The latter is often said to reside in either the hell or preta realms, but since he is also a vaimanikapreta, I can't help but wonder if his time in the higher planes equates to this third level of heaven. Or are the same names simply coincidence?

Any thoughts/sources are much appreciated.

According to Theravāda perspective, Lord Yama is considered to be a vemānika-asura who sometimes enjoys all the pleasures of heaven, in a celestial mansion and at other times experiences the fruits of his kamma by being the king in hell (niraya). Lord Yama belongs to the Cātummahārājikā deva (god) category. So according to my knowledge, lord Yama and lord Suyama of Yama are two devas.
When sentient beings appear near the hell gates, hell-wardens (nirayapalas) seizing them by the arms present them to king Yama. According to "Devaduta Sutta: The Deva Messengers", he always try to remember the good deeds one did in his/her previous existence. He does not order hell-wardens to punish the sentient beings in the hell. So, he is a good king.
For more information please read this.
Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.


Buddhism is not fatalism? According to the Buddhism's theory, one man's fate is destined by the past's karma.
Suppose that he faced an unfortunate incident at birth, which is due to past karma. Besides, his genes are inherited from his parents. In other words, his brain is also initiated by past karma.

In this condition, all his ideas are also affected by the experience he has had, which is determined by past karma. To elaborate more, some are clever, some less, which can again be explained by karma.
But if the conventional human brain can be so strongly determined by the existence of karma, how can you say buddhism is not fatalism?

According to the Buddhism's theory, one man's fate is destined by the past's karma.

This is true that our conditions are determined by past karma, but they are determined by present as well.
A Brahman asked the Buddha in the Cula Kammavibhanga Sutta

  Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why inferiority and superiority are met with among human beings, among mankind? For one meets with short-lived and long-lived people, sick and healthy people, ugly and beautiful people, insignificant and influential people, poor and rich people, low-born and high-born people, stupid and wise people. What is the reason, what is the condition, why superiority and inferiority are met with among human beings, among mankind?

The Buddha replies by saying that our conditions are due to our past karma. This; however, is not fatalistic. The idea of karma revolves around the idea that we create our future.

In the Devadaha Sutta the Buddha refutes two Jainism theories about karma

The past determines present pleasure and pain, and the present determines future present and pain.
The belief that you can do nothing in the present to get rid of suffering; all one could do is live with it.

The Buddha rejected both of those theories that were taught in Jainism. Those two statements sound fatalistic.

The Buddha said that the past and present determine the present; thus, making it not fatalistic.
Suffering, according to the Buddha, is due to past and present karma as well.
There is no fatalism in Buddhism.

The karma you mention in your question seems to be more of Jainist theories of karma than Buddhist theories of karma.