Is Physical Attraction or Appreciation of the Human Form Considered Attachment? Naturally as humans we feel many forms of attraction to other humans, but I am curious to know:

Is attraction (or more so, a mere appreciation of the human form) considered a form of desire and, by extension, attachment to be consciously avoided?

What you say "attachment", I think that the Pali word for 'attachment' is Upādāna:

  In Buddhism, upādāna is a critical link in the arising of suffering.

When it says "link", there, it means that it is, "part of the causal chain of suffering",

  In the twelve-linked chain of Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpāda, also see Twelve Nidanas), clinging (upādāna) is the ninth causal link:

  Upādāna (Clinging) is dependent on Tṛṣṇā (Craving) as a condition before it can exist.
  "With Craving as condition, Clinging arises".

That Wikipedia article (as well as other references, like this one) also says that there are different types of attachment:

  In the Sutta Pitaka, the Buddha states that there are four types of clinging:

  sense-pleasure clinging (kamupadana)
  wrong-view clinging (ditthupadana)
  rites-and-rituals clinging (silabbatupadana)
  self-doctrine clinging (attavadupadana).

Perhaps you can see how "physical attraction" might be related to all four types of clinging; for example:

"That person looks and feels and smells and sounds pleasurable, I enjoy perceiving them" (sense pleasure)
"I'll love that person forever" alternatively "It's just a one-night stand with no consequences" (wrong view e.g. eternalism or nihilism)
The "dating game" and "marriage" as a source of happiness (rites and rituals)
"I am attractive or unattractive, because I do or don't have a romantic partner" (self-doctrine)

The Upadana Sutta says,

  In one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena (or: phenomena that offer sustenance = the five aggregates), craving develops. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.

  Now, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging, illness & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

I think that the first paragraph is saying that attachment arises as a result of a process like the following:

"That person is physically attractive" (is focus on the allure of clingable phenomena)
"I enjoy the attraction, I like being attracted" followed by "That enjoyment/attraction has vanished, I wish it would reoccur" (is craving)
"I want that person, because they're attractive" (is attachment)

Conversely the second paragraph is recommending a process like the following:

"Sensual pleasures are impermanent and cannot be satisfactory (focus on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena ... not only sensual pleasures but the other types of clinging too)
"Seeing their drawbacks therefore I don't actually find them very attractive" (craving ceases)
I'm not attracted so I don't become attached (no attachment so the cycle doesn't continue).

There are mental exercises purposely designed to make the body seem unattractive (e.g. imagine it as a corpse, as a skeleton, etc.).

I think there are also other ways to approach the problem. One way might be via self-doctrine, for example, if you have the thought, "I want that person, because they're attractive" then you might think ... "Wait, it's not that 'they are attractive' it's that 'I perceive them as, I consider them, I find them to be, attractive. However 'I' am impermanent, the 'I' is just a reification of impermanent senses, and so that (i.e. 'my' view, that they are attractive) is impermanent and not something to 'attach myself' to."

In Thundering Silence: Sutra on Knowing the Better Way to Catch a Snake
 by Thich Nhat Hanh, he writes,

  Many people think that to undergo spiritual discipline is to practice asceticism and austerities. But to others, the practice of the Dharma does not exclude the enjoyment of the fresh air, the setting sun, a glass of cool water, and so on. Enjoying things in moderation does not bring us suffering or tie us with the bonds of attachment. Once we recognize that all of these things are impermanent, we have no problem enjoying them. In fact, real peace and joy are only possible when we see clearly into the nature of impermanence.

It then mentions times in the suttas where the Buddha expressed appreciation for a good meal, or commented on the beauty of a landscape.

Thich Nhat Hanh is a Zen Buddhist monk.

I think he's saying that perceiving a sense-pleasure as unpleasurable isn't the only way to avoid craving and attachment: that you may be able to avoid attachment by enjoying such things in moderation and remaining mindful of impermanence.

Beware though that doctrine may warn there's a difference between food and sex (if "sex" is what you mean by "physical attraction and appreciation of the human form") -- e.g. the Bhikkhuni Sutta,

  This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.

  This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.

  This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.

  This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge.

Buddhist monks (at least, if not lay people) are celibate.


The 4 Elements and it’s relation with electricity I did a guided meditation today on Thich Nhat Hanh’s Plum Village app. It was based on the 4 elements. Fire, Earth, Air and Water. As I was midway through it, I was contemplating the electrical energy that causes my body to interact with my nervous system and brain. I also thought about how it was present in thunder storms in the form of lightning. Clouds would be what I consider part of the water element and electricity can also create fire. I was wondering if there was any writing about electricity in the Buddhist tradition that might shed light on my contemplation?

MN28 discusses the four elements. Electricity would be a manifestation of the fire element. The electricity of your nervous system would be interior fire element.

MN28:16.1: And what is the fire element? The fire element may be interior or exterior. And what is the interior fire element? Anything that’s fire, fiery, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes: that which warms, that which ages, that which heats you up when feverish, that which properly digests food and drink, or anything else that’s fire, fiery, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This is called the interior fire element. The interior fire element and the exterior fire element are just the fire element. This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’ When you truly see with right understanding, you grow disillusioned with the fire element, detaching the mind from the fire element.

The lighting in the clouds would be the exterior fire element. Notably, all four elements should not be considered self.

MN28:17.1: There comes a time when the exterior fire element flares up. It burns up villages, towns, cities, countries, and regions until it reaches a green field, a roadside, a cliff’s edge, a body of water, or cleared parkland, where it’s extinguished for lack of fuel. There comes a time when they go looking for a fire, taking just chicken feathers and strips of sinew as kindling. So for all its great age, the fire element will be revealed as impermanent, liable to end, vanish, and perish. What then of this ephemeral body appropriated by craving? Rather than take it to be ‘I’ or ‘mine’ or ‘I am’, they still just consider it to be none of these things. …

Observe the elements without wishes.


Do Chinese-language publications about Zen Buddhism usually use Simplified or Traditional Chinese? Is most of the Chinese content (books or articles) about Zen Buddhism, available on the internet, written in simplified or traditional Chinese?

And of course, now and then we want to buy printed books: so what about them?

Is simplified or traditional more widely used?

This is not a black and white simple answer... however, to give you ideas, for the original sutras that have been translated into Chinese, the classical ones are the best, they were translated by great masters like Kumarajiva, Xuanzang... these masters they themselves had reached the high level of self-cultivation (Bodhisattvas, Arhats) and the translation was promoted and sponsored by the Chinese Emperors in Ancient China; great scholars would be gathered, discussed, debated, then concluded the translations. For example, Kumarajiva and Xuanzang were both fluent in Sanskrit and Chinese. However, these sutras are written in Classical Chinese 文言文, the complete collection Tripitaka in Traditional Chinese.

However, Simplified Chinese is used in Mainland China by 11bn people since 1950s/1960s, and the Putonghua with Pinyin is very easy to learn for Westerners. There are brilliant practitioners in Mainland China and many of the treasures are inherited in the Mainland simply they are there. But Taiwan has strong roots in Buddhism since it's never truncated by any turmoils or Cultural Revolutions they used the Traditional Chinese. If you intend to read by the Modern Chinese you could find 南懷瑾 老師 Teacher Nan Huai-Chin, he is in this time one of the few most learnt and bright teachers resided in Taiwan but he really learnt all his knowledge when he was still in China. (Passed away.) A website has almost all his works: 实修驿站 (shixiu.net) in Simplified. Another is the Tibetan Rinpoche 慈誠羅珠.

If you are trying to buy books with translated sutra from Classical Chinese 文言文 to Modern Chinese 白話文 you have to be very very careful. These modern translations maybe erroneous or partially grasped the original meanings; Chinese language is a very graphical and refined language the meanings are not on the faces of the words, literally speaking. This is in particular for the Zen Buddhism. There is a famous Buddhist metaphor, that is "the finger pointing to the moon", if one watches the finger, one will fail to see the moon.


Any tips on creating a stay at home retreat? I do not have the finances to go to a dedicated meditation retreat but do not see why I cannot recreate the environment at home. I am unemployed but financially dependent and already live a pretty austere lifestyle so just by cutting out some elements may be able to create a strong meditative environment. Not sure how many days would be a good idea for a beginner. I spend almost 90% of my day at my computer. Here is a typical day:

7:00 - Wake up
8:00 - Have breakfast with family
  |
  |--- Spend time at computer
  |
1:00 - Lunch with family
  |
  |--- Spend time at computer maybe sleeping for 1 hour inbetween
  |
6:30 - Exercise at gym
7:00 - Shower
7:30 - Formal meditation
8:00 - Dinner with family
  |
  |--- Spend time at computer
  |
11:00- Go to bed

Most of my time at the computer is spent browsing internet, reading, listening to popular music or watching movies. Besides my family I have no social contacts since I live in a city where I don't currently speak the language. My mobile phone rings about 2-3 times a month and most of those are wrong numbers.

I was thinking I could spend a few days where I stop internet, music and movies.
Also only use computer for 3 hours each day. 1 hour each in morning, afternoon and evening. Spend that time on computer reading spiritual documents only. When I am not on computer I can alternate between formal meditation(sitting) and walking meditation. Not sure if I should stop exercise(I only do jogging on treadmill). I can also only have vegetarian meals and reduce portion size.

Any suggestions?

First purify your conduct by keeping to the 8 precepts

5.00 AM: Waking up

5.00 to 5.15 AM: Personal Grooming Mindfully

5.15 to 5.30 AM: Take refuge in the Triple Gem and take the 8 precepts

5.30 to 6.00 AM: Sitting Meditation

6.00 to 6.30 AM: Walking Meditation

6.30 to 7.00 AM: Sitting Meditation

7.00 to 7.30 AM: Walking Meditation

7.30 to 8.00 AM: Sitting Meditation

8.00 to 8.30 AM: Have breakfast mindfully. Do not get involved in worldly chatter.

