What was the name of the great compassion meditation the Buddha did for a significant part of his daily routine? Didn't the Buddha do some kind of great compassion meditation  for a significant part of his daily routine while teaching? If so, what's the name of it and what did it involve?

Compassionate meditation aka (Karuna meditation) is a form of meditation to develop compassion for others and ourselves. Buddhism holds a significant amount of importance towards compassion. Practicing Loving Kindness, using Mantras, Mudras, Affirmations are ideal for this form of meditation.
Steps to be followed while considering this form of meditation are:

Find somewhere quiet where you will not be disturbed. Sit with a good and comfortable posture. Place your feet shoulder width apart. Sit with a straight but relaxed spine.
Close your eyes and spend sometime with mindful breathing. This helps in promoting relaxation and focus.
Bring to mind a person who has currently or is suffering. Begin with people for whom  you feel the most sympathy. Sincerity is everything in Karuna meditation. Therefore, start with someone you love.
Consider the struggles this person is facing.
Wish the individual freedom from suffering. Wish for them to be happier, healthier, more fortunate and more successful. Or if a person is ill you wish for them to get healthier!
If you feel any conflicting emotions as such, just observe them don't be judgemental about the situation.
Observe the feeling of compassion. Be mindful of it. How does the feeling feel in the body and mind?. Are there any obstacles in the way to genuine compassion? Compassion is a feeling. And feelings are a source of energy! Connect with the inner energy of compassion. And thats the gateway towards feeling like a Boddhisatva.
Repeat the script meditating on different people.
Finish with a wish to free all sentient beings from suffering.
Sometimes, we may not feel compassion for others and sometimes even for ourselves, if that is the case, we need to start off with forgiveness.

And thats where Meditation on forgiveness starts.


Why Buddha said "There is No God" and Later "There is God"? EXPLANATION :

In many TV shows,sites I came to know that Buddha gave Different answers about God to Two Persons.

Buddha To a Ram Bhakta :
A Devotee of Lord Ram(Hindu God) was confused that God is there or Not, so he came to Buddha and asked him that "God is there or Not" .
Buddha answered : There Is No God.

AFTER SOME TIME

Buddha to Atheist
An atheist was confused that God is there or Not,so he came to Buddha and asked him that "God is there or Not"
Buddha answered : There Is A God.

QUESTION :

What was the Reason for Buddha to Give different answers to same question ?

The Buddha took a different approach to God than 'is' or 'is not':

  “This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon
  the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one
  who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom,
  there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one
  who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct
  wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world. "
  SN 12.15

In only accepting truth that is directly perceivable and verifiable,

  “Bhante, there are some ascetics and brahmins who come to Kesaputta.
  They explain and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage,
  denigrate, deride, and denounce the doctrines of others. But then some
  other ascetics and brahmins come to Kesaputta, and they too explain
  and elucidate their own doctrines, but disparage, denigrate, deride,
  and denounce the doctrines of others. We are perplexed and in doubt,
  Bhante, as to which of these good ascetics speak truth and which speak
  falsehood.

  It is fitting for you to be perplexed, Kālāmas, fitting for you to be
  in doubt. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter. Come,
  Kālāmas, do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by
  hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by
  inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a
  view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or
  because you think: ‘The ascetic is our guru.’ But when, Kālāmas, you
  know for yourselves: ‘These things are unwholesome; these things are
  blameworthy; these things are censured by the wise; these things, if
  accepted and undertaken, lead to harm and suffering,’ then you should
  abandon them." AN 3.65

, as well as MN 27, one is naturally lead to DN 9.

  “There are some brahmans & contemplatives with a doctrine & view like
  this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy and free from
  disease.’ I approached them and asked them, ‘Is it true that you have
  a doctrine & view like this: “After death, the self is exclusively
  happy and free from disease"?’ When asked this, they replied, ‘Yes.’
  So I asked them, ‘But do you dwell having known or seen an exclusively
  happy world?’ When asked this, they said, ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But
  have you ever been aware of a self exclusively happy for a day or a
  night, or for half a day or half a night?’ When asked this, they said,
  ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But do you know that “This is the path, this
  is the practice for the realization of an exclusively happy world"?’
  When asked this, they said, ‘No.’ So I asked them, ‘But have you heard
  the voices of devas reborn in an exclusively happy world, saying,
  “Practice well, my dears. Practice straightforwardly, my dears, for
  the realization of an exclusively happy world, because it was through
  such a practice that we ourselves have been reborn in an exclusively
  happy world"?’ When asked this, they said, ‘No.’

  “So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the
  words of those brahmans & contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”

  “Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing.”

  “Potthapada, it’s as if a man were to say, ‘I’m in love with the most
  beautiful woman in this country,’ and other people were to say to him,
  ‘Well, my good man, this most beautiful woman in this country with
  whom you are in love: do you know if she’s of the warrior caste, the
  priestly caste, the merchant caste, or the laborer caste?’ and, when
  asked this, he would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘Well
  then, do you know her name or clan name? Whether she’s tall, short, or
  of medium height? Whether she’s dark, fair, or ruddy-skinned? Do you
  know what village or town or city she’s from?’ When asked this, he
  would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘So you’ve never known or
  seen the woman you’re in love with?’ When asked this, he would say,
  ‘Yes.’

  “So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the
  words of that man turn out to be unconvincing?”

  “Yes, lord … ”

  “In the same way, there are some brahmans & contemplatives with a
  doctrine & view like this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy
  and free from disease.’ … Don’t the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”

  “Yes, lord … ”

  “ Potthapada , it’s as if a man at a crossroads were to build a
  staircase for ascending to a palace, and other people were to say to
  him, ‘Well, my good man, this palace for which you are building a
  staircase: do you know whether it’s east, west, north, or south of
  here? Whether it’s high, low, or in between?’ and, when asked this, he
  would say, ‘No.’ Then they would say to him, ‘So you don’t know or see
  the palace for which you are building a staircase?’ When asked this,
  he would say, ‘Yes.’

  “So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don’t the
  words of that man turn out to be unconvincing?”

  “Yes, lord … ”

  “In the same way, there are some brahmans & contemplatives with a
  doctrine & view like this: ‘After death, the self is exclusively happy
  and free from disease.’ … Don’t the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?”

  “Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing.”

As the Buddha stated in his first sermon,

  “Bhikkhus, these two extremes should not be followed by one who has
  gone forth into homelessness. What two? The pursuit of sensual
  happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of
  worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of
  self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial. Without
  veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened
  to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to
  knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to
  enlightenment, to Nibbāna." SN 56.11

All speculative views are abandoned in DN 1. MN 74 gives one analysis of why Nihilism, the strong atheist's statement 'there is no God', is flawed.

DN 15 is likely approximately what he taught, and MN 118 and MN 10 is likely what he would have practiced..

Some Hindu societies accepted Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, which may mix his statements quite a lot.. in fact, a lot of his supposed quotes on the net, are not his quotes. Best to stick to the Pali canon and some later writings for what he says imo! :)


Will I be considered a real Buddhist if I take refuge alone? I see myself as a Buddhist and I would like to take refuge. Can I do it alone ? Will I be considered a real Buddhist ? Please excuse my  mistakes, English is not my first language.

Yes you can take refuge in the triple gem (the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha) alone.

Here are 2 links for you.

The first link describes how you take refuge in the triple gem.

The second link describes how to take the five precepts. They are normally taken after taking refuge in the triple gem.

May you be well and happy and free from mental and physical suffering.

Lanka


If A is killed by B due to A's past karma of killing B, will B suffer from this karma of killing A? I am trying to deepen my understanding of the law of karma. Let's say:

A killed B.
B killed A in next life.

Is this particular karma of A considered "completed", that B will not suffer since this is just the effect of A's karma?

Or does B still create new karma when killing A, and will suffer unwholesome result?

Killing someone is an act that is accomplished by many thought processes. A single thought process can have a maximum of 17 cittas. Among them, the cittas 9 to 15 are called the Javana cittas. They are the ones responsible for creating Karma.

   Thought-Process

  1. The subject, the consciousness, receives objects from within and without. When a person is in a state of profound sleep his mind is
  said to be vacant, or, in other words, in a state of bhavanga. We
  always experience such a passive state when our minds do not respond
  to external objects. This flow of bhavanga is interrupted when objects
  enter the mind.

  2. Then the bhavanga consciousness vibrates for one
  thought-moment and passes away.

  3. A bhavanga that cuts off the flow (bhavanga upaccheda).

  4. Thereupon the sense-door consciousness (pañca-dvārāvajjana)
  arises and ceases. At this stage the natural flow is checked and is
  turned towards the object.
  5. Immediately after there arises and ceases the eye consciousness* (cakkhu viññāna), but yet knows no more about it.
  6. This sense operation is followed by a moment of reception of the object so seen (sampaticchana).
  7. Next comes the investigating faculty (santīrana) or a momentary examination of the object so received.
  8. After this comes that stage of representative cognition termed the determining consciousness (votthapana). Discrimination is
  exercised at this stage. Free Will plays its part here.

  9 to 15.  Immediately after there arises the psychologically most important stage - Impulsion or javana. It is at this stage that an
  action is judged whether moral or immoral. Kamma is performed at this
  stage; if viewed rightly (yoniso manasikāra), the javana becomes
  moral; if viewed wrongly (ayoniso manasikāra), it becomes immoral. In
  the case of an Arahat this javana is neither moral nor immoral, but
  merely functional (kiriya). This javana stage usually lasts for seven
  thought moments, or, at times of death, five.

  16 to 17. The whole process which happens in an infinitesimal part of time ends with the registering consciousness (tadālambana), lasting
  for two thought-moments - thus completing one thought-process at the
  expiration of seventeen thought-moments.

Each of the Javana Cittas are Karmically potent. They come into fruitions at different times.

1. Immediately effective kamma (dittha-dhamma-vedaniya kamma)

kamma which produces its results in the present life.

Among the seven javana cittas, the first, or the weakest javana-citta called the dittha-dhamma-vedaniya - produces its effects in the present life. Because it's the weakest kamma, it is unable to produce results past the current life.

If this kamma is performed in this present life and does meet the opportunity to ripen , it will give the result in the same existence. Otherwise, the effect becomes defunct.

2. Subsequently effective kamma (upapajja-vedaniya kamma )

kamma which produces its effects in the nearest next life.

Among the seven javana process, this is the seventh one.The second weakest of the javana cittas, - called upapajja-vedaniya kamma.

3. indefinitely effective kamma  ( aparā-pariya-vedaniya kamma)

kamma which produces its effects in lives subsequent to nearest next life.

It can ripen at any time whenever it has opportunity to produce the results from the second future existence onwards as long as the round of rebirths continues. It never becomes defunct until it comes to fruition.

4. defunct  kamma (ahosi kamma)

kamma which is ineffective.

The kamma that is unable to produce its results are called ahosi-kamma.

If immediately effective kamma (dittha-dhamma-vedaniya kamma), for example, is unable to operate in this life, and if the subsequently effective kamma (upapajja-vedaniya kamma) does not operated in the second birth or next life, they are ahosi-kamma.

In the case of Arahants, all their accumulated good or bad kamma from the past which was due to ripen in the future lives become defunct with their enlightenment.

Since killing a person involves so many thought processes, it doesn't end just because the Karma of one of the Javana cittas of one thought process comes into fruition. Chances are that one is going to pay for the Javana cittas in the multitudes of thought processes involved with the killing, from time to time in Samsara. So getting killed once in a future life is not likely to complete all results of the Karmas one accumulates in an act of killing.

If person B kills person A in next life, it won't be a new karma for person A as the fruit is never a Karma. However it will become a new Karma for person B. Because B is not the one facing the result. He's a different person creating a fresh Karma.


Conscience and Buddhism How does Buddhism view conscience? Do you follow your conscience or Buddhist morality? Your conscience does not always in line with Buddhist morality. For example, cakes are not poison but generally are not considered as healthy food, Buddhism does not prohibit you from selling cakes to other people. But your conscience says, it's better to sell something that can make contribution of health to people at large e.g. healthier food compare to cakes.

Do you ignore your conscience or follow it?

EDIT

Although selling cake is not wrong livelihood but your conscience tells you to choose healthier contribution. It's easy to fall into extreme. Buddhism is the middle path. How do you keep it balance and not neglecting your conscience at the same time?

If selling cake is better than selling drugs, selling healthy food is better than selling cakes and so on. I am wondering what is the use of Right Livelihood as in the Noble Eightfold Path, are they all considered Right Livelihood, except drugs?

What I meant was which one do you listen to? Listening to conscience is necessary, as you said. But what you think is right or wrong does not necessarily true or middle path. If selling healthy food is better than selling cakes, logically one will follow what is best, we consciously put the latter one into the "not to do" list and choose former one as our Right Livelihood. But how do you know if you follow this kind of thinking you're not going to fall into extreme? We create our own version of Right Livelihood. Both cakes and healthy food are not considered wrong according to Buddha.

It's a good intention to desire to make a livelihood that does neither harm one self nor others, and conscience is very importand toward path and beyond.

As for how to use it all the way to highest liberation, best to get known the talk by the Sublime Buddha to his Son Ven. Rahula.

Mudita

[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for liberation from it]


Questions about buying a Buddha statue How important is the hand gesture of a Buddha statue?
I heard in a video that I should definitely get a Dhyāna Mudrā (Meditation) statue or a bhūmisparśa (calling the Earth to witness / touching the Earth) statue to deepen my practice... Which is unfortunate because I'm on a tight budget and found a good deal I'd like to snag on an Abhayamudrā (gesture of fearlessness/giving refuge) statue.

Secondly, is it okay to buy one with a (small) crack in the plate behind the head (not sure what it's called)? As some have pointed out that could symbolize impermanence... I just want to make sure it's "kosher".

Lastly, can I keep my statue in storage until I have a shrine or at least a clean and appropriate room? Or should I wait to until I have a good place to set it out?

Thanks in advance!

For home decorating purposes, the statues hand gestures, condition or placement probably has some importance.

For buddhist practice, the above really has no importance at all.

(If you could elaborate on what you want to accomplish, it could be easier to answer your question).


Buddhism and Mathematics Have there been any Buddhist texts addressing geometry, calculation or abstract algebra?

I recently read a composite biography of several mathematicians through history. While some had schizophrenia, few had serious mood disorders. Cardano was mentioned as a possibility. Proofs require a mindfulness of thought. There is also the stereotype of ivory tower nerds being emotionless or stoic. There seem to be therapeutic effects of learning mathematics or minds resistant to emotional pains are better at math than average.

Buddhism has a lot to do with handling emotional pain. Has me wondering if mathematics might have been a point of interest. Numbers seem to be. Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Three Marks if Existence.

On the other hand, a straight forward, linear, literal approach to understanding doesn't quite feel like Buddhism .

Have there been any Buddhist texts addressing geometry, calculation or abstract algebra?

I don't know much about the History of Mathematics.

This History of 0 (zero) mentions Pingala -- that's "Maurya or post-Maurya" era, perhaps they were mostly-all kind of Buddhists then.

I read elsewhere that, later (e.g. at the time of the Islamic invasion), it was the educated/urban/merchant class who were mostly-Buddhist -- whereas it was the rural/peasant class who were 'Hindu'. That (being merchants, trading, travelling) might imply they (i.e. the lay people/society who supported the Buddhist monastics) had uses for mathematics.

While some had schizophrenia, few had serious mood disorders.

I don't know if you might have read it, Zen and the Art of motorcycle Maintenance mentions, some instructions for assembling a bicycle,

  "... I’ve a set of instructions at home which open up great realms for the improvement of
  technical writing. They begin, ‘Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind.’"

Buddhism has a lot to do with handling emotional pain. Has me wondering if mathematics might have been a point of interest. Numbers seem to be. Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, Three Marks if Existence.

I think the numbers there are to do with "list-making" -- a numbered list.

Also "analysis" -- i.e. dividing and categorising.

So instead of "there's a big problem" Buddhism gives "there are three poisons, ten fetters -- twelve nidanas -- etc."

That's not classical "mathematics" like greek geometry. It may be related to or contain (use or presume) logic -- see Catuṣkoṭi for example.

And deconstruction seems like it ought to be useful if you want to make something stop -- like taking apart a wrist-watch (which will stop it), and understanding the causes of things (like the French proverb that "to understand all is to forgive all").

I think that list-making is principally an "Abhidhamma" kind of thing -- just one example among many might be the Paṭṭhāna.

Apparently the (several) abhidhammas (of the several schools) are summaries of doctrine. One of the ways to summarise elements of doctrine is to list or index them.

Here's a collection of some of the most famous lists -- Dhamma Lists

On the other hand, a straight forward, linear, literal approach to understanding doesn't quite feel like Buddhism.

There are many forms of maths, aren't there. I don't know them all of course, it seemed to me that maths was good at taking things apart (analysis), abstraction (maybe number theory), putting things together (maybe induction) -- and inventing systems, based on sets of axioms.

And when you choose useful axioms (which e.g. match observations) then it's science.

It seems to me, I guess, that Buddhism is more like a science than mathematics -- doctrines like the four noble truths being axiomatic.

Also Buddhism kinds of warns against constructing things (like sankharas).

And maybe warns against too much deconstruction too, like if the west tradition has a subjective/objective dichotomy (these being two extremes) then buddhism teaches "the middle way" meaning "neither extreme".


Are there anything to care about in this universe? Due to impermanance of everything, Are there anything to be happy or sad about ? Even about dhamma ?

If something seems like to be happy, there are some reasons to not to be happy.

It is impermanant for sure. but also,
That happiness make sadness in the future (future includes next lives) (I need to be sure about this sententce, please mention about this in your answer)

Are enlightened people happy ? Or neither happy nor sad ?

I think Buddhism recommends you focus on what's virtuous and moral instead of on what's feels pleasurable.

For example, lying, killing, stealing -- are all to be avoided -- and that's important.

Conversely, generosity, kindness, keeping your promises -- that's important too.

There is a word -- sukha -- which might be translated "happiness". It's used in contexts like the Sukhavagga.

I suspect it's a happiness conditioned or caused by an absence not by a presence -- for example not happiness because you have something ("a chocolate bar") but happiness because of not having something ("anger", "greed", "remorse").


Buddhism and thought crime Having read multiple sources about karma, there appear to be different interpretations. Some suggest that physical volitional acts bear the seeds of karma while others such as this one, suggest that karma is borne by thoughts.

This is extremely confusing especially for someone new to the concepts since there doesn't appear to be an authoritative answer or reply.

If there are "unwholesome" (since i don't know what are wholesome or unwholesome aside from causing direct harm with no ill intentions) thoughts, is this considered thought crime in Buddhism?

It is the intention that has the karmic effect in this life or future ones. This is made clear in the Abhidhamma, and by the Buddha

There are three unwholesome roots. Which three?

Greed
Hatred
Delusion

There are three wholesome roots. Which three?