8.30 to 9.00 AM: Walking Meditation

9.00 AM to 1.00 PM: Sitting & Walking meditation(30 minute sessions)

1.00 PM to 1.30 PM: Have lunch mindfully. Do not get involved in worldly chatter.

1.30 PM to 2.00 PM: Walking Meditation

2.00 PM to 3.00 PM: Sitting & Walking Meditation(30 minute sessions)

3.00 PM to 4.00 PM: Lying meditation until you fall asleep

4.00 PM to 6.30 PM: Sitting & Walking Meditation(30 minute sessions)

6.30 PM to 7.00 PM: Exercise Mindfully

7.00 PM to 7.30 PM: Shower Mindfully

7.30 PM to 8.00 PM: Sitting Meditation

8.00 PM to 8.30 PM: Have dinner mindfully. Do not get involved in worldly chatter.

8.30 PM to 9.00 PM: Walking meditation

9.00 PM to 9.30 PM: Sitting Meditation

9.30 PM to 9.45 PM: Walking Meditation

9.45 PM to 10.00 PM: Personal Grooming Mindfully

10.00 PM: Lying meditation until you fall asleep

Here is a guide book on how to do sitting and walking meditation: http://www.sirimangalo.org/text/how-to-meditate/


How to rebuild a relationship after a breach of trust? What are the Buddhist norms & guidelines for rebuilding a relationship after a breach of trust?

I can't think of any instances where the Buddha specifically addresses your question. However, you may find the Patience chapter in Santideva's Bodhicaravatara (Way of the Bodhisattva) quite helpful.
Of course, the whole chapter is profoundly useful (as is the entire text), but you may want to have a look, starting at verse 38 of chapter six. Here's a link: https://www.tibethouse.jp/about/buddhism/text/pdfs/Bodhisattvas_way_English.pdf


Theravada Buddhism and Art In Mahayana Buddhism we can see various artistic expressions: Thangka and Songs of Milarepa in Tibetan Buddhism, Chinese and Japanese art also were influenced heavily by Buddhism. Is there any forms of art practiced by Theravada monks? Do you know of any monks who were painters or poets?

These are pictures I took at the Laotian temple (in the US) I've been attending. I'm told the monks make the decorative parts of the buildings and the statues. I thought this was very interesting so I looked it up and apparently these traditional artistic skills are passed down among the Theravada monks in Laos.
 more information


Help with a weekend slump in meditation practice On work days (5 days a week), I'm normally able to get in around 4-4.5 hours of meditation a day, normally walking and sitting for 45 minutes each and then some Anapana meditation usually at the start and end of each day. On the weekends, I usually am able to do the same sort of practice but around 8-10 hours worth. Curiously though, on the weekends, it seems like my practice takes something of a slump, if it is even that. Towards the end of the day on weekends the pain that normally arises in my leg and I am normally able to be mindful of becomes exceptionally more intense, to the point that I'm sometimes only able to sit for 30 minutes. I know the length you sit isn't so much important as how mindful you're able to be; I guess what I'm trying to ask is, how should I reflect on this, and also how should I judge the "progress" of my personal practice in general? Thank you

Because of the longer sits you are likely graduating to the higher Visuddhiñanas, such as Visuddhiñana #3: sammasana-ñana

  Seeing how each object, even while being noticed, comes to destruction
  and disappearance, the meditator comprehends it as impermanent in the
  sense of undergoing destruction. He further comprehends it as
  suffering (painful) in the sense of breaking up after each arising.
  Having seen how various painful feelings arise in continuous
  succession — how if one painful feeling ceases, another arises, and
  when that has ceased, again another arises — having seen that, he
  comprehends the respective objects as just a conglomeration of
  suffering. Further, he comprehends the object as consisting of mere
  impersonal phenomena without a master, in the sense of not arising of
  (or by) themselves, but arising subject to conditions and then
  breaking up.

  This comprehension of an object noticed, as being impermanent,
  painful, and without a self (impersonal), through knowing its nature
  of impermanency, etc., by means of simply noticing, without reflecting
  and reasoning, is called "knowledge by comprehension through direct
  experience."

source: Progress of Insight, Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw

The solution is to intensify the observation of the sensations, and break down the pain into smaller component parts. Notice that even the most solidified pain has impermanence - it occurs in pulses and waves - the pain is not uniform from moment to moment.

When you see the pain as not a solid mass but also born of the cycle of birth and death the pain should dissipate. Don't decommission your knee or joints by overdoing it, be gentle on your body and mindfully change positions if you can't bear it. Buddhism needn't be masochism :)

The next ñana (knowledge) Arising and Passing away is important. Good luck, your dedication is admirable.


Resources to study the Abhidharma in the East/North Asian schools of Buddhism (e,g, Mahayana, Tibetan, Yogacara, Dharmaguptaka, etc.) What are good resources and references (ideally online) to learn Abhidharma from East and North Asian (Mahayana, Tibetan, Yogacara, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, Dharmaguptaka, etc.) schools of Buddhism.

NB: I am aware of BPU BPhil 3rd Year Lecture Notes. So I am looking for resource other than this.

The Tattvasiddhi Śāstra, also called the Satyasiddhi Śāstra, is an extant abhidharma text written by Harivarman, a 4th-century monk from central India. Harivarman is often thought to come from the Bahuśrutīya school, but the Tattvasiddhi contains teachings more similar to those of the Sautrāntika Sarvāstivādins. This abhidharma is now contained in the Chinese Buddhist canon in sixteen fascicles (Taishō Tripiṭaka 1646). Paramārtha cites this abhidharma text as containing a combination of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna doctrines, and Joseph Walser agrees that this assessment is correct. Ian Charles Harris also characterizes the text as a synthesis of Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, and notes that its doctrines are very close to those in Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra works. (from Wikipedia)

A PDF scan is available here at Scribd.com

  The Abhidharmakośakārikā or Verses on the Treasury of Abhidharma is a key text on the Abhidharma written in Sanskrit verse by Vasubandhu in the 4th or 5th century. It summarizes the Sarvāstivādin tenets in eight chapters with a total of around 600 verses. The text was widely respected and used by schools of Buddhism in India, Tibet and East Asia.

  Vasubandhu wrote a commentary to this work called the Abhidharmakośabhāsya. In it, he critiques the interpretations of the Sarvāstivādins, Vaibhāṣikas and others of the tenets he presented in his previous work from a Sautrāntika perspective. This commentary includes an additional chapter in prose refuting the idea of the "person" (pudgala) favoured by some Buddhists of the Pudgalavada school. However, later Sarvāstivādin master Samghabhadra considered that he misrepresented their school in the process, and at this point designated Vasubandhu as a Sautrāntika - upholder of the sutras. (from Wikipedia)

PDF scan of the 80-pages summary by Stefan Anacker for Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies

PDF scans of complete Abhidharmakośabhāsya: vol 1, vol 2, vol 3, vol 4

Hard copy of the bhāsya is available for purchase on Amazon
Hard copy of the commentary by 9th Karmapa on Amazon

Study materials for Abhidharmakośakārikā by Korin Pokorny:

Historical overview and introduction
Chapter 1. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 2. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 3. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 4. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 5. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 6. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 7. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 8. Text. Explanations.
Chapter 9. Text. Explanations.
Everything in one PDF

  Abhidharma-samuccaya (Compendium of Abhidharma) is a Buddhist text composed by Asanga. Abhidharma-samuccaya is a complete and systematic account of the Abhidharma. (from Wikipedia)

An edited transcript of a series of lectures given by the Venerable Traleg Kyabgon, Rinpoche at Kagyu E-Vam Buddhist Institute (KEBI) from July to October, 1983

PDF scan of complete Abhidharma-samuccaya

Hard copy is available for purchase on Amazon.


How do zen practitioners balance the mix between Buddhism detachment and Taoism attachment? On this site there's a topic Is there common ground between the Tao Te Ching and Buddhism? where one of the answers says:

  A commentator of the Taoist philosopher Guo Xiang's work and a Taoist himself, I forget his name now (I can look it up) once wrote that - I paraphrase from memory - Buddhism and Taoism are diametrically opposed, because one seeks detachment from all existence, while the other seeks attachment to all existence. One seeks liberation by detaching from all phenomena, while the other seeks liberation by becoming one with all phenomena. The two paths seem to be the same, but really they are opposite.

And in an answer to the topic Are there many differences between Taoism and Buddhism?:

  Buddhism seeks to transcend suffering while Taoism seeks unity with nature

So they don't necessary mutually exclusive each other, and of course one can combine it in zen.

But how do practitioners do that exactly?

How do they seek detachment and attachment at the same time?

FYI: Detachment (philosophy)

To say that Zen = Buddhism + Taoism is an utter simplification. To say that Buddhism seeks "detachment from all existence" is not at all accurate and to say that Taoism seeks "attachment to all existence" is a caricature.

And yet I will answer this question on its own terms, to help you clear your doubts:

If you detach from all existence, completely 100%, at the end there won't be "you". If you unite with all existence, completely 100%, at the end there won't be "you". In both cases the result is the same.

That said, you should study the Goal of Buddhism (Nirvana or Enlightenment) and the Goal of Taoism (living in harmony with the Tao) to understand what both of them really mean, so you can go beyond simplistic definitions and understand what this is actually about.


Patimokkha Rule On Bathing I recall having read somewhere that monks are allowed to bathe only once every 15 days. What is the actual Patimokkha rule behind this ? Also, what is the reason behind this rule and what are its possible benefits ? Is there any specific story corresponding to this rule ?