Non greed
Non hatred
Non delusion

For example:
A blind monk, without intentions of any of the six intentions listed above, killed a bug when he was walking. And he was a thera. The fellow monks noted he squashed a bug, and were displeased with it because it is against the first precept to kill and to harm another living being. That is one of the ten unwholesome actions:

  "Here someone is a killer of living beings: he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, and merciless to all living beings." -The Buddha (Saleyyaka Sutta)

Later the Buddha became aware of what has happened. He told the monks that Cakkhupala's actions of squashing the bug will bear no karmic potency since he had no intention to kill it.

Here is an excerpt of the story:

  "One day, Venerable Cakkhupala who was blind came to pay homage to the Buddha at the Jetavana monastery. While he was pacing up and down in meditation, he accidentally stepped on some insects. In the morning, some bhikkhus visiting him found the dead insects. They thought ill of him and reported the matter to the Buddha. When questioned by the Buddha whether they had seen Cakkhupala killing the insects, they answered in the negative. The Buddha then admonished them, 'Just as you had not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects. Besides, being an Arahant he had no intention of killing, and was not guilty of committing an unwholesome act.' On being asked why Cakkhupala was blind, the Buddha revealed the following story to explain the nature of kammic effects."

This is the Dhammapada Story that gives an explanation to the first verse of the Dhammapada:

  "All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart." The Buddha, Dhammapada verse 1

The Dhammapada Stories for the explanation of the Dhp. verses


Is Rupa an Experience? I have never been clear on the exact nature of rupa. Is rupa the experience of the physical, is rupa not experiential but instead it's what is in 3D space and is there whether or not it's being experienced(like how most people view material reality before practicing Dhamma) or can rupa be both  experiential and not experiential(conceptual?) at the same time? We are supposed to see reality through our individual experience but it seems to me that rupa might not be an "experiential reality kind of teaching". Is rupa only about  when we are experiencing "hardness","coldness","wetness" when we touch an ice cube or is rupa the "formation" of the ice cube or could Rupa just be the concept of the ice cube?  How I interpreted the teachings on rupa told me rupa might be  conceptual at times and ultimate at other times but really I don't know. -Thank You :)

Rupa is also known as the 1st aggregate - the aggregate of material form. Here are some notes on it by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi:

  "...This includes all the material factors of existence, every type of material phenomena. The most important of these is the body, the physical organism through which one experiences the world. The Buddha analyses the aggregate of material form into two basic substances..."

There is also an audio dhamma talk by him on "The Five Aggregates".

Here is a quote from the book "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda, p. 111:

  Mind and Matter (Nama-Rupa)

  ‘What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.’

  ACCORDING to Buddhism, life is a combination of mind (nama) and matter (rupa). Mind consists of the combination of sensations, perceptions, volitional activities and consciousness. Matter consists of the combination of the four elements of solidity, fluidity, motion and heat.
  Life is the co-existence of mind and matter. Decay is the lack of co-ordination of mind and matter. Death is the separation of mind and matter. Rebirth is the recombination of mind and matter. After the passing away of the physical body (matter), the mental forces (mind) recombine and assume a new combination in a different material form and condition another existence.

  The relation of mind to matter is like the relation of a battery to an engine of a motor car. The battery helps to start the engine. The engine helps to charge the battery. The combination helps to run the motor car. In the same manner, matter helps the mind to function and the mind helps to set matter in motion.

  Buddhism teaches that life is not the property of matter alone, and that the life-process continues or flows as a result of cause and effect. The mental and material elements that compose sentient beings from amoeba to elephant and also to man, existed previously in other forms.

  Although some people hold the view that life originates in matter alone, the greatest scientists have accepted that mind precedes matter in order for life to originate. In Buddhism, this concept is called ‘relinking consciousness’.
  Each of us, in the ultimate sense, is mind and matter, a compound of mental and material phenomena, and nothing more. Apart from these realities that go to form the nama-rupa compound, there is no self, or soul. The mind part of the compound is what experiences an object. The matter part does not experience anything. When the body is injured, it is not the body that feels the pain, but the mental side. When we are hungry it is not the stomach that feels the hunger but the mind. However, mind cannot eat the food to ease the hunger. The mind and its factors, make the body digest the food. Thus neither the nama nor the rupa has any efficient power of its own. One is dependent on the other; one supports the other. Both mind and matter arise because of conditions and perish immediately, and this is happening every moment of our lives. By studying and experiencing these realities we will get insight into: (1) what we truly are; (2) what we find around us; (3) how and why we react to what is within and around us; and (4) what we should aspire to reach as a spiritual goal.

  To gain insight into the nature of the psycho-physical life is to realise that life is an illusion, a mirage or a bubble, a mere process of becoming and dissolving, or arising and passing away. Whatever exists, arises from causes and conditions. When the causes and conditions cease to be, the thing will cease to exist.


How does one hold themself in full awareness during new complicated and complex learning? In one of Eckhart Tolle talks (can't find the exact one yet) he mentions how most people "loose themselves" at/during "work". i.e. - lose awareness of body, emotions and thoughts.
For me this seems to be true - "digging deep", my consciousness becomes completely enmeshed in the academic or work at hand.
Although similar to this question, I see this answer of mindfulness as a general way of working.
But more specifically, is it possible for those fewer moments of very new, complex and complicated learning, to be like this?
I cannot see how they can coexist.
What would that look like and how is it done/practiced specifically?

Awareness is your most natural or primary form of existence, and it is always in existence effortlessly throughout your experience.
When you are deep in work that is familiar to you, you get immersed or in a "flow" state because your mind agrees with the work for one reason or another, and therefore it is at ease being identified with the work. This clears the way for you to fully take the seat of your natural state of awareness and experience its effortlessness. Any relevant thought flows freely out of this pure awareness. Your mind and awareness are at one with the work.
When the work is new, surprising, or complicated, your mind takes the lead and begins to identify with the challenge, trouble, or effort it is experiencing. This identity is cemented through conscious or subconscious thoughts like "I have to figure this out!" or "I can't figure this out!".  This creates an energy of effortful strain that blocks the feeling of flow that you experience when you are fully in the seat of your awareness.
In order to fully take the seat of your effortless awareness while doing complicated work, you need to see that the work has nothing to do with your true, purest identity, which is the awareness itself. The attachment to "having to figure it out" must be let go so that you can relax, be open, and in acceptance of any possible outcome whether or not it may be deemed favorable.
While this may seem simple conceptually, it's not necessarily easy because of the habitual nature of the mind to create or attach to an identity that is not awareness. It often does this when it is taken off guard by high-contrast / reactive situations.
Meditation is a great way to confirm through experience that you are not your mind, thoughts or effort, and to build your mind's trust that it can detach from any other false identity. This will allow you to fully take the seat of your most pure identity, awareness.
Occasionally try looking directly at your awareness - become aware of your awareness - and try being aware of it in the context of your thoughts and identification tendencies.
This direct experience or "seeing" will gradually (and sometimes quickly) change the mind's habitual nature so that it won't react because of its identification position relative to the work. This trust within the mind will eventually draw you fully into the seat of awareness without a meditative exercise. This will enable you to undertake the thought process with great clarity and without a strenuous feeling, no matter the complexity of the work or situation.


The Third Precept and Prostitution For a Buddhist who is single, do occasional "visits" to the brothel break the observing of the Third Precept? In other words, the Third Precept is perfectly "intact" when one engages in such activity (from the words of a venerable here )?

I am a Buddhist, happy, content prostitute.  I am not a greedy person, nor am a sex addict (or anything of the like).  This is the chapter in which my life is.  I have used my current profession to touch the lives of many humans, male and female.  I also do advocacy work for prostitutes and know that there are many different types of persons in the sex trade industry.

While I cannot answer the specific question regarding the Third Precept, I would like to offer that my work and my Buddhist practice have played on one another in regards to my own livelihood.  Until another path appears to me where I can effect positive change AND make a living in NYC to support my children, I CHOOSE this work.

I am open to my friends, family, and community about my sex work.  I don't walk in darkness, but in beauty and light.  The compassion that I have is very much felt by all those around me, within and outside of my trade.  I give of my true self, but I keep an open mind and heart until the next chapter (which is probably soon because I have done this work for  almost five years).

I have gone a bit off topic, I know, but in my advocacy work I have met prostitutes from all over the world...all whom chose this, not all were necessarily happy while doing this, but often as a means to am end.  Many while working on the undergrad, and a surprising percentage while working on their masters.  Our goal is to humanize the the trade, and to give sex workers a voice because, as you see, not many out there are educated as to the actual lives of prostitutes.

Thank you for allowing me to share.


What is the mark of cessation? What is the "mark of cessation"?

E.g. from Kihwa's Commentary on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment:

  From the standpoint of cultivation and severing, the sequence is from
  coarse to subtle: ceasing, changing, abiding, and arising.
  If you extinguish the mark of cessation, then you have for the first time attained the level of faith.

Is it an abstract entity? If so, how would Dignaga's theory of apoha account for it?

If not, I think it would be phenomenal, but I don't know what sort of actual thing it could be. I mean, can it studied empirically, like fire, or like consciousness?

Does it matter either way to Buddhist practice or just life in general?

Here's a copy of the text in question:

Here is what's going on in that text:

Bodhisattva "Pure Wisdom" asks "Buddha" to explain the levels and stages of attainment.

Buddha responds with a usual prajna-paramita explanation of emptiness: that Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi has no svabhava, that Bodhisattvas and sentient beings are mere illusory appearances, and that therefore there is nothing like “attainment” or “an attainer”, let alone any such "stages".

He then elaborates on this point by saying that because sentient beings are “thoroughly confused” and are bent on making things up, they can't help themselves but continue to contrive notions like “cessation” or “person who attains cessation” or "a level of attainment", hence the question about levels. When they attain real cessation, like that of the Tathagata, they will clearly see that all these notions are illusory, making the question irrelevant.

The phrase that you are interested in belongs to this line of argument. The exact phrase goes like this:

  ”Since they have not [mieh] [mieh] illusory activity, they automatically make discriminations.”

(By “discriminations” he means concrete entities and events like “cessation”, “attainment”, “Boddhisattva”, “sentient being”, "a level" etc. By "illusory activity" he means reification, conceptual fabrication, and overgeneralization.)

The word "mieh" means “cessation” or “extinction”. It is not clear why it is repeated twice in the text. My understanding is that it is repeated for emphasis. IMO the meaning of the phrase is: “Since they have not ACTUALLY CEASED the illusory activity” – meaning, that even though some of them may be “advanced” Buddhist students and practitioners, they are still caught up in the habit of reification – and subsequent discrimination and attachment based on that reification. And so they still posit notions of "attainment", "one who attains", "levels" etc. Hence asking wrong question about levels.

That's the basic meaning of the passage. Now, Kihwa (whoever he is) chooses to read that "mieh mieh" repetition as “they have not ceased the cessation”, which he then has to interpret as “ceased the mark of cessation” or “extinguished the mark of cessation”. He then brings in an entire (unrelated) theory of Four Marks, which postulates that each dharma (phenomenon, NOT thought) goes through the four lifecycle phases (“marks”) of arising, abiding, changing (=deteriorating), and cessation. (See Mulamadhyamakakarika for Nagarjuna's take on emptiness of the four phases).

Kihwa says that all samsara is rooted in reification of these “four marks” as something substantial. He argues that in order to stop maintaining our delusion we should stop seeing Arising, Abiding, Changing, and Cessation (of any and all phenomena) as having concrete reality, we should see them as mere conventions, simplifications, arbitrary points of designation. Neither phenomena nor their phases of lifecycle have existence outside of the designating mind.

He goes on to explain that the notion of arising is the subtlest and hardest to stop reifying, while cessation is the easiest. Based on that, he says, we should start by ceasing reification of the notion of cessation (of all entities and phenomena), and then proceed to cease reification of “changing”, “abiding”, and finally “arising”. He then equates attainment of cessation of each of these four, with attainment of the levels of Faith-follower, Arahant, Sage, and The Fruition correspondingly.

He finishes by making an assertion, that when the Four Marks are completely extinguished, the practitioner returns to “original reality”, i.e. the actual ontological reality where the mind-made phenomena have never really existed. Since they never really existed, cessation of their designated point of cessation is not real either, and nevertheless it happens. All of this argument seems to be needed to support Kihwa’s position that while Buddha of the Sutra says that there is no attainment and cessation, in his, Kihwa's opinion there is still a sense in which a practitioner advances through levels and attains cessation. In other words, a practitioner advances through levels of understanding that there are no levels, and attains cessation of any notion of “cessation” (and other reifications).

To answer your question directly, “mark of cessation” is an arbitrary point designated as the moment when a phenomenon stops to exist. From the perspective of Madhyamaka such point is necessarily empty (=conventional, subjective), as is the point of arising, and the phenomenon itself.

In context of the Sutra speaking about attainment (of Enlightenment) aka cessation (of dukkha, samsara, avidya), this "cessation of [the mark of] cessation" refers to no longer reifying the notion of Enlightenment as something concrete that happens to a person at a point in time, since both the person and the cessation are empty conventional designations. In other words, Enlightenment entails no longer reifying Enlightenment, which has been the Sutra's message all along.

Now, if I can be as bold as to offer a connection with Dignaga's theory of apoha, I would say that it pertains to a relationship between "whatever actually happens in the ontological reality around the time we designate as the moment of cessation" and the (mind-made) designation of cessation. The exact question is, how are the two connected and are they. According to the top-down theory of Dignaga, the conceptually designated event of cessation serves as a conceptual relationaly-isomorphic stand-in for something actually happening in real life. While according to the causal chain theory of Dharmakirti, something in real life caused us to experience that particular locality of events as "cessation", and this causal relationship gives ontological credibility to the designation, however mistaken/simplified/reified it be. If you ask me, I prefer the second theory. The weakness of the standin theory IMO is that it still implies some sort of one-to-one correspondance between the experienced phenomena, the conceptual stand-in, and their ontological correlate. In real life this one-to-one correspondence falls apart under careful examination. The causal chain theory provides a nice and comforting explanation that although our notions and concepts may be reifications, simplifications, and overgeneralizations, their arising in our minds was caused by ontologically real stuff, making them not completely arbitrary and hopefully even partially useful within some boundaries.

In other words, even though cessation and Enlightenment are not something real, there's something real that leads to all these conversations, and the effort to achieve Enlightenment is not in vain.

P.S. I guess the overarching goal of this entire line of thought, is to show the connection between suchness and non-reification. Reification leads to invalid attachment and therefore to dukkha. Reification is samsara. Non-reification leads to suchness which is nirvana.


Where is the complete William Hamilton's "Saints and Psychopaths"? I have been trying to find a complete copy of William Hamilton's "Saints and Psychopaths" and although it seems to be distributed on the web in various places in electronic format, it also seems that every single electronic copy appears to be missing pages from the preface, specifically pages xiv and xv.  If you know where I can get these missing pages I would be extremely grateful to hear from you.  Unfortunately pretty much all of the hard copies available are prohibitively priced and I do not if there is a publishers for this book at present, in the book it appears to be "Dharma Audio Network Associates San Jacinto California 1995" and according to amazon the publisher is "Dana".

I have attempted to source a complete copy from documents.mx, www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de, www.scribd.com, books.google.com & .co.uk, docsfiles.com, www.mediafire.com and various less reputable sites, but unfortunately to no avail.

Any assistance in tracking these pages, if not the full publication would be greatly appreciated, I also believe that a complete online copy of this title would be of considerable benefit to the world-wide buddhist community.

Although I do not know what you consider to be prohibitively priced, as of today, 6/7/2016, abebooks.com has a used copy for $34.95 plus $4.00 shipping. If the book is as scarce in hard copy as it appears to be, this seems to be a good price.


Is there a difference between the 32 physical characteristics and the the 32 physical marks? Why does the Buddha ask the same question twice, and why does Subhuti answer it two different ways? In Diamond Sutra Chapter 13

  “Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be perceived by means of
  his thirty-two physical characteristics?”

  “No, Most Honored One. The Buddha cannot be perceived by his
  thirty-two physical characteristics. Why? Because the Buddha teaches
  that they are not real but are merely called the thirty-two physical
  characteristics.”

but in Diamond Sutra Chapter 26

  “What do you think Subhuti? Is it possible to recognize the Buddha by
  the 32 physical marks?”

  Subhuti replied, “Yes, Most Honored One, the Buddha may thus be
  recognized.”

Is there a difference between the 32 physical characteristics and the the 32 physical marks?

is there any difference between 32 phy.characteristics and 32 physical marks. there are many hindrance to be encountered ,out of which one is doubt .a slightest of it can ruin our walking on the path.  a little effort to clear the same is as follows----the answer has arisen after giving a slight thought upon and is not backed by any reference pl. The physical characteristics when asked upon by subhuti, buddha replies that they are impermanent and cannot be treated as lighthouse to know buddha. here he may mean about the nature ,traits,habits of person . in the other instance when subhuti asks about physical marks buddha says yes. here may mean that a person who is going to become a enlightened buddha has some physical marks on the body sya a lotus mark on toes, high forehead,hands reaching  below the knees etc.i don't know them exactly how many and what they are really. but a slight surfing will fetch inf of the same. the point to be searched as physical marks on a reincarnated soul(avatar), enlightened yogi "s physical body.answer may put forth a slight light to clear your doubt.


Why are Mahayana texts in Sanskrit? Based on the quote below, it seemed that the Buddha did not allow his teachings to be translated to the royal or priestly language of Sanskrit, that was the liturgical language of Brahmanism, the language of classical literature and the language used by the royal court.

The common people at the time did not speak Sanskrit in their daily conversations. They spoke various dialects of Prakrit. The Buddha wanted his teachings to be transmitted in the dialects of the common people.

It appears that Pali, although not a genuinely spoken language of the past, seems to be a mix of various Prakrit dialects from Buddha's time, that underwent partial Sanskritization.

It also makes sense to me that the Pali Canon was transmitted mostly by oral tradition and was written down only late in its history compared to Mahayana texts because Sanskrit was the main written language for a long time in northern India. This is similar to the role of Latin in European history.

I also guess that the Chinese scholar monks who visited India, took with them the Sanskrit Mahayana texts back to China, instead of the Pali Canon, partly because the Sanskrit texts were committed to writing much earlier, while the Pali Canon was still transmitted mostly orally at the time.

Question:
If the Buddha did not want his teachings to be taught in Sanskrit, why and how did the Indian Mahayana texts (agamas, sutras, vinaya etc.) end up being in Sanskrit?

According to the (Theravada) Vinaya from Cullavagga, fifth Khandaka, chapter 33:

  And so sitting those Bhikkhus spake to the Blessed One thus:

  'At the present time, Lord, Bhikkhus, differing in name, differing in
  lineage, differing in birth, differing in family, have gone forth
  (from the world). These corrupt the word of the Buddhas by (repeating
  it in) their own dialect. Let us, Lord, put the word of the Buddhas
  into (Sanskrit) verse.'