It's Pācittiya 57:

  Should any bhikkhu bathe at intervals of less than half a month, except at the proper
  occasions, it is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: the last month and a
  half of the hot season, the first month of the rains, these two and a half months being a
  time of heat, a time of fever; (also) a time of illness; a time of work; a time of going on a
  journey; a time of wind or rain. These are the proper occasions here.

  (Thanissaro, trans)

The reason is ostensibly that bathing is an unnecessary luxury. The benefit to the rule is that monks will not become overly attached to cleanliness and that they will not become a burden on society. The story behind it is that the king was unable to bathe because the monks were bathing.

Note that the rule only applies to bathing; showering is not mentioned.


What does 'loke' mean, in 'Sabba Loke Anabhirata Saññā' (not taking delight in 'worlds')? I'm referring to Girimananda Sutta (AN 10.60), where the Buddha introduces 9 perceptions + mindfulness with breathing:

  The perceptions of impermanence, not-self, ugliness, drawbacks, giving up, fading away, cessation, dissatisfaction with the whole world, non-desire for all conditions, and mindfulness of breathing.
  Aniccasaññā, anattasaññā, asubhasaññā, ādīnavasaññā, pahānasaññā, virāgasaññā, nirodhasaññā, sabbaloke anabhiratasaññā, sabbasaṅkhāresu anicchāsaññā, ānāpānassati.

How is this perception to be understood? Is 'Loke' here translated as our 'world' (5 aggregates) or is it the external world and the intrinsic dukkha in it?

Thanks

This is a very good question because the word "world" ("loka") appears to have many meanings; such as the "world of suffering" (SN 12.44; AN 4.45); the mundane world of defilements & samsara (Lokavagga; AN 8.6; SN 35.82) the world or realms of mental states (MN 79) and the world of people (AN 2.9; AN 3.23). One of the definitions of Nibbana is: "not this world; not the other world".

Personally, I don't know Pali and I have a natural retardedness for grammar however my Dhamma intuition doubts the translation because of what I regard a mistranslation of "sabba" as "whole" instead of "all".

I can't imagine each of the Western translators is wrong here however I tried to examine the term "sabbaloke anabhiratasaññā" and think (possibly wrongly) the noun (loka) is in the "accusative case", which makes "loke" a plural and makes the translation: "dissatisfaction with all worlds".

The "worlds" are any type of conditioned & impermanent mental state, such as the jhana "world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa lokassa)" described in MN 79. Therefore, "dissatisfaction with all worlds" includes dissatisfaction with every "world", such as the "human world" (manussaloka), "deva world" (devaloka), "brahma world", "jhana world" (sukhassa lokassa), "hungry ghost world" (pettivisaya), world of change and distress (lokavipatti; AN 8.6) etc.

Note: I provided the above answer without reading the sutta. The answer appears to be in the sutta.

  Idhānanda, bhikkhu ye loke upādānā cetaso adhiṭṭhānābhinivesānusayā, te pajahanto viharati anupādiyanto. Ayaṃ  vuccatānanda, sabbaloke
  anabhiratasaññā.

  And what is the perception of distaste for every world? There is the case where a monk abandoning any attachments, clingings, fixations of
  awareness, biases or obsessions with regard to any world, refrains
  from them and does not get involved. This is called the perception of
  distaste for every world. (Thanissaro)

  It’s when a mendicant lives giving up and not grasping on to the attraction and grasping to the world, the mental resolve, insistence,
  and underlying tendencies. This is called the perception of
  dissatisfaction with the whole world. (Sujato)

  And what, Ānanda, is the perception of non-delight in the entire world? Here, a bhikkhu refrains from any engagement and clinging,
  mental standpoints, adherences and underlying tendencies in regard to
  the world, abandoning them without clinging to them. This is called
  the perception of non-delight in the entire world. (Bodhi)

Note: Thanissaro has translated similar to myself, using the translation "every world", which is similar to "all worlds".


The four noble truths H.E Tsem Rinpoche says the following on his website.

  "Through a lack of understanding of how things truly exist, we create and recreate an independent self entity called “me.”

  The whole of our experience in life can be viewed through this sense of self. In consequence, various cravings govern our actions. Cravings arise for sense experiences, for “being” or “becoming” (e.g. rich, famous, loved, respected, immortal), and to avoid the unpleasant. These cravings are the root cause of suffering."

I struggle with this idea because from my perspective many great achievements and accomplishments only happen because people are driven and about things. This seems to be saying that we shouldn't bother trying to be anything because it's all dukkha, anicca and anatta anyway. Surely if everyone believed this we wouldn't even be here and evolved to the level we are in the world. We would have just given up. I can't see the point of doing anything creative.  I do creative things because I want to create something great that can inspire  others and that I can feel proud to have achieved. Many people who have struggle to achieve certain things like to become a successful actor for example say that they feel very fortunate to be able to wake up and do what they love for a living everyday. What exactly is wrong with wanting to become something?

Responses quoting scriptures and linking to rambling repetitive suttas will be down voted.

I struggle with this idea because from my perspective many great achievements and accomplishments only happen because people are driven and about things.

There's no contradiction between the 4NT vs. great achievements and accomplishments. Matter of fact, the greatest achievements/accomplishments are those driven by a selfless nature:
The polio vaccine - Dr. Jonas Salk


Is what is impermanent always the cause of suffering? While describing Dhamma Buddha asks "Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?" to which Ananda replies "suffering".

My question is : Is what is impermanent always the cause of suffering?

Is what is impermanent always the cause of suffering?

It's not. The cause of suffering is your Identification with the Impermanent.


Experiencing physical pain What advice (or techniques e.g. of meditation) does Buddhism (of any tradition) have for people who experience physical pain (caused by an illness and treated by a doctor)? Or for the people (friends, family, even nurses) of such people?

That (physical pain) is what the word "suffering" implies or means to most people.

Is "see the doctor, get better analgesics" the best or only real answer? What if analgesics have an effect on the mind -- e.g. opioids -- is that 'bad'? What if analgesics don't work, e.g. neuropathic pain, or if the medicines are not available?

Sorry for asking. This isn't a "real problem" for me at the moment, so it may be an example of unnecessary worry -- but I'm able to ask now, and in case this problem happens to me or someone else in the future, I want to have prepared/studied some appropriate advice in advance.

And/or what advice do you have for people now, before they experience pain, to prepare.

I agree that 'pain' is meant to send some kind of warning message, so temporary/new pain and a trip to the doctor might be the first thing.

For the sake of this question, please assume that the underlying problem has already been medically diagnosed: that it is chronic pain, from an illness like diabetic neuropathy or terminal cancer, or something like that.

According to my teacher, the enlightened attitude is to see pain is information. (For comparison, the non-enlightened attitude is to block/avoid/suppress pain by all means.) Because pain is information, we should evaluate it, see what message it carries and what it means for us, and then act.

Some physical pain is a symptom of a deeper-lying problem, and instead of suppressing the symptom a wiser approach would be to take care of the causes (often, bad lifestyle habits).

Some physical pain accompanies exercises that help one get stronger physically and emotionally. The right attitude to such pain is to accept the physical component and by accepting it eliminate the emotional component that comes from resistance and self-pity (so called "pain of pain").

Obviously, some physical pain is a sign of damage being done to the body right now, like the pain that accompanies tearing of ligaments. There is also residual pain that accompanies recovery process etc. -- these fall in the realm of regular medicine.

So the rule of thumb is to not worry about the pain itself, but the message behind it.

However, if pain is so overwhelmingly strong that it obscures the mind, I would imagine the Buddhist approach would not disagree with using anesthetics temporarily.


A question about sitting, movement and mindfulness I have had bad posture for most of my life. I find that if I do not sit quite straight during sitting meditation, my body leans forward putting weight on my legs which becomes quite painful. However, when I sit straight, my "sitting bones" become painful. So, I tend to rock from side to side while sitting. It may or may not be visible to others, but I am aware of it. Perhaps "shifting my weight" might be a better way to describe it. My question is regarding mindfulness meditation. Do you think it is OK to rock side to side? Should I just note something like "rocking, rocking"? Should I wait until the pain is nearly "unbearable", and note "pain, pain", "disliking, disliking" before shifting my weight, or is it OK to do so pre-emptively?

First of all I think it is important to remember that in the Mahasi Sayadaw system of meditation, you don't necessarily have to note distractions. When distractions arise you have a choice between staying with the primary object (e.g. the movement of the abdomen) or you can take up the distraction itself as an object. Both of these are equally valid. If the rocking motion is coming up a lot, you might decide to ignore it and stay with the abdomen. If it only happens sometimes it might make more sense to note it, but it makes less sense if it is happening continuously.

Also, if it is painful for your body to sit on the floor or on a cushion, I would recommend that you try meditating while seated in a chair and see if that is less painful. As long as your position is relatively stable and able to be maintained, there is no problem, and sitting in a chair fulfills these principles, so there is nothing wrong with sitting in a chair to meditate.


Did the Buddha ever 'thunder' during a Fire Sermon? If I recall correctly, I once read (in a book which I no longer have) that:

The Fire Sermon happened (soon) after the Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion
The Buddha spoke it to a believer/theorist/priest-like person of a non-Buddhist sect
The other person spoke first, giving their theory first
When the Buddha replies, the book said,

  "The fire of life must be put out!", he thundered.

This version of the Fire Sermon isn't like that at all:

Delivered to 1000 monks
No thundering

Is there any text (including e.g. Mahayana) that you know of, that's like what I quoted above?

Are there any reports, any reliable report, on whether or how much the Buddha displayed emotional affect? Did he seem cheerful? Angry? Did he pretend to get angry?

If this question cannot be answered about the Buddha (e.g. because it was too long ago and not recorded), is there other people more recent who are "like the Buddha", about whom this is known?