  'How can you, O foolish ones, speak thus, saying, "Let us, Lord, put
  the word of the Buddhas into verse?" This will not conduce, O foolish
  ones, either to the conversion of the unconverted, or to the increase
  of the converted; but rather to those who have not been converted
  being not converted, and to the turning back of those who have been
  converted.'

  And when the Blessed One had rebuked those Bhikkhus, and had delivered
  a religious discourse, he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said:

  'You are not, O Bhikkhus, to put the word of the Buddhas into
  (Sanskrit) verse. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata. I
  allow you, O Bhikkhus, to learn the word of the Buddhas each in his
  own dialect.'

I'm afraid any answer to this is going to be speculative, so not a perfect SE question. Here is my theory:

Most of the early Mahayana texts were written either in Hybrid Sanskrit or in Gandhari Prakrit because their authors were the descendants of Aryans living in the Gandhara region. Historically, that area has always been much more "sanskritized" than the rest of India, see below for my explanation as to why.  So when Buddhism reached Gandhara, it was only natural for the educated locals to write their thoughts about Buddhism in a language that they both spoke and knew how to write - and that was Hybrid Gandhari Sanskrit.

Here is some background information in support of this thesis:

As you all know, Classical Sanskrit is an idealized written form of the language that the original Aryans actually spoke (some modern scientists call it "Prakrit" and other call it "Vedic Sanskrit"). Sort of like Classical Latin is an idealized written form of the language that the original Romans actually spoke.
Originally, Aryans came from Iran and settled in what today is south of Afghanistan, along what used to be Sarasvati river. Then, when the tectonic shifts in Himalayas made Sarasvati change its course and start falling into Ganges, the Aryan tribes started migrating further east, carrying their language and culture with them, and mixing with the indigenous population. This led to a range of dialects emerging along the Ganges, from the purest form of Vedic Sanskrit in the west to the most corrupted vernaculars in the east. This process was accompanied by social stratification, with "more civilized" Aryans on the top and "less civilized" locals at the bottom - this was how the infamous casts or varnas begun.

Sorry about the map labels being in Russian, I drew it a long time ago and don't have time at the moment to fix the labels. But from the overall shape and the colors, I hope you can see the state of Aryan assimilation by the time the Buddha comes on stage. The blue states on the left are more Aryan, speaking almost pure Sanskrit - and the orange states on the right are more the original people, speaking their own languages partially mixed with Sanskrit to form various dialects like e.g. Pali. The region of Gandhara is not highlighted on my map, but it is that area with multiple rivers  to the left of the leftmost Indian state.

There was a big university there in Gandhara, called Takshasila University - and thanks to the proximity of Persian and Greek Empires I suppose this region was a lot more educated and literate than the rest of India, back in the day.
Most of the Mahayana scripts written in Sanskrit (either Hybrid or Gandhari) were discovered at archaeological sites located in the Gandhara area.
Many of the great Mahayana lineages recognized in Tibetan Buddhism, trace their beginning to enlightened masters from Oddiyana which is basically the same area.
Sarvastivada school left their version of Canon written down in Sanskrit, and we know that Sarvastivada was essentially centered in that same very region of Gandhara/Oddiyana.
Milinda-Panha (Questions of King Milinda) - a late Canonical text whose story is set in Sagala, a city just to the east of Gandhara region, was probably originally written in the Gandhari language.
At least some of the Mahayana sutras only available in Chinese show linguistical evidence of having been translated from the Gandhari dialect of Sanskrit.

All this is to say that ancient people of Gandhara/Oddiyana who wrote Buddhist texts in Sanskrit did not violate Buddha's rule prescribing people to "learn the word of the Buddhas each in his own dialect" - because Sanskrit was a written version of the language they actually spoke.

Then, from Gandhara, Buddhism has spread to other countries including China via the Silk Road, as well as Tibet.


When and where were the mother and father of Buddha born? Undoubtedly Buddha was a very famous person. I am very eager to know who were his mother and father and when and where they were born?

Here is a quote from Wikipedia's Family of Gautama Buddha:

The Buddha was born into a family of the kshatriya varna in what is Nepal in 567BCE. He was called Siddhartha in his childhood. His father was King Suddhodana, leader of the Shakya clan in what was the growing state of Kosala, and his mother was Queen Maya. He was raised by his mother's younger sister Maha Pajapati after his mother's death seven days after childbirth.
He later married Yaśodharā, and together they had one child, a son, Rāhula. Both Yaśodharā and Rāhula later became disciples of Buddha.
His first cousin, by his father, Ananda, joined the Buddha as his attendant.

I would also recommend 2 books for you. The first one is called "What Buddhists Believe" by Ven. K. Sri Dhammanda and "The Buddha and His Teachings" by Ven. Narada Mahathera.
Both books have an introductory section on the life of the Buddha. In the second book there are also 2 chapters on the Buddha's relatives.


Suffering caused by uncertainty of whether actions will cause more or less physical pain to dying family member? What is the Buddhist approach to dealing with the suffering caused by the uncertainty of whether your actions and efforts will cause more or less physical pain to a dying family member?
My dad is dying from stage 4 pancreatic cancer.  Life expectancy will be less than 1 years (more likely a couple of months).  He is in a lot of physical pain because the pain medications are losing their effects.  It is not clear to us what options are left to manage his physical pains (if any even exist at this point?).  No one in our family caring for dad are trained in the profession of health care.  My mom, brother, sister-in-law and I are working around the clock to coordinate and consolidate the disjointed/broken communication between several medical teams responsible for my dad's care (family physician, palliative care, occupational therapist, emergency team etc...).
My dad has a strong desire to live, but not at the expense of prolonged agonizing physical pain.  Our whole family echoes this sentiment.
During these times, the family members caring for dad is suffering from uncertainty of whether we are:

doing enough to ease dad's pain - how far do we go to address dad's situation?  How do we know if we're doing enough?  How do we know if we're wasting time?  If we knew with certainty there's nothing more we can do, then we will relax and execute the final steps of closure.  If we knew with certainty there are still possibilities to explore, then we will do as much as we can and use the feeling of "hope" to mitigate our feelings of anxiety, uncertainty, fatigue and other forms of suffering.  As of today, we assume there are still possibilities to explore, but we really don't know for sure, which causes suffering.  We have found solutions to alleviate dad's suffering when doctors have said there are none, which tells us that even the professionals may not know what they are doing (or they've lost interest in our health case), which also means sometimes we need to try things ourselves. But we are uncertain on whether we are able to keep up with the new problems that arise each day.  How much runway do we have left to alleviate the agonizing physical pain my dad is in?  How do Buddhist's manage the suffering caused by uncertainty on whether you are doing enough to alleviate the pain of people you care about?

doing the right thing to ease dad's suffering - eg. if palliative care team does not respond in time to an urgent request, we will exercise our own actions without sufficient medical guidance which sometimes makes things better, and other times makes things worse (we have not documented all actions and their results, and hence we are uncertain if we have produced a net positive or net negative outcome during this saga).  How do we manage the suffering caused by not knowing in advance if you are improving or hurting your family member?

At the end of the day, if we were certain of our actions, we wouldn't be suffering. But our uncertainty causes not only our own suffering (eg. are we over-exerting ourselves researching futile efforts?), but tremendous physical pain to someone we care about.  What is the Buddhist philosophy to addressing this scenario?

ADDITIONAL NOTES
Approaches I've considered:
A1. Detach from my family and not care about them at all.  Now I feel no emotional connection to their pain.  My family will probably never speak to me again and call me an ingrate, but at least I don't have to take part in their suffering.
A2. Do a half-ass job in caring for my dad.  I just need convince /brainwash myself to think that I'm doing enough, and keep myself oblivious to the reality of whether I really am or not. I've now relieved myself of suffering from the uncertainty of actions caring for my dad.  I will also coincidentally not feel any guilt of whether my other family members have taken on responsibilities that were formerly mine, because I'm blissfully ignorant..
Is A1 / A2 the Buddhist way?

I think part of the Buddhist doctrine is that you should try to do what's ethical -- decide what's ethical, the "right" thing to do, and do that.
And then even if the outcome is sad, at least you don't regret (or feel remorse about) your action -- because your intention was correct, you did the best you could or knew at the time.
What's considered "ethical" is spelled out in some detail for monks. I believe it includes looking after each other in times of sickness ...

Monks, you have no mother, you have no father, who might tend to you. If you don't tend to one another, who then will tend to you? Whoever would tend to me, should tend to the sick.

Buddhism is less detailed on the subject of lay ethics, but I believe it does include supporting one's parents as may be possible (SN 2.4 and DN 31).
It may be that the right thing to do -- or the best you can do in the circumstances -- varies from person to person, time to time, place to place.
I'm sorry to hear you feel responsible for managing physical pain, even though you're not a doctor.

When I've been in a situation like yours I understand it's my responsibility to ask the patient, "Would you like me to take you to see a doctor?", and make another appointment or perhaps go to a hospital's Emergency department with them.
I feel it's also my responsibility to understand the doctors' diagnosis, prognosis, prescription, and care plan -- especially to whatever extent the patient can't -- to help the communication between the patient and the doctors and nurses.
I also want to not cause the patient unnecessary worry or grief, when I'm with them and able to talk with them.

I don't want to tell you what a doctor should, but my understanding is that one should expect pain to increase as cancer progresses, and doctors should expect to adjust the prescription as time goes by. I'd generally expect from my experience that a doctor will change the prescription only when they see the patient (i.e. not without seeing the patient), so when you think it's time for a new prescription then it's time to arrange another doctor's visit. I also expect that nurses (or sometimes other care-givers like family, if they're told how) might administer a prescription -- count pills, keep an eye on the time of day -- but only a doctor decides what the prescription is.
You might find this helpful too -- What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care and dying.
I think I read somewhere that on average fewer opiates are used/prescribed in palliative care in Buddhist countries. I can't tell you whether that's good or bad, I suppose it's a topic for doctors and patients (and families) to negotiate in specific circumstances. There's a little mention about the trade-off in that article for nurses -- see the paragraph which begins "Taking into consideration overall well-being" ...

However, if severe uncontrolled pain develops, cognitive impairment (e.g. delirium) may result that may require the use of strong opiods for effective relief to achieve the best cognitive function possible that would support meditative spiritual practices. In concordance with good practice and recognizing that the individual needs of each patient will differ,nurses should continue to monitor the need for pain relief, and should clearly document the preferences of such patients with regard to pain relief, particularly during initial patient assessment regardless of the setting (patient’s own home, hospice, hospital).

... though I imagine that's an "FYI" for nurses and the actual decision is to be made and agreed between the doctor and the patient (or the family who acts as the patient's "guardian" or "parent" if the patient isn't conscious enough to decide).
Also I'd add that so far as I know, doctors are quite careful not to kill their patients -- not to give an overdose, too much too soon. Part of what happens is that the patient's tolerance for the medicine might increase -- which is sometimes part of the reason why the doctor can (safely) and/or must (for it to be effective) increase the dose -- but it's the doctor's job to know how, what, when, and how much to prescribe, so that it continues to be effective (beneficial) without being unduly harmful.
Lastly it may be worth mentioning or remembering the brahmaviharas. According to this author

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

I think that the four include, "I don't want to harm you", "I admire your goodness" (as well as, "equanimity").


Lust - How Can it be Overcome? I am an above beginner level meditator - I have been practicing Vipassana meditation regularly for past 6-7 months - By regularly, I mean 1hr of sitting meditation at least 5 times a week.

I have not been able to control my lust. I try to remain mindful during acts of sexual gratification...but they are like very few moments of awareness...rest of the time I am just going with the flow...Although I am a lay person, I want to be celibate...Please guide me.

I remember a story wherein Buddha said to someone how one should eat as if they are eating their own child having lost in a desert...are there any such stories from Buddha's life/teachings regarding this subject...Basically I need some inspiration...Please share your experience if possible

By trying to "control it", you are putting the (idea of) lust outside of yourself.  In effect you are seeing "the lust" and yourself as two separate entities.  That (conceived) separation sets up a duality.  On one side is "lust", which it sounds like you are labeling as "bad".  On the other side is self, which it sounds like you want to label as "good".  And you're attached to both these concepts, lust is bad and self is good (or "should" be good).

If you choose to acknowledge the sensations you are describing as "lust", the duality will disappear.

Try sitting whatever form of meditation you prefer, that doesn't involve visualization.  When sensations that you describe as "lust" come up, acknowledge them.  This is the difficult part.  "Acknowledge" means you accept the feeling, don't judge it or yourself, and watch what happens to the thought or feeling.  Then return to your practice.

In effect I'm suggesting you acknowledge the aspect of yourself that you conceive of as lust.  That acknowledgement will integrate you and dissolve the duality.  And lust will resume its normal, healthy role in your psyche.  May your life go well.


What is passed from life to life in the process of rebirth? As a practising Buddhist, I am often asked this question: what is passed from life to life in the process of rebirth?

I have several answers to this depending on my audience - e.g. lessons to be learned, experiences to be resolved or, simply, one's own personal cockpit-style 'black box' of all that has been seen, heard, experienced etc in previous lives.

To what extent do colleagues believe that 'personality' or 'behavioural tendencies' should also be included?

I welcome your views. My question is directed at any practitioner of Buddhism, Theravadan or otherwise.

In the Pali suttas, I have not read anything about a "life to life" process of rebirth. In the Pali language, the word for "life" is "jiva". Where as the words often erroneously translated as "past lives" are "pubbe nivāsa", which literally mean "previous homes" & is often more accurately translated as "past abodes", as follows:

  Ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā anekavihitaṃ pubbenivāsaṃ anussaramānā anussaranti sabbete
  pañcupādānakkhandhe anussaranti etesaṃ vā aññataraṃ

  Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject to clinging
  or a certain one among them.

  Any kind of aggregate, whether past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

  SN 22.79 translation Bhikkhu Bodhi

Therefore, the many suttas that mention the Buddha recollecting his "past lives" are actually about the Buddha recollecting his "past homes/abodes", which, in respect to suttas such as the   Hāliddikāni Sutta & SN 22.79, may have an entirely different meaning to "past life times".

The above said, the general principles in the Pali suttas refer to the "death" ("marana") of one "body" ("kaya") and, if enlightenment does not occur, the "taking up" of (attaching/clinging to) another "body" ("kaya").

The words "marana" & "kaya" do not necessarily mean "physical death" & the "physical body". "Kaya", which also means "collection" or "group", can refer to a certain set of five aggregates (e.g. five aggregates affected by alcohol, which manifest as a happy person or happy being/satta). When those five aggregates or that state of 'being' ('satta'; refer to SN 23.2) ceases, one "kaya" & "satta" dies ("marana) & a new "kaya" & "satta" arises (e.g. a new collection of five aggregates & a new state of being that have a headache & sickness or addiction due to drinking too much alcohol).

In conclusion, in the same way an addiction to alcohol is developed, what passes from one "body" ("kaya"; "collection") to another "body" ("kaya"; "collection") is craving & its associated underlying tendencies/habits ("anusaya") & effects ("vipaka"). The short answer to the question is: "craving".

Thus the Pali suttas state:

  Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its
  sustenance at that time.

  Kutuhalasala Sutta


Aversion and Mahayana I think Andrei might have commented once that the suttas are mostly about (liberation from) lobha (including craving and attachment) as a problem, and Mahayana is about dosa.

That's probably an approximation but, even so, what is to be learned about that from Mahayana?

I can think of two possible examples ...

Teacher tells you to do things you don't want to do
Breaking "taboos" in some real though perhaps harmless way, e.g. dipping the top of your finger in alcohol and licking it

... but anything else, in general or in particular?

Some related question might include:

I'm especially interested in the type of aversion that would cause you to avoid what might be good for you-and-others, rather than a type of aversion that manifests as anger or hatred.
If nibbida is meant as an antidote to lobha then is there a corresponding antidote to dosa? Or should nibbida be an antidote to both?

I'm aware of this topic -- Could Lobha(craving) and Dosa(aversion) be working in tandem? However that seems to be quite "descriptive" (of what's happening) -- rather than "practical", "actionable", or "prescriptive". Can an answer to this question address more of the latter? Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote ...

  If you want an abhidhamma answer, you have to speak in abhidhamma terms. "Wishing for pain to go away" is a sutta statement. It involves a wisher, and describes a sutta action.

... so perhaps in asking this question I was hoping for more of a sutta answer.

It's not accurate that the suttas do not address aversion (dosa) and the antidote for it.

For example, in the Nakulapita Sutta, the Buddha advises householder Nakulapita with regards to his aversion to old age and disease:

  Then the householder Nakulapita went to the Blessed One and on
  arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting
  there he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, I am a feeble old man, aged,
  advanced in years, having come to the last stage of life. I am
  afflicted in body & ailing with every moment. And it is only rarely
  that I get to see the Blessed One & the monks who nourish the heart.
  May the Blessed One teach me, may the Blessed One instruct me, for my
  long-term benefit & happiness."

  "So it is, householder. So it is. The body is afflicted, weak, &
  encumbered. For who, looking after this body, would claim even a
  moment of true health, except through sheer foolishness? So you should
  train yourself: 'Even though I may be afflicted in body, my mind will
  be unafflicted.' That is how you should train yourself."

Later, Ven. Sariputta explained this in more detail to Nakulapita, which incidentally provides the antidote for aversion (dosa) through the contemplation of not-self (anatta):

  "And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is
  the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has
  regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma;
  who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in
  their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as
  possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is
  not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is
  not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does
  not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its
  change & alteration.

  "He does not assume feeling to be the self...

  "He does not assume perception to be the self...

  "He does not assume fabrications to be the self...

  "He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as
  possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self
  as in consciousness. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am
  consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with
  these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, but he does not fall
  into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change &
  alteration.

  "This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body but unafflicted in
  mind."

When the Buddha visited the sick ward of monks in Gelañña Sutta, he advised the contemplation of impermanence (anicca), which also works as an antidote for aversion (dosa):

  "Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he discerns that it is inconstant, not
  grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pain... Sensing a
  feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he discerns that it is
  inconstant, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of
  pleasure, he senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain...
  Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he senses it disjoined
  from it. When sensing a feeling limited to the body, he discerns that
  'I am sensing a feeling limited to the body.' When sensing a feeling
  limited to life, he discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to
  life.' He discerns that 'With the break-up of the body, after the
  termination of life, all that is sensed, not being relished, will grow
  cold right here.'

  "Just as an oil lamp burns in dependence on oil & wick; and from the
  termination of the oil & wick — and from not being provided any other
  sustenance — it goes out unnourished; in the same way, when sensing a
  feeling limited to the body, he discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling
  limited to the body.' When sensing a feeling limited to life, he
  discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to life.' He discerns
  that 'With the break-up of the body, after the termination of life,
  all that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here.'"

  OP: [comment] I was hoping that this topic would be more about choosing or failing to do what one is or feels averse to -- to some
  extent Nakulapita's growing old wasn't a choice (extent to the extent
  of choosing to identify with form, feeling, etc.).