It's usually difficult to judge how much affect a person displays (so it's useless to be judgmental); I'm wondering whether the Buddha is known to have "displayed affect" to an unusually high (very obvious) or to an unusually low degree.

For a full account of the events surrounding the fire sermon, you have to look in the vinaya pitaka. An old translation of the complete account is here.
The closest he comes to "thundering" is when he defeats the naga:

3. Then the Blessed One entered the room where the fire was kept, made himself a couch of grass, and sat down cross-legged, keeping the body erect and surrounding himself with watchfulness of mind2. And the Nâga saw that the Blessed One had entered; when he saw that, he became annoyed, and irritated, and sent forth a cloud of smoke. Then the Blessed One thought: 'What if I were to leave intact the skin, and hide, and flesh, and ligaments, and bones, p. 120 and marrow of this Nâga; but were to conquer the fire, which he will send forth, by my fire.'
4. And the Blessed One effected the appropriate exercise of miraculous power and sent forth a cloud of smoke. Then the Nâga, who could not master his rage1, sent forth flames. And the Blessed One, converting his body into fire2, sent forth flames. When they both shone forth with their flames, the fire room looked as if it were burning and blazing, as if it were all in flames. And the Gatilas, surrounding the fire room, said: 'Truly, the countenance of the great Samana is beautiful, but the Nâga will do harm to him3.'
5. That night having elapsed, the Blessed One, leaving intact the skin and hide and flesh and ligaments and bones and marrow of that Nâga, and conquering the Nâga's fire by his fire, threw him into his alms-bowl, and showed him to the Gatila Uruvelâ Kassapa (saying), 'Here you see the Nâga, Kassapa; his fire has been conquered by my fire.' Then the Gatila Uruvelâ Kassapa thought: 'Truly the great Samana possesses high magical powers and great faculties, in that he is able to conquer by his fire the fire of that savage Nâga king, who is possessed of magical power, that dreadfully venomous serpent. He is not, however, holy (arahâ) as I am.'

Pretty clear that there wasn't actually any affectation on the Buddha's part. The word "threw" is a mistranslation; it would better be "placed".
The closest he gets to actual disturbance is when he finally confronts Uruvela Kassapa:

17. Then the Blessed One thought: 'This foolish man will still for a long time think thus: "Truly the great Samana possesses high magical powers and great faculties; he is not, however, holy like me." What if I were to move the mind of this Gatila (in order to show him my superiority).'
And the Blessed One said to the Gatila Uruvelâ Kassapa: 'You are not holy (arahâ), Kassapa, nor have you entered the path of Arahatship, nor do you walk in such a practice as will lead you to Arahatship. or to entering the path of Arahatship.'

Pretty tame, but then that's to be expected; he was, after all, a fully enlightened Buddha. There are a couple of examples I can think of where does affect an emotional disposition to get his point across, if only in the words he chooses:

His words to Vakkali, who spent all his time staring at the Buddha's majesty:

But in spite of the Teacher’s admonition, Vakkali could not let the Teacher get out of his sight or leave the Teacher’s presence. Finally the Teacher thought to himself, “Unless this monk receives a shock, he will never come to understand.” Now the season of the rains was at hand, and the Teacher desired to enter upon residence. So on the day appointed to enter upon residence, the Teacher went to Rājagaha, turning Vakkali away with the words, “Go back, Vakkali.” So for the space of three months Vakkali was unable to be with the Teacher and kept saying to himself, “The Teacher speaks to me no more.” Finally he said to himself, “What is the use of my living any longer? I will throw myself headlong from the top of a mountain.” And with this thought in mind, he climbed to the top of Mount Vulture Peak.
-- Dhp-A 381 (Burlingame, trans)

The English here is poor; apehi means "Go away!", or even "Get lost!", so it was a bit like a slap in the face to the poor deluded man.

His words to Devadatta, when he challenged the Buddha to enforce his five extreme rules:

'I would not give over the Bhikkhu-samgha, Devadatta, even to Sâriputta and Moggallâna. How much less, then, to so vile and evil-living a person as you.'
(Source)

The actual Pali of this one is actually closer to "lick-spittle", as per the footnote:

In the text read khavassa khelâpakassa. On the first word, compare V, 2, 8. For the second the Dhammapada commentator (Fausböll, p. 143) reads, as does the Sinhalese MS. in our passage, khelâsika. Buddhaghosa, explaining it, says, 'In this passage (we should recollect) that those who obtain the requisites (of a Bhikkhu) by an evil mode of life are said by the Noble Ones to be like unto spittle. The Blessed One calls him khelâpaka (to ex-press that) he eats, (that is, 'gains a living) in sin like that.' (For the Pâli, see the edition of the text, p. 323, where the comma after khelasadisâ should be before it.)


The unity of samadhi and prajna Does any extant tradition claim that the unity of samadhi and prajna^ is actual from the beginning of the bodhisatva path, so that it is available to the neophyte - just with less power of something similar to more advanced bodhisatvas?
^e. g. Chinul:

Samadhi being prajna, it is quiescent and yet always knowing.

or Platform Sutra:

To argue whether prajna or samadhi comes first would put one in the same position as those who are under delusion... a lamp and its light.

So you can see, they are one, yet - perhaps - not everyone realizes this in their practice?
Just asking because I think it may be the meaning of human life etc..

Of course it is.  You can't have prajna without samadhi.  Think of a shovel versus a backhoe.  With a little shovel you can clear away a little debris and dig little holes.
With a backhoe, you can move mountains.  So to with concentration and wisdom.  Your samatha practice is the tool that allows you to clear away your own obstacles and access insight and wisdom.  And just like in the shovel example with the little samadhi of the novice comes little prajna; with the big samadhi of the adept comes bigger prajna.


What exactly were the parks that the Buddha spent time in? Whe I read the Pali Canon the BUddha seems to spend a lot of his time in parks in various locations. Often in the suttas these 'parks' are mentioned in the introduction to the text. For instance the Alagaddupama Sutta (The Water-Snake Simile) begins

  I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in
  Savatthi, at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's park

I've even read park keepers being mentioned in some sutta I've read. This as always struck me as achronistic. The notion of parks where the Buddha can spend time seems odd. If they were pieces of land owned by Kings and nobility I would have expected the translation to be rendered private gardens or the like. To me the word park gives the impression of some kind of public or communal ownership.

So what were the parks that existed 2500 years ago in India. Were there really
pieces of land with some kind of common ownership that anyone could go to. Is it a translation issue and there are other possible translations to this that don't give the impression of a communal kind of ownership? Is it just me that finds this odd?

Using Google to find a Pali version of the Alagaddupama Sutta , it starts,

Evaṃ me sutaṃ: ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā sāvatthiyaṃ viharati jetavane anāthapiṇḍikassa ārāme.

My first guess was that ārāme is the word you're looking to translate (because it's next to the word "anāthapiṇḍikassa").
Various online Pali dictionaries don't return a result when I try to look it up, but I guessed the reason for that is that ārāme is probably a (grammatical) declension of the word instead of the root.
Using this Criticial Pali Dictionary to search for ārām* (note using * "Truncation sign") returns 160 words. Using the 'Next' button to scroll down until the words begin with ārām (i.e. the right accents over the vowels) finds this definition ...

2ārāma, m. [ts.], a place of pleasure i. e. a
pleasure grove, garden, or park in a monastery, or
(as pars pro toto) a monastery itself (see SBE XIII
p. 23, note 2; Geiger, Culture Â§Â§81, 175, 196);

... with a long list of references to places where the word is used.
In English a 'Park' isn't necessarily a municipal, public park: I imagine it might be a like a garden, but perhaps wilder (not all lawn and flower-beds), or a private wood. I expect it's reserved in some way (reserved for public use, or reserved for private use), not used for agriculture etc.
Similar/related/compound Pali words suggest it's used as a synonym for 'monastery', for example,

ārāma-gata, mfn., having gone to or being in a monastery
ārāma-dāna, n., giving of an ārāma

(not too surprising when monks dwell in a 'forest' instead of as 'householders').
It's also used in contexts which suggest it means delight and pleasure:

1ārāma, m. [ts.], delight, pleasure
ārāma-ramma, m(n)., the delightful, charming
or beautiful abode of a monastery

I recommend you browse the other related compound words to see other ways in which it's used; for example some of the less common words include

ārāma-(p)patta, mfn., who has reached the park
ārāma-sīla, mfn., having the habit of going to a park


How does big bang happen in terms of Buddhism? Want to know about big bang in terms of Buddhism point of view

The Pali Buddhist scriptures concern themselves with suffering & freedom from suffering rather than ideas about the creation of the universe. Therefore, the 'Big Bang' is unrelated to Buddhism because it is unrelated to freedom from suffering & because it is not knowable,i.e., it is superstition.

  "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."