In Vajjiputta Sutta (quoted below), the monk alone in the forest, heard music and festivities in a neighbouring village, and felt aversion towards his seclusion (which is considered good for monks by the Dhamma). This is an aversion by choice (unlike disease and old age), which was overcome by changing his perspective or changing his view of the situation.

  On one occasion a certain monk, a Vajjian princeling, was dwelling
  near Vesali in a forest thicket. And on that occasion an all-night
  festival was being held in Vesali. The monk — lamenting as he heard
  the resounding din of wind music, string music, & gongs coming from
  Vesali, on that occasion recited this verse:

    I live in the wilderness all alone
    like a log cast away in the forest.
    On a night like this,
    who could there be
    more miserable than me?

  Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for
  the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses,
  approached him and addressed him with this verse:

    As you live in the wilderness all alone
    like a log cast away in the forest,
    many are those who envy you,
    as hell-beings do,
    those headed for heaven.

  The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.

I agree with Andrei: In this answer, by understanding the underlying reasons for others' sufferings, we can generate compassion towards them. This was proposed as an antidote towards contempt. This is one example of overcoming aversion by changing one's perspective or view of a situation.

In fact, disgust (nibbida) to cure passion (lobha), compassion to cure contempt, not-self or impermanence to cure aversion towards old age or suffering, and changing one's perspective to cure aversion towards skillful things like seclusion, are all examples of changing one's perspective or view of a situation, to turn unwholesome into wholesome.


Will smoking cigarettes permanently hinder meditation? The breath is such an important part of meditation. Will a decreased lung capacity decrease the depth I can achieve in meditation?

This is a form of intoxicating addictive substance. Any such substance will hinder your meditation and quality of life. Things like unhealthy food (some foods induce the 5 hindrances) and drinks also have a similar effect.

Also when meditating you should be both mentally and physically fit. The addiction will reduce your metal fitness and the health effects will reduce your physical fitness. So your lung capacity also will play a role.

This does not mean which you should not attempt meditation as a smoker. Perhaps you should take a residential course where you do not get the chance to smoke / drink, as to get results you need to have mental and physical well being. Then you can leverage on the meditation to slowly get you out of addiction.


Belief in Ghost and spirits If Buddhists don't believe that we have a soul then why do some believe in ghosts or spirits? this seems contradictory.

Soul in the context of Buddhism is that was contemporary considers atman, which is permanent, pleasant and controllable. What is established in Buddhism is that there is nothing as such and everything constituting a being is subjected to the 3 Universal Characteristics.

Also there is not entity as a being. What is there is a causality arising process, which also is presented as the 4 Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, Conditional Relations. The continuity of the causality process can be taken as a trip in a vehicle. Each point of the journey is different from the other but still point of the same journey, hence there is a continuity but not also the entirely the same. Death is like changing vehicles.

In Buddhism Ghosts and Spirits are not tormented souls of past being. They themselves are life forms which inhabit the 31 planes of existence. When one dies and is reborn as a Ghost or Spirit this is like any other rebirth. This is a new existence. It is not the same being in the previous birth or nor a different being, but the continuation of the causality process.


What kind of influence did Cārvāka had on Buddha's philosophy I have sometimes heard that Siddhartha Gautama's philosophy was influenced by Cārvāka system of philosophy. Is this true, and if true, to what extent has Cārvāka system influenced Buddhism?

The Buddha claims that what he is about to teach is previously unheard of. Hence I double that there were any material influences on the core of Buddhism though he did draw from existing customs and techniques which were appropriate. E.g. Sila, some of the Samatha meditation techniques, etc.

The core being the teaching like the Bodhipakkhiyādhammā, the 4 Nobel Truths, the Pratītyasamutpāda, Three marks of existence, Threefold Training, etc. which are original to Buddhism.

Buddha rejected 62 wrong view of his time. Ucchedavada proposed by Ajita Kesakambali, one of the earliest Cārvāka thinkers, was also rejected by Buddha among other. These views arise due to theorising and philosophising without going to the pinnacle of understanding or realisation of the ultimate truth. Hence there cannot be any perceivable influence from this doctrine.


Is it possible to adhere to the practices and beliefs of both Buddhist and Christianity? What are the similarities and contrasts between Buddhism and Christianity? To what extent do they make it possible (or not) to practice in and hold the beliefs of both?

It is not possible to be both a Buddhist and a Christian because Buddhism teaches all things without exception are 'anatta' ('not-self') & 'the elements' ('dhatu') as its core & fundamental principle; where as Christianity includes 'self' in the form of Christ & The Father as a core principle.

In other words, Buddhism is strictly 'impersonal' where as Christianity is 'personal', where salvation is based on a personal relationship between the 'small-self' & a personal god (Christ & The Father).

For example, Matthew 16:25 states:

  Whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Luke 23:42 states:

  Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom!” And Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in
  Paradise.”…

Buddhism explains there are many types of liberation/salvation of mind (MN 43), which include liberation via loving-kindness & liberation via emptiness of self, the later being the foremost & unshakeable.

  He keeps pervading above, below & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good
  will (loving-kindness): abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free
  from ill will... This is called the immeasurable mind-release.

  And what is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or
  into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of
  anything pertaining to self.'

  Now, to the extent that there is immeasurable mind-release, the unprovoked mind-release is declared the foremost. And this
  unprovoked mind-release is empty of passion, empty of aversion,
  empty of delusion.

  MN 43

Christianity is merely liberation via loving-kindness where as Buddhism is liberation via emptiness of self.

Also, Christianity teaches salvation is 'Eternal Life' where as Buddhism teaches salvation is 'dispassion' that occurs via the realisation of impermanence & not-self. In other words, Christianity is a doctrine of 'Eternalism' (the belief a self exists after death), which is a wrong view in Buddhism; where as Buddhism is a doctrine of impermanence.

In its most esoteric interpretation (which is rejected by most Christians), Christianity is 'mysticism' where as Buddhism is 'straightforward'.

Jesus said he taught using parables to hide teachings & the New Testament is replete with the language of metaphor, which results in most Christians being unable to discern between the literal & metaphorical.

Where as the Buddha taught straightforwardly & plainly, with key terms explicitly defined.

Also, Christianity is fatally connected to the Old Testament of Judaism, which allows killing in many circumstances, such as war & heresy. This is why Christianity has had many Inquisitions.

In conclusion, Buddhism states it is "impossible" for a person of right view to take refuge in another teacher, thus it is not possible to be both a Buddhist and a Christian.

Since Buddhism states: "‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones, Fully Enlightened Ones, could arise contemporaneously in one world-system", the view of Buddhism is those teachings of Jesus that are similar to Buddhism have their source in Buddhism. Therefore, the Buddha is the teacher & Jesus is the student.

  He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could acknowledge another teacher ― there is no
  such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that an
  ordinary person might acknowledge another teacher ― there is such a
  possibility.’

  He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones, Fully Enlightened Ones, could arise
  contemporaneously in one world-system ― there is no such possibility.’
  And he understands: ‘It is possible that one Accomplished One, a Fully
  Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system ― there is such a
  possibility.

  MN 115


What does the phrase "to armor oneself with vows" mean? This seems to be a common trope-- samnaha. I honestly have no idea what they mean, it strikes me as a "it's raining cats and dogs" sort of idiom. Is there an explanation for what it means?

Examples:

  For they wear the armor of great vows, accumulate merits, deliver all
  beings from birth-and-death, visit Buddha-lands to perform the
  bodhisattva practices, make offerings to Buddhas

http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/48-bosatsu-vows.shtml

And in Shingon, they visualize themselves putting on armor (or physically don?)

Thinking Through Shingon Ritutual
"Then one protects the body by donning armor..."

What does the phrase “to armor oneself with vows” mean?

I don't recall seeing that exact phrase in the texts that I've read but the analogy of the vows being used as an armor symbolizes the protection they provide to oneself and others by observing them. You can see this theme in the Self-protected Discourse (Atta-rakkhita Sutta) for example:

  At Savatthi. As he was sitting to one side, King Pasenadi Kosala said
  to the Blessed One: "Just now, lord, while I was alone in seclusion,
  this train of thought arose in my awareness: 'Who have themselves
  protected, and who leave themselves unprotected?' Then it occurred to
  me: 'Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, &
  mental misconduct leave themselves unprotected. Even though a squadron
  of elephant troops might protect them, a squadron of cavalry troops, a
  squadron of chariot troops, a squadron of infantry troops might
  protect them, still they leave themselves unprotected. Why is that?
  Because that's an external protection, not an internal one. Therefore
  they leave themselves unprotected. But those who engage in good bodily
  conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct have themselves
  protected. Even though neither a squadron of elephant troops, a
  squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, nor a
  squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they have
  themselves protected. Why is that? Because that's an internal
  protection, not an external one. Therefore they have themselves
  protected.'"

  "That's the way it is, great king! That's the way it is! Those who
  engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct
  leave themselves unprotected. Even though a squadron of elephant
  troops might protect them, a squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of
  chariot troops, a squadron of infantry troops might protect them,
  still they leave themselves unprotected. Why is that? Because that's
  an external protection, not an internal one. Therefore they leave
  themselves unprotected. But those who engage in good bodily conduct,
  good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct have themselves protected.
  Even though neither a squadron of elephant troops, a squadron of
  cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, nor a squadron of
  infantry troops might protect them, still they have themselves
  protected. Why is that? Because that's an internal protection, not an
  external one. Therefore they have themselves protected."