  AN 4.77

~~~

  '...talk that is base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion,
  cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening or Nibbana —
  i.e., talk about...the creation of the world & of the sea...

  MN 122


A question about my karma and how it’s affecting me I come from a very well off family but I have issues with my parents even though I’m very grateful for everything I have,I’m having a problem with self acceptance beacuse of them which took me a very long time to get over. My family in general made fun of my skin colour and the way I look (which even though sounds silly hurt me a lot) and they always give importance to class and society and are very pretentious which forces me to behave in a certain way which is not me and my personality.Even though I feel like I have everything I feel claustrophobic and caged.Will I attract bad karma for feeling like this for being ungrateful to the people who gave life to me?

Buddhism teaches the gift of Dhamma (moral & spiritual truth) is the best of gifts. Buddhism also praises when a person establishes their immoral parents in the Dhamma (AN 2.31-32). Buddhism teaches parents can have children who are morally superior to the parents (Iti 74). Buddhism teaches neither father nor mother can do oneself a greater good than one's own well-directed mind (Dhp 43).

While your parents have done many good things for you, their criticisms of you are unrelated to Dhamma; therefore their criticism is both unnecessary & immoral. If the Gotama (who become The Buddha) did everything his parents expected of him, there would have not been a "Buddha" or "Buddhism".

In Buddhism, our self-esteem is based in our following of the Buddhist path, such as our generosity, our loving-kindness & our good harmless deeds towards ourself & others.

In summary, you should be grateful towards the "good things" your parents have provided & done for you; but you are not to be grateful towards any bad things. Instead, you should have concern for the welfare of your parents when they do bad things and you should ensure you aspire you do not repeat any unwholesome deeds of your parents.

  Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they
  nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses
  his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in
  conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles &
  establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles
  & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father,
  settles & establishes them in wisdom: To this extent one pays &
  repays one's mother & father.

  AN 2.31-32

  Neither mother, father, nor any other relative can do one greater good than one's own well-directed mind.

  Dhammapada 43


Can a lay person become an Arahant according to the Suttas? I have already seen different answers to that question, but I don't know which one is based on the suttas. I would appreciate the source of the answer for this specific topic.

If you think the answer is "No", could you please write about how far a lay person can get? Just a higher rebirth?

The answer is Yes. Please look through this website.

  "If a layman attains arahant-ship, only two destinations await him; either he must enter the Order that very day or else he must attain parinibbàna" -- Milindapanha III.19


Karma: Intention vs knowing result of an action This is something I have been wondering about karma for quite some time. I have been told that intention is what matters when one does an action but what about when I know that a side effect of my intention will cause harm. For example when I intend to drive my car to work and I hit many insects along the way- I am aware that I will kill insects but this is not my intention, yet in a way I do intend to kill insects now that I know it is a side effect of driving.

The insect thing would seem similar to intending to feed myself and so I kill an animal. Of course there are other ways to feed myself but there are also safer options for transport.

The difference is that it is possible to drive a car without the intention of killing the bugs you will hit, but it's not possible to kill an animal for a particular purpose without intending to kill it. You can't do something for a specific purpose without somehow forming the intention to do what you are doing.

For example if a farmer decides to kill a chicken in order to cook it and then actually kills it, then at the very least when he is preforming the act of killing he has the intention of killing. If he didn't have the intention of killing it then the physical act itself couldn't happen.


What is Completion Stage Meditation also known as Nispannakrama? In Vajrayana there appears to be many different types and stages of mediation. One form is called "completion stage meditation" also known as nispannakrama.  It appears to be associated with something called Anuttarayoga Tantra. What exactly is "completion stage meditation" and how is it practiced?

According to what I understood from explanations given to me in one of the temples in New Kadampa Tradition, completion meditation is an antidote to potential sideeffects of generation meditation. If practitioner gets too attached to (image of oneself as) one's yidam, they are prescribed certain exercises designed to help them let go.


How do we focus on stress for the first noble truth? Do we focus on suffering as the suffering we're experiencing in the present moment or do we focus on suffering how the Buddha and Sariputta put forth and analyzed the four noble truths like: "Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful.[2] In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful."

Do we just have to notice the actual mental experience of suffering as cause by craving or can we notice all its different manifestations, like the stress of the body or the stress of impatience?

The first noble truth is realized at the moment of anuloma-ñāṇa - the moment before attainment of nibbāna. So, you don't actually contemplate it before that point. Up until that point, you are practicing what is called pubbaṅgamagga or the preliminary path.

There are four basic ways of understanding suffering:

dukkha-vedanā - suffering as a feeling
dukkha-sabhāva - suffering as a fact of life
dukkha-lakkhaṇa - suffering as a characteristic of phenomena
dukkha-sacca - suffering as a truth

Ordinary people see suffering as a feeling, and thus try to escape it by running away.

Eventually, some people begin to see it is a fact of life, not to be avoided but to be understood.

Some such people actually undertake to do so and, as a result, begin to see that suffering is actually an intrinsic characteristic of arisen phenomena; not simply because certain phenomena are painful, but because all phenomena are impermanent.

Finally, some who see thus will proceed accordingly until realizing in a momentary flash of insight that all arisen phenomena, even those one has not yet experienced, are suffering. This is what it means to realize the truth of suffering. The next moments involve the attainment of nibbāna.

So, to directly answer your question, all phenomena are to be seen as they are (yathābhūta), rather than focussing on those phenomena that are stressful. In the end, one comes to see objectively that no phenomenon is sukha (satisfying), and lets go of them all.


How would one recognise if a Buddhist group is a cult? How would one recognise if a sangha or Buddhist group is a cult or has cult type tendencies. Are there well established things to look out for? Are there cult type behaviours or patterns that would be particularly linked with Buddhism or are all cults broadly similar irrespective of their religious inspiration?

We have tried to answer questions about cults before here and here however these questions have been closed down as too opinion based. However I'm hoping by broadening the scope and moving it away from any one group it may help to keep this more objective. Also I would imagine that there are scholarly studies in this area so I'm hoping that this will also assist in objectivity.

As a side note I'm aware that the term cult is a controversial and emotionally weighted term. It's difficult to get a good definition but I found one here that seems reasonable

  A group or movement is theologically a cult if it identifies itself as
  belonging to a mainstream, recognized religion — and yet rejects or
  otherwise violates one or more of the central, essential teachings of
  that religion.

however I welcome any other definitions too.

Some answers from the suttas (emphasis mine):

  Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: 'In a certain dwelling place live many elders, very learned, who have learned the traditions, who are bearers of the Teaching, bearers of the Discipline, bearers of the Tabulation, I have heard this directly from those elders, directly I learned it: "This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation."' Those monks’ speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.

  If, when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do not fit in with the Discourses, they do not compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: 'Certainly this is not the Gracious One’s word, it is not well learned by those elders,' and, monks, you should abandon it. If when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline they do fit in with the Discourses, they do compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: 'Certainly this is the Gracious One’s word, it is well-learned by those elders.' This, monks, is the third Great Referral you should bear in mind.

  -- Mahāparinibbāna sutta, DN 16

and:

  [...] "What is the cause, lord, what is the reason, why before there were fewer training rules and yet more monks established in final gnosis, whereas now there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis?"

  "That's the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are degenerating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis. There is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. Just as there is no disappearance of gold as long as a counterfeit of gold has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of gold when a counterfeit of gold has arisen in the world, in the same way there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. [...]

  "These five downward-leading qualities tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma. Which five? There is the case where the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live without respect, without deference, for the Teacher. They live without respect, without deference, for the Dhamma... for the Sangha... for the Training... for concentration. These are the five downward-leading qualities that tend to the confusion and disappearance of the true Dhamma.

  -- SN 16.13


What does "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" mean in AN 9.12? I quote from AN 9.12 (trans. Sujato) below, with regards to stream entry.

What does "sattakkhattuparama" mean literally and non-literally?
What is the meaning of the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" in this quote? How does it relate to "sattakkhattuparama"?
Is the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" used in other suttas, without being connected to "sattakkhattuparama"? What does it mean there? What is the context there?
Can I say that "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" supports the interpretation of "sattakkhattuparama" as "seven lifetimes" or "seven rebirths"?

  With the ending of three fetters, they have at most seven rebirths.
  They will transmigrate at most seven times among gods and humans and
  then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattakkhattuparamo hoti,
  sattakkhattuparamaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā
  dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

What does "sattakkhattuparama" mean literally and non-literally?

sattakkhattuparama = not more than seven times.

Why did he include rebirth into his translation?

Because of the context below which come before "sattakkhattuparama" and being on the same topic:

  There are these nine people who, dying with something left over, are exempt from hell, the animal realm, and the ghost realm. They’re exempt from places of loss, bad places, the underworld.

  Navayime, sāriputta, puggalā saupādisesā kālaṃ kurumānā parimuttā nirayā parimuttā tiracchānayoniyā parimuttā pettivisayā parimuttā apāyaduggativinipātā.

  ...