There are others discourses that touch on this. I particularly have one in mind that relates very closely to this theme. I'll reference when I find it.


What are the occasions did Panchasika or Pansilu meet the Buddha The veena in Buddhist stories and Is disharmony allowed in Buddhism? mention that Panchasika or Pansilu had couple of interactions with the Buddha.

Can someone give where is this mentioned in citing the:

basket, division and subdivisions this appear in
the title of the text and numbering (E.g. if it is a Sutta the Sutta Name and Numbering)
quotation from the part of the text where the interaction is described within the cited reference

This is in Sakka-pañha Sutta in DN 21.

Then said Sakka, the king of the gods, to Five-crest the Gandhabba—‘Difficult of approach, dear Five-crest, are Tathāgatas, to one like me, when they are rapt in the bliss of meditation, and for that purpose abiding in solitude. But if you were first to gain over the Exalted One [by your music] then might I afterwards come up and visit him, the Arahant, the Buddha supreme.’
‘So be it and good luck to you!’ consented Five-crest, and taking his lyre he went to the Indra-Sal tree-cave. On coming there he thought—‘Thus far will the Exalted One be neither too far from me nor too near to me, and he will hear my voice.’ And he stood on one side, and let his lyre be heard and recited these verses concerning the Awakened One and the Truth, the Arahants and Love...
...
When Five-crest had finished the Exalted One said to him—‘The sound of your strings, Five-crest, so harmonizes with that of your song, and the sound of your voice with that of the strings, that your lyre does not too much colour your song, nor your song too much colour your play. Where, Five-crest, did you learn these verses concerning the Awakened One and the Truth, the Arahants, and Love?’

Here is the Sinhalese version.
http://pitaka.lk/16171/cs,aps


Observing sensations during normal time. I observe very strong sensations even post meditation. They are strong at some time and some time subtle. I am alternating between apanana and vipasana. I would like to understand why they are so strong at times.

The experiences are based on the sum total of your past fabrications and what has surfaced in a given time.

In the different times the fabrications that has surfaced are different hence the diversity of the experience.

Dwelling on matters like this will inevitably make you crave or be averse to some types of sensation hence regress in your pratice. You should just be aware regardless of if it is strong or not.

Having said this some times the strong sensations can be due to rapture.


How does conversion work in Buddhism? I am a Hindu, but I like Buddhism. How does that work? Does one need to convert to practice Buddhism? If so, how does one convert to Buddhism? Can anyone convert to Buddhism? Or can I just practice without converting?

First of all, there isn't one agreed upon definition about when you are truely a Buddhist. Some people say you are a Buddhist if you consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher.

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

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

If you want to mark your decision to become a Buddhist you can 'take refuge'. This ceremony or commitment can be found in many Buddhist traditions. More info also here

Anyone can become a Buddhist or you can just practice without any formal conversion. You do not need to give up Hinduism. To quote Khenpo Kartar Rinpoche:

  ... it is not necessary to give up any religious affiliation to practice Buddhism unless that religion demands actions that contradict Buddhist principles. .... Also, it is not generally necessary to change your diet, dress or relationships, though some people choose to do so. (ref).


Do Cittamatra / Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world? Tibetan texts that belong to the genre of tenets (doctrinal classification) usually claim that the Cittamatra school refutes external existence. These texts further claim that Cittamatrin posit that 'the apprehended object and the apprehending consciousness are empty of being different substances'. They say that, according to Cittamatrin, the apprehending consciousness and the object it apprehends both arise simultaneously from a seed that was left in the mind-basis-of-all (alaya-vijñana), and that, given so, the object is not a cause of the consciousness apprehending it (as opposed to what Vaïbashikas and Sautrantika posit). Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen writes:

  An illustration of the selflessness of phenomena is, for example, the
  emptiness that is a form and the valid cognizer apprehending that form
  being empty of being different substances.

It is difficult for me to conceive, and to admit, that Cittamatrin refute external existence altogether. It would mean they refute that one is born from a mother and a father, and so forth. Moreover, I doubt Tibetan scholars who claim that 'Cittamatrin refute external existence' because they have an agenda. Tibetan scholars often simplify (if not even caricature) their opponent's positions (in this case, Cittamatrin). So, not sticking to Tibetan literature only, my idea was to seek whether Cittamatrin actually refute external existence by reading works written by proponents of the Cittamatra school. Let us consider Suzuki, in Studies in the Lankavatara (p. 114). He writes:

  As indeed the idealistic Mahayana does not admit the
  existence of an external world, whatever qualities we ordinarily think
  as belonging to the latter are creations or constructions of our own
  mind.

Suzuki seems to say "Cittamatra refute external existence", but he does not do so explicitly. He says "they do not admit the existence of an external world" but this does not necessarily amount to "refuting the existence of external world". As far as I know, he could be saying "We can not know anything but the aspects our consciousness takes. We can not see beyond our perceptions. We can not know for sure whether our perceptions are perceptions of something external. So, let us not bother with thinking of an external world - be it to refute its existence or claim its existence - and let us stick with what we know: that the eye-consciousness seeing blue takes the aspect of blue, and that we know nothing else."

Thus, the question is: Do Cittamatra / Yogacara explicitly refute the existence of an external world? Or do they simply "not admit, not take into acount" the existence of an external world?

References are welcome.

According to Kagyu understanding, Yogacara's position isn't metaphysical, it is methodological. It's not that the external world does not exist, it is that our experience of the world is 100% always represented by organs and/or mind, there is no experience outside of that, so practically speaking mind-made experience is "all we have"*

Which is why trying to figure out how exactly the experience is generated and mastering the practical skills for working with mind and experience is of key importance in Yogacara (comparing to the earlier Buddhism's focus on discipline/ethics and the Madhyamika's focus on philosophy).

  Yogacarins put so much emphasis on the mind because they are concerned with
  practice. Some people have thought they were saying that everything is in your
  mind. Some of these people were influenced by certain Western philosophies.   -- Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche

Generally speaking Kaguypas seem to prefer to stay away from philosophical discussions and focus on practice, which makes sense given their self-identification as "the practice lineage":

  We are not concerned about whether or not a chair exists. That's
  secondary. Why spend so much time arguing about whether or not a chair exists,
  instead of learning how we experience and relate to the chair, and what sort of
  experience we've got? -- Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche

*Using the modern language we could say, reality is an interpretation we make, there is no reality to be experienced outside of an interpretation. In other words, there is no absolute truth separate from the conventional truth.


Being bored :anapanasati meditation How to overcome feeling bored while doing anapanasati meditation ? I get this feeling after setting sati at the end of the nose and body is calmed .

Boredom is a sign of restlessness. If you're bored, you want to try to do something else. You're not contented with the present moment. Please read this essay on the five hindrances to meditation by Ajahn Brahmavamso.

However, if you're falling asleep or cannot focus, then that's sloth and torpor (quoted below from essay). Since you have already commented that sloth and torpor is the likely cause, we will focus on that.

  Sloth and torpor refers to that heaviness of body and dullness of mind
  which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression. The
  Lord Buddha compared it to being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell,
  unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside. In meditation,
  it causes weak and intermittent mindfulness which can even lead to
  falling asleep in meditation without even realising it!

  Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always
  available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were. Setting
  a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate
  energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at hand. A
  young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy, because its
  world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's life, or
  one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see ever new angles
  and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from sloth and torpor,
  alive and energetic.

You can use another essay entitled A Guided Meditation (quoted below) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu to help you with this problem.

From the above essay, you know that you must set a goal to generate energy that is, by generating interest. In the following quote, the author suggests to explore sensations in other parts of the body (otherwise you will doze off). Please read the whole essay to get the whole picture.

  If your mind wanders off, gently bring it right back. If it wanders
  off ten times, a hundred times, bring it back ten times, a hundred
  times. Don't give in. This quality is called ardency. In other words,
  as soon as you realize that the mind has slipped away, you bring it
  right back. You don't spend time aimlessly sniffing at the flowers,
  looking at the sky, or listening to the birds. You've got work to do:
  work in learning how to breathe comfortably, how to let the mind
  settle down in a good space here in the present moment.

  When the breath starts feeling comfortable, you can start exploring it
  in other areas of the body. If you simply stay with the comfortable
  breath in a narrow range, you'll tend to doze off. So consciously
  expand your awareness. A good place to focus first is right around the
  navel. Locate that part of the body in your awareness: where is it
  right now? Then notice: how does it feel there as you breathe in? How
  does it feel when you breathe out? Watch it for a couple of breaths,
  and notice if there's any sense of tension or tightness in that part
  of the body, either with the in-breath or with the out-breath. Is it
  tensing up as you breathe in? Are you holding onto the tension as you
  breathe out? Are you putting too much force on the out-breath? If you
  catch yourself doing any of these things, just relax. Think of that
  tension dissolving away in the sensation of the in-breath, the
  sensation of the out-breath. If you want, you can think of the breath
  energy coming into the body right there at the navel, working through
  any tension or tightness that you might feel there ...


I'm looking for a sutta which mentions nationalism I remember a sutta which uses the word "nationalism" in reference to a taint to be removed. It was the last in a certain sequence of taints. I think i read it on access to insight.

However, when i search for the word i can't find any such sutta in either dhamma talks or access to insight. Or anywhere else for that matter.

Can someone *ahem* enlighten me?

On this page, you can find Thanissaro Bhikkhu's summary for MN 93:

  The Buddha enters into a debate with a brahman on whether one's worth
  as a person is determined by birth or by behavior. Although some of
  the arguments he presents here deal with the specifics of brahman
  caste pride, many of them are applicable to issues of racism and
  nationalism in general.