  With the ending of three fetters, and the weakening of greed, hate, and delusion, they’re a once-returner. They come back to this world once only, then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā rāgadosamohānaṃ tanuttā sakadāgāmī hoti, sakideva imaṃ lokaṃ āgantvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

  ...

  With the ending of three fetters, they’re a one-seeder. They will be reborn just one time in a human existence, then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā ekabījī hoti, ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

  ...

  With the ending of three fetters, they go family to family. They will transmigrate between two or three families and then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā kolaṅkolo hoti, dve vā tīṇi vā kulāni sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

Next question:

  What is the meaning of the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" in this quote? How does it relate to "sattakkhattuparama"?

saṃsaritvā is the synonym of sandhāvitvā. sandhāvitvā means transmigrate, transport, move next.

Translation: Person (puggalo) moves next(sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā) not more than seven times (sattakkhattuparamaṃ) in deva [bhava] and human [bhava] (deve ca manusse ca) and then make the end of suffering (dukkhassantaṃ karoti).

  Is the phrase "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" used in other suttas, without being connected to "sattakkhattuparama"? What does it mean there? What is the context there?

Comepare with "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" in MN Sandakasutta. It's context means "move to next life (rebirth)":

  There are 1.4 million main wombs, and 6,000, and 600. There are 500 deeds, and five, and three. There are deeds and half-deeds. There are 62 paths, 62 sub-eons, six classes of rebirth, and eight stages in a person’s life. There are 4,900 Ājīvaka ascetics, 4,900 wanderers, and 4,900 naked ascetics. There are 2,000 faculties, 3,000 hells, and 36 realms of dust. There are seven percipient embryos, seven non-percipient embryos, and seven embryos without attachments. There are seven gods, seven humans, and seven goblins. There are seven lakes, seven winds, seven cliffs, and 700 cliffs. There are seven dreams and 700 dreams. There are 8.4 million great eons through which the foolish and the astute transmigrate before making an end of suffering.

  Cuddasa kho panimāni yonipamukhasatasahassāni saṭṭhi ca satāni cha ca satāni pañca ca kammuno satāni pañca ca kammāni tīṇi ca kammāni, kamme ca aḍḍhakamme ca, dvaṭṭhipaṭipadā, dvaṭṭhantarakappā, chaḷābhijātiyo, aṭṭha purisabhūmiyo, ekūnapaññāsa ājīvakasate, ekūnapaññāsa paribbājakasate, ekūnapaññāsa nāgāvāsasate, vīse indriyasate, tiṃse nirayasate, chattiṃsa rajodhātuyo, satta saññīgabbhā, satta asaññīgabbhā, satta nigaṇṭhigabbhā, satta devā, satta mānusā, satta pesācā, satta sarā, satta pavuṭā, satta papātā, satta papātasatāni, satta supinā, satta supinasatāni, cullāsīti mahākappino satasahassāni, yāni bāle ca paṇḍite ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karissanti.

Next question:

  Can I say that "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" supports the interpretation of "sattakkhattuparama" as "seven lifetimes" or "seven rebirths"?

Actually, it is just a sign of many signs. Actually, the whole context of sutta supports the interpretation of "sattakkhattuparamo" as "person who has seven lifetimes left" or "person who has seven rebirths left". There are many signs to translate like that for the example:

  With the ending of three fetters, they’re a one-seeder. They will be reborn just one time in a human existence, then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā ekabījī hoti, ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

Above quote's link is liking with many other suttas which force the translator to translate "ekaṃyeva bhavaṃ nibbattetvā" as "will be reborn just one time".
When the previous context translated "ekaṃyeva bhavaṃ nibbattetvā" as "will be reborn just one time", the next context have to translate follow it, too.

  Person (puggalo) moves next(sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā) not more than seven times (sattakkhattuparamaṃ) in deva [bhava] and human [bhava] (deve ca manusse ca) and then make the end of suffering (dukkhassantaṃ karoti).

I have to add 1 more question to complete this answer:

  Why the buddha didn't use "nibbattetvā" with all person? Why the buddha used "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" instead?

"Ekabījī (one-seeder)" will be reborn just one time (ekaṃyeva bhavaṃ nibbattetvā), but the next others will reborn multiple times. "sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā" often use in multiple time rebirths.

Saupādisesasutta:

  With the ending of three fetters, they’re a one-seeder. They will be reborn just one time in a human existence, then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā ekabījī hoti, ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

  ...

  With the ending of three fetters, they go family to family. They will transmigrate between two or three families and then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā kolaṅkolo hoti, dve vā tīṇi vā kulāni sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

  ...

  With the ending of three fetters, they have at most seven rebirths. They will transmigrate at most seven times among devas and humans and then make an end of suffering.

  So tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sattakkhattuparamo hoti, sattakkhattuparamaṃ deve ca manusse ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti.

MN Sandakasutta:

  There are 1.4 million main wombs, and 6,000, and 600. There are 500 deeds, and five, and three. There are deeds and half-deeds. There are 62 paths, 62 sub-eons, six classes of rebirth, and eight stages in a person’s life. There are 4,900 Ājīvaka ascetics, 4,900 wanderers, and 4,900 naked ascetics. There are 2,000 faculties, 3,000 hells, and 36 realms of dust. There are seven percipient embryos, seven non-percipient embryos, and seven embryos without attachments. There are seven gods, seven humans, and seven goblins. There are seven lakes, seven winds, seven cliffs, and 700 cliffs. There are seven dreams and 700 dreams. There are 8.4 million great eons through which the foolish and the astute transmigrate before making an end of suffering.

  Cuddasa kho panimāni yonipamukhasatasahassāni saṭṭhi ca satāni cha ca satāni pañca ca kammuno satāni pañca ca kammāni tīṇi ca kammāni, kamme ca aḍḍhakamme ca, dvaṭṭhipaṭipadā, dvaṭṭhantarakappā, chaḷābhijātiyo, aṭṭha purisabhūmiyo, ekūnapaññāsa ājīvakasate, ekūnapaññāsa paribbājakasate, ekūnapaññāsa nāgāvāsasate, vīse indriyasate, tiṃse nirayasate, chattiṃsa rajodhātuyo, satta saññīgabbhā, satta asaññīgabbhā, satta nigaṇṭhigabbhā, satta devā, satta mānusā, satta pesācā, satta sarā, satta pavuṭā, satta papātā, satta papātasatāni, satta supinā, satta supinasatāni, cullāsīti mahākappino satasahassāni, yāni bāle ca paṇḍite ca sandhāvitvā saṃsaritvā dukkhassantaṃ karissanti.


Where does the Buddha describe suffering as being like a person who is hit by two arrows? The attached discourse was delivered a few days back from New York and presents a very comprehensive approach to face the corona pandemic from a spiritual standpoint. The wisdom of the Buddha is quoted at the very beginning and the entire discourse is structured on this quote. It would be appreciated if someone could source the original sutta from which this quotation is made.

Fighting Anxiety and Depression: Four Great Practices

  Buddha speaks of the nature of suffering as a person who is hit by an arrow.
  Imagine the pain and the shock of being hit by an arrow.
  And immediately after that, this person, unfortunate person is hit by a second arrow.

Probably this: Sallatha Sutta: The Arrow (SN 36.6)

The Blessed One said, "When touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, were to shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pains of two arrows; in the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental.
As he is touched by that painful feeling, he is resistant. Any resistance-obsession [etc.]


How can merit be transferred? When attend an event at the sangha I'm with (Triratna) we often transfer merit (puñña) at the end of it. So any good result of the meditation, ritual, dharma study etc... we give away. I know that this isn't something we have just invented. It's a practice that we have taken from other traditions.

What confuses me is merit can be given away. If merit is the fruits of my karma in what sense can this be transferred over to another being? How can someone else benefit from my skillful actions?

The mechanism behind merit transfer is this:

There is an element of Metta which benefits one self and other as it creates positive vibes. When you do good followed by strong volition to share this positivity this creates more positivity. Also this vibes can be sometimes telepathic.
Also being in some other realms (not all realms even then not always) can sense any positive vibes when we give Metta or think about then strongly (quasi telepathic). So when you recall a deceased person sometimes this becomes like a ping. If the other being develops appreciative joy in his mind to the actions that was done this itself creates the merit in the merit transfer.

So the traster has two elements:

Positive vibes you create around you has positive effects to others beings around
Appreciative joy of good and commendable action of others create positive mental Karma for the beings who do so

This instruments the merit transfer process.


Why is "idle speech" one of the ten unwholesome actions? According to the Suttas, "idle speech" is one of the ten unwholesome actions which generate bad karma. I understand why the other nine unwholesome actions would generate bad karma, but I have a lot of questions about the Buddha's claim that idle speech does the same.

First, let's take a look at some relevant suttas to determine what the Buddha meant by "idle speech". An oft-quoted passage, found in DN 2, suggests that practitioners should only talk about dharma-related topics and nothing else:

  Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these — talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.

This passage, however, describes the behavior expected from buddhist monastics, not ordinary lay buddhists. So where do the suttas talk about idle speech for laypeople? One example is MN 41, in which the Buddha explains to a group of laypeople which actions lead to bad rebirths. About idle speech, the Buddha tells his audience the following:

  He engages in idle chatter. He speaks out of season, speaks what isn't factual, what isn't in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya, words that are not worth treasuring.

The words "what isn't in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya" seem to imply that just like monastics, lay followers should restrict their speech to topics related to the practice of buddhism. I have two issues with this idea.

First, it's impractical. Laypeople lead social lives, and in DN 31 the Buddha himself talks about the importance of good friendships. It would be practically impossible to establish and reinforce social bonds without engaging in any conversations about worldly topics.

Second, the reasons buddhist teachers usually give for avoiding idle speech are practical rather than moral. Teachers generally tell their followers that by engaging in idle speech, they are wasting their time and distracting themselves from the study and practice of the dharma. While these are undoubtedly good reasons to cut down on idle speech, it doesn't explain why idle speech creates bad karma. If distracting yourself from studying and practicing the dharma creates bad karma, why aren't other distracting activities included in the Buddha's list of unwholesome actions? Engaging in idle speech isn't inherently more distracting than other leisure activities, such as consuming entertainment (i'm aware that in DN 31, the Buddha discouraged his lay followers from attending public spectacles. However, the reason given for this rule is that frequenting public spectacles has negative consequences in this life, not that it generates bad karma).

So how should I interpret the Buddha's teachings on idle speech for lay followers? I'd like to hear what prominent teachers have to say about this topic, but everyone's perspective will be appreciated as long as it's well substantiated.

Thanks in advance for your answers!

So how should I interpret the Buddha's teachings on idle speech for lay followers?

Opening pleasantries are not idle talk; they frame a discussion by providing social context:

  He went by carriage as far as the terrain allowed, then descended and approached the Buddha on foot, and exchanged greetings with him. --DN16

And neither is talking about suffering, its origin, its escape and the path to escape.

  “Mendicants, do you remember the four noble truths that I taught?"

Have you noticed that although people may idly brag about their wealth, good family and good fortune, what they often really wish to talk about is their...suffering? Indeed, there seems to be a high correlation between idle talk and suffering.

Therefore, from a practical point of view, I've found that we can all talk about our own suffering and its escape. Such talk is not idle and often leads to friendships and trust.

In terms of movies and shows as idle talk, even these are opportunities to discuss suffering. Movies and shows are all about suffering.

So when someone approaches with idle talk, gently listen and ask them about their suffering. Then listen and speak with an open heart. Become a quiet person known as a good listener and a good friend.

  Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life. --SN3.18


If Nirvana is unconditional then why is it not happening now? It is said that Nirvana is unconditional i.e there are no conditions for it to happen. If so then why is Nirvana not happening now? Is my wish or suitability a condition for it happen?

If so then why is Nirvana not happening now?

Nibbana is an existing reality. Its obscured by defilements just like a blue sky obscured by clouds. Insight-meditation and Jhana allows for the practitioner to experience and eventually attain Nibbana.

  Is my wish or suitability a condition for it happen?

A wholesome intention is the start but not enough in and of itself. It must be followed up by practice. We ourselves must do the work, ie. working for purification of body, mind and conduct.

I highly recommend reading the article "Nibbana", by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.


What are the benefits of caring parents? The Dhamma says that not helping parents is evil and preaches to take care of the elderly parents. What can be some positive outcomes the children will get by helping the parents?

The Buddha says that there are two people that you can never repay, no matter what you do. They are your mother and your father. Again the Buddha said that there is one way that you can repay for all what they have done.  That is to establish them in this Dhamma Path. It is not an easy task, as we are all full of defilements that muddy the waters and prevent us from seeing this path. So if they’re stingy for example, then you can try to find some way to influence them to be more generous.  If they are not the type to observe the five precepts, then you could try to get them to be more virtuous, to have more principles in their lives. You can gain merits that will help pave the way to your own Dhamma path, if you could help introduce your parents to the practice of Dhamma. Try to do it in as diplomatic a way as possible. Most parents resent their children who try to tell them what is right or wrong.  That is why you will have to find some means of doing this in an indirect way. If they are not into Dhamma, try not to say that this is a Buddhist thing. That is how SN Goenka thought Vipassana Meditation to the Westerners. Only later that they get to know that this is the Noble Eightfold Path that their Master is leading them to.


"The knowledge and vision to see things clearly" (yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṃ) Knowing intellectually the three characteristics is one thing, experiencing them is another. As far as I understood, vipassana happens without will, since it is morality that leads to rapture and sukkha, which then helps to stabilize the mind, in order to facilitate clear seeing.

My question then is:

1) Are most people both generically and wrongly coining in the term vipassana to point to a "new age" technique that has nothing to do with "clear seeing" according to Buddhism?

2) In how far needs meditation development? According to AN 10.1 it is moral purity that leads to consummate concentration necessary for seeing the three characteristics.

  [Ananda:] "What, O Venerable One, is the reward and blessing of wholesome morality?"

  [The Buddha:] "Freedom from remorse, Ananda."

  "And of freedom from remorse?"

  "Joy, Ananda"

  "And of joy?"

  "Rapture, Ananda"

  "And of rapture?"

  "Tranquillity, Ananda."

  "And of tranquillity?"

  "Happiness, Ananda."

  "And of happiness?"

  "Concentration, Ananda."

  "And of concentration?"

  "Vision and knowledge according to reality."

  "And of the vision and knowledge according to reality?"

  "Turning away and detachment, Ananda."

  "And of turning away and detachment?"

  "The vision and knowledge with regard to Deliverance, Ananda."

  — AN 10.1

With regards

1) Yes. When the Buddha spoke about vipassana, he meant it as being the direct insight into reality.

What is being taught as vipassana (depending on how it is taught) is supposed to be the training which will lead us to vipassana.

As far as the Buddha-Dhamma is concerned. Meditation training means: Abandoning, letting go, of craving and clinging. Which will lead us to vipassana "clear seeing".

The whole path of the Buddha-Dhamma can be summarized with this short sentence;

"Nothing whatsoever should be clung to".

Or as Ajahn Buddhadasa would express it: "Nothing whatsoever should be clung to as being I or mine".

The amount of training (sitting meditation) that must be done, will depend on the mental faculties, moral purity, weakening of mental defilements, equanimity, understanding, wisdom etc.

Abandoning or letting go of craving and clinging should be practiced day and night, until complete cessation of craving and clinging.


Why are there rising/falling tones in English-language chanting? I gather from reading around that the rising/falling pitches that appear in Pali chanting by Thais
is due to the tones in the Thai language.

But when I see English-language chanting by monks from a Thai tradition,
they still have rising/falling tones.
See excerpt from the Abhayagiri Chanting Book,
with the tones marked:

It doesn't seem to match the equivalent Pali.

Is there a system that they're using,
such as shoehorning the Thai tone rules into English syllables?

Or are they just making it up entirely?

Peter Harvey in an Introduction to Buddhism says of chanting

  [chanting] has a rhythm which encourages the mind to flow from word to
  word [but ..] usually lacks melody which might encourage some words to
  become distorted

Also

  chanting is neither singing or a monotonous dirge [...] it holds
  interest with it's minor variations of pitch and rhythm

So from this I would suggest that the tone of chanting is an aid to memory and interest and doesn't, in English, have a semantic content deriving from the original language. Of course Thai being a tonal language (i am not any kind of expert here) the tones may well have a more semantic content.

I guess less charitably you could say we are making it up a bit. Certainly from my own experience chanting within the Triratna community we have a tone they we vary widely from  and add harmonies to on occasion. The the Padmasambhava chant we actually got the words wrong too initially (50 years ago) but we have just stuck to our original bad interpretation. We kind of like it.


Do you need both parents permission to become ordained? What if one of the parents refuses contact? Should you strive for it?

This is a question of law. In some places, the laws will allow one parent, or even no parents, since it's a matter of religious preference. In other places, the laws are strict, and require both parents' permission.

This is also a question of the sangha's policies. Most will have an age limit because they observe a need to gain life experience. Some will permit children, and others will even seek after them, so that children will not be unduly influenced by outside ideas. So it depends a lot on who is asking, and who is doing the ordaining.

Ordination can be a big deal. Mostly, though, it's merely feeling a call to serve others, seek the best interests of the world and promote its well-being. Nobody needs an ordination for that, but it helps to have a legal piece of paper to avoid certain troubles.


Which commitment should I make? I want to make one commitment now to save myself from suffering in distant future.
The kind of suffering is same as due to unity with undesired situation. For example I might have to shake hands with my enemy. Or I might have to live under poverty.

Which single most important commitment should I make to follow every day or every moment or every week so that I may not suffer while getting united with the undesirable?

(Answer should be like start keeping right view or start practicing right view or I should start jogging or I should start meditating or start chanting mantra etc...)

One could simply commit to the awareness of:

  This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.

Notice that quote is prefaced by the following introduction that addresses the question's focus on action and consequence (i.e., form):

  Rahula, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal
  or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every
  form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as...

With right discernment comes a relinquishing of self and an openness to other questions and other suttas.

Also, given the expressed concern about consequence, there may be fear and terror here, in which case the Bhaya-bherava Sutta: Fear & Terror Sutta may be a helpful exploration.


Does Nirvana really means stopping of birth and death? Does it ensures that no new one will arise again? Buddhist theories all summed up to the point of Nibbana. They have reached the goal, gone there(Tathagat). They conclude holy life is lived and goal attained. Cessation of becoming(No new formation).
But, when asked, Do Tathagata exist after death? is absurd question. It is that our individuality arise and ceases. So, why the buddhist assume there is stopping of birth and death?
Tathagata is synonym for ocean, where waves are arise and passes away, which we calls individuality.
Tathagata is the root of Tree of Samsara. It's branches and leaves are species and karmic stations respectively. So, when one attain to the root, the whole tree(Samsara) appears as mere bubbles or foam, rising and falling, absolute impermanent.
So, having so, why do they preach after attaining the Root, one attain freedom form birth and death?
They are not. Because from root, a new one is formed and rolled on, in this continuous existence.
That's why, its been asked by some of recluse of higher wisdom, Do Tathagata (the one who goes to that, the one who ceases) exist after fall of body and life? Buddha answered: Silence!
I feel that doesn't stop the new creation or new forming of individual. Hence I conclude, there is no such freedom from birth again. Why?
My assumption is that, the one who arise and ceases, doesn't exist in reality! It's like dream of someone else's and dream can't be true or real. It's only the dreamer tends to be real.
Tathagata(gati of the one)literally means to merge in Brahman. The dreamer. And see this universe as mere dream. So,it appears that no new dream arise after cessation of current dream, but not so. You can control the dream but not the dreamer. The Brahman.
That's why in Indian village, Saint Chokha says, 'What a miracle! The God of god is gone mad!' He is saying about Brahman.
Also in Bhuridatta Jataka, The Arhats said the same thing. ,

Nirvana/Kensho/Satori is only a "goal" as long as you haven't experienced it. The experience conveys the one-ness, emptiness and interconnectivity of all phenomena. In some Buddhist schools, this is referred to as "the Great Death", as this reveals the "I" as an illusion.
But from that point onward, attainment has been achieved and is no longer the "driving goal" of practice. In Zen, for example, this is illustrated in a sequence of drawings called the "Oxherding Pictures". The first nine pictures illustrate the stages toward attainment. The tenth however, shows the practitioner:

10. Return to Society Barefooted and naked of breast, I mingle with the people of the world. My clothes are ragged and dust-laden, and I
am ever blissful. I use no magic to extend my life; Now, before me,
the dead trees become alive

A good book about life after attainment is Jack Kornfield's "After the Ecstasy, the Laundry".
As to whether attainment stops the cycle of birth and death, the answer depends on what you ask is being born and dying. If you ask for the "I", then attainment will show this "I" to be an illusion. If you ask it for the emptiness of all phenomena, the most honest answer is "we do not know". "I"


If a Buddha exists then can a private buddha arise or exist somewhere in the same world system without having learned from the current Buddha? The question is in the title.

Or is he just known as an arahant?

I don't remember where the story is mentioned, but if I remember right, there was a Pacceka Buddha in the world when the Bodhisatta was born as prince Siddhartha. He attained Parnibbana after hearing the news from the Devas that the Buddha to be has appeared in the world. So it would seem that a Pacceka Buddha wouldn't stay if a SammaSambuddha appears in the world.  Also, those who are capable of attaining enlightenment will be drawn towards the Buddha or the Buddha will see them when he scans the world system every morning.


How accurate is Ozamu Tetsuka "Buddha" with the real biography of Buddha? Ozamu Tetzuka wrote a comic about Buddha.

I read that and is quite impressed.

However, some of the element may not be true. And based on what I read, I tell some stories in it, and my friends are offended.

Some of the elements:

Parents of buddha pamper sidartha with women even when he was a child. Such act would be considered child abuse in western world though most males would think, "nice"
There are some characters that are obviously fictional.

I wonder what are the differences between Buddha the manga and the "real" buddha?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_(manga)

Since Ozamu Tatsuka is Japanese, it should be noted that in Japanese forms of Buddhism, there has been a cartoon-esque depiction of masters and even the Buddha since the earliest forms of Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism were introduced in Japan in the 12th century, the most famous ones by Hakuin:

Japanese Zen is infamous for its self-degradation, stemming from the principle that "either nothing is to be considered divine, or everything is". This is well-expressed in the Kanshiketsu (乾屎橛) Koan:

A monk asked, "what is Buddha?"
Unmon answered "A dry shit stick"

One of the main themes in the manga expresses a concept from Mahayana Buddhism (Japanese schools of Buddhism are almost exclusively of the Mahayana tradition) that wouldn't have been a concept in the original teachings of the Buddha.
Looking at the main characters, many names appear in historical and/or mythological texts on the Buddha's life, as demonstrated by the direct links to historical or mythological Wikipedia pages. The use of fictional characters is also not new in Mahayana Buddhism. The best example is Wu Cheng'En's Journey to the West, featuring the Monkey King, Brother Sand and a talking pig.
I think the manga should be seen in the tradition of Wu Cheng'En and Hakuin, using fiction and humor mixed with teaching to convey the central message. While this may offend more "traditional" schools of Buddhism, it is actually the purpose of the "Sudden Teaching" to pierce preconceptions to allow Kenshō.


What is Zen, what are Zen beliefs, and why is it called Buddhism? Please note that i have no idea about what Zen is, and I mean no disrespect to anybody with this question.

I have heard these words "Zen Buddhism", many times, and I'm curious: why it is called or attached to Buddhism, and how did it come to be?

Can someone explain?

'Zen' is the Japanese name of the school of Buddhism that originated in China around the 5th century AC, called (in Chinese) Chan Buddhism, and whose founder is thought to be Master Bodhidharma, an Indian monk. Later, in the XIIIth century, Master Dogen introduced this species of Buddhism into Japan, where it is mostly practiced today, alongide with the USA and Europe.

It is a form of Buddhism because, among other things, it acknowledges the Way of the Buddha as a way to Awakening; because there is a traceable heritage that links today's Zen Masters with the historical Buddha; and because it emphasizes the practice of sitting meditation ('Zazen') as a way to achieve 'Satori', the Awakening.

There are various schools among the Zen tradition, but the more important today are the Soto and the Rinzai schools. Each of these schools emphasizes different aspects of the Buddhist heritage, and though their ceremonies and mindsettings somewhat diverge, they converge in the emphasis they make on Zazen as a practice that provides, when constantly and earnestly taken upon, an insight into the nature of the Self and the ultimate unsubstantiality of reality.


What is the difference between samadhi and samatha? I am in the habit of getting the concepts samatha and samadhi mixed up. To me they seem like related or even similar concepts. Is that correct? My understanding is that samatha seems like the process of integration and samadhi seems like the result of integration. Is that the correct interpretation?

As a related point are the underlying concepts related if you consider the Pali origins of the words i.e. do they have similar roots in the language?

Samatha is tranquility meditation, meditating on a stable object with the objective of reaching calm states/jhanas.

Samadhi is concentration. The Buddha's teachings of the eightfold noble path are divided into three categories; sila (morality), samadhi (concentration), and panna (wisdom/understanding).

Samadhi is the meditation portion of the Buddha's teachings (Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration) and would include Samatha plus other types of meditation.


If I can't tell if I'm lying to myself because I am yet to gain insight or clarity, am I truly lying? There are moments of clarity that I have experienced in which I finally but truly gain a sense of knowledge and comprehension about ...something.... In those moments it is like I have changed at a cellular level and that which I understood before no longer made sense. Assumptions upon which I had based decisions, attitudes etc. have been adjusted somehow and the fabric of my life is different. In my new state of clarity it is like I had been deceiving myself about [whatever] and the cloud of confusion imposed by being embedded in that particular delusion has lifted.

So my question is ... Does this mean that before I gained some sense of insight I was deceiving or lying to myself and others? Sometimes it feels like it, so profound is the clarifying moment.

I think Christ or one of his disciples said

  we are all sinners in the eyes of God.

While what I will suggest here isn't the TRUTH, it's a possible place to stand.  The ego tends to think it has improved when gaining insight into one's own self-deception.  And this is valid - if there were no short term accomplishments in a spiritual path, it would be a difficult path indeed.

However, it's this very sort of of short term gain that can inhibit spiritual growth.  We are prone to gain a greater sense of self-importance when proud or attached to our insights.  Yesterday's insight is today's ego trip.

My point is that given we are all - when measured against the background of who we really are - quite small; I think it would be safe to assume that yes - you were lying with no caveats.

That said, you are not now condemned eternally for your self deception, but it may be that you now feel obligated to make something right - to clean up actions you have taken in the past.

Taking it too an extreme example - I killed your dog yesterday, because I thought dogs were wicked.  Today, I realized that I suffer from paranoid schizophrenia and as such, I now know that dogs are not wicked.

It doesn't follow that I didn't kill your dog.  I still did, and even though my reasons for doing so were based upon faulty assumptions - there are a whole slew of consequences that flow from my action.

But perhaps most importantly is the label you have attached to what happened.  We as humans unfailingly deceive nearly every time we open our mouth.  When I say to my wife, "You make me so mad", that is a lie.  She didn't make me mad - I had a reaction to something and chose to blame her.  Variations on this abound.

So - a question - what do you care if your statement was a lie or not?  Telling the truth won't make you a good person; nor lying a bad.  What matters is not how you choose to view what you said - what matters is what you might now need to do because of what you said.  If there were consequences that you can in some way be responsible for and if need be, clean up, then it would be wise to do so.


Intense pins and needles I tried meditation literally just now...Monday 24 November 21:00 UK time. This is the second time I have ever tried it... literally twice this evening. I have tried before lying down in bed etc to see if I could get out of body experiences but no luck. So tonight I had nothing to do and tried sitting up (the classic meditation look.)

I sat in a dark room with low level background sounds. My mind went blank and concentrated on my breathing which went super super slow. Then my airways opened up...i heard my air passages "click." Then i felt slight tingling. Then the tingling seemed to travel over my whole body then it was REALLY REALLY itchy tingling or "pins and needles" darting over my whole body...I had to stop as it was starting to hurt a little!!!!! After I started itching...mainly my back area and got a bit blotchy. I have just had a hot shower to help with the itching.

As I know NOTHING about what Im doing, Is it normal to have that experience? I literally could not carry on. What would happen if you forced yourself to carry on? What should I be looking for when trying to meditate?

Any help or information would be greatly appreciated. This isn't my scene really but Im interested in learning more.

Thanks for your time.

T

Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice
by Shunryu Suzuki is a very good way to start. Read as many books as you can on all the wonderful schools of meditation.
From my experince the sensation of pins and needles has to do with poor blood circulation resulting from blockages of different parts of your meridian system. Tai Chi or Yoga can help prepare you physically and mentally for sitting meditation. You may want to consider standing or walking meditation as an alternative. i commend your spirit your practice is well on it's way. i applaud your questions you show real insight. Our teachers first question after sitting was.. Please share with us what you felt? Your question was one of the most common physical sensations shared among beginners. May i suggest that you look for a teacher.... that in it's self can be a fun journey. OVER&OUT


Should mantras always be sung in Tibetan/Pali/... or may I sing them in my native language? I am very interested in adding mantra singing to my practices. But sometimes it feels kind of weird singing in a language I do not speak. Is it possible to sing my own prayers or will the effect change, once the sounds are different?

Since it seems that Mr Marcos Valle wishes and beg form somebody, its good that he/she/they understand you wishes, speak this languages. As for Mr. Marcos Valle it would be good to know what he wishes for, given that they will fulfill simply what he requests. :-) not easy, especially the fist one.

As for chants (repeating what other said, or what one likes to say), they are not well put, if sung. It could district not only your mind but also the listener and they could argue about it or fall even in love with it. (for some ideas about it, see "Teaching Dhamma" in Respect-BMC2)

Its quite ok and good, to use the own language, especially if one does not know the meaning. And you are explicit allowed to do so even with the Buddhas teachings, by the Buddha, to do so. (see also BMC2 which give a good reasoning) So no worry, but keep them correct in their meaning and be clear about it. Many Monks today would chant in two languages, so that the listener understands. There are no such as simply chants, which are actually not teachings. So one does not have benefit form simply hearing a pleasant sound. But to get and share the meaning, or reflect on it while doing.

Chanting generally is primarily done to do not forget and preserve the teachings for later generations and others to listen.

If your language is English, there are many pali chants in two languages in audio and here also as text.

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