Was the Buddha harsh? "And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

  -- Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, MN 38

There are many suttas in the canon where the Buddha admonishes monks, and the above is a notable example.

The translations, at least to my eyes, come as particularly harsh: "worthless" (in Nanamoli/Bodhi, we read "misguided" instead of "worthless". I've also read "foolish" elsewhere) -- there was another reprimand from the Buddha, almost mean as I recall how I felt while reading it, but which I could not find again.

I've constantly felt troubled with these passages. I also look with very suspicious eyes the dribbling with "The buddha was harsh for their own good" (unless, if it is the Buddha himself justifying his harsh words, not we trying to excuse him and spare the texts). I find it troubling specially in light of:

the very explicit right speech teachings, promoting the abandonment of harsh words.
the difficulty of reconcile harsh "formations" in a mind free of defilements.

Are the other/older versions (say, chinese, pali and tibetan) of these passages evoking somewhat equivalent harsh emotions on a reader? Or is it a particularity of the english translations? (Or is it just me?)

Otherwise, were these harsh reprimands ever discussed (in books, commentaries, etc)?

This question is addressed in the Abhaya Sutta from the Buddha himself, on the topic of Right Speech.

Your question should fall under "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them." (Abhaya Sutta).

From your same link on the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, you can read the commentary by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

  The Buddha calls Sāti into his presence, and after ascertaining that
  Sāti will not abandon his view even when reprimanded by the Buddha
  himself, he abandons Sāti as too recalcitrant to teach, and turns to
  cross-question the monks as to the relevant right view of how
  consciousness functions in the process leading to repeated birth.

  The Buddha's treatment of Sāti might seem harsh, but he is actually
  acting out of compassion for the monks in the assembly, in case any of
  them might be swayed by Sāti's position. Seeing Sāti as a lost cause,
  the Buddha doesn't want this lost cause to cause further losses among
  the other monks. We have to remember that during the Buddha's lifetime
  there were no written accounts of his teachings; the monks and nuns
  all had to rely on their memory of what they had heard directly from
  him or through word-of-mouth from fellow members of the Saṅgha. Thus
  the Buddha saw the need to establish orthodoxy whenever a member of
  the Saṅgha was espousing false interpretations of his teaching.

The Buddha also discusses this in the Kesi Sutta which is summarized here by Thanissaro Bhikku:

  Once, when a horse trainer came to see the Buddha, the Buddha
  asked him how he trained his horses. The trainer said that some horses
  responded to gentle training, others to harsh training, others
  required both harsh and gentle training, but if a horse didn't respond
  to either type of training, he'd kill the horse to maintain the
  reputation of his teachers' lineage. Then the trainer asked the Buddha
  how he trained his students, and the Buddha replied, "In the same
  way." Some students responded to gentle criticism, others to harsh
  criticism, others to a mixture of the two, but if a student didn't
  respond to either type of criticism, he'd kill the student. This
  shocked the horse trainer, but then the Buddha explained what he meant
  by "killing": He wouldn't train the student any further, which
  essentially killed the student's opportunity to grow in the practice.


How to continue practice with pain? I practiced meditation for 6 months continuously. I used to meditate 45 mins in the morning as well as evening. In weekends, I used to meditate many rounds with breaks in between. I developed fear of loneliness due to which I have suffered from insomnia which has lasted till now though it has gotten a bit better now. I don't know if its dark night of the soul or depression. I have also been suffering from gastritis since 1 year. The stomach pain causes me anxiety and I have not been able to continue my meditation. I am waiting for both my sleep and stomach to get better so that I can continue. I sometimes feel that the problem will last till my death. I don't know how to progress from this phase. My meditation practice had definitely brought many positive changes. I have set milestones for myself regarding the practice that I think I may not reach during this lifetime. Any suggestions for me ?

You should not believe meditation is for everyone or should not believe you are a "failure" if meditation does not work out for you. In reality, serious meditation is only for a small minority of people. Some of the meditation in the Western world is just 'fondling' with a service that is advertised so some smooth talkers can make money. Few Westerners are doing actual real meditation.

Fear of loneliness ("dark night of the soul") is certainly a common and inevitable result of extensive and intensive meditation. This existential fear must be passed through to achieve any advanced level of meditation.

Therefore, if meditation has not worked out for you, please do not judge yourself negatively. Many monks meditate for many years but make little progress and disrobe.

You should see a doctor or healer for your gastritis and find some solutions for poor sleep, such as Chinese herbal medicine, exercise, swimming, metta meditation, spiritual friendship, etc.

If you believe in future lives, the Buddha taught lay people to practise generosity & keep the five precepts is enough for 'rebirth' in heaven.  The Buddha generally did not teach meditation to lay people.

The sense of "self" is a natural survival instinct. Meditation can diminish the sense of "self" and this is actually not healthy for most people. Its only a small minority of people who are able to abide without a sense of "self".


Is there a point for a not continues practice? i practice for a few years - did basic course and few retreats in Ven/ajhan tong tradition (vipassana)  - But no matter what technique i try (meditating a short amount like 5 minutes - only being mindful - keeping 8 precepts meditating all day) i never manage to keep practicing more than a few days and than taking a break for a few months with 0 minute meditating and being mindful

Question : I remember reading in several places the importance of continued practice of a steady practice  - and since i make huge breaks all the time and cant seem to prevent them - i wonder if there is a point in the practice if i almost certain i will take this huge breaks  - i don't seem to be "advancing" in any way but i would keep practicing if it was only not seeing "results"  but cause i read in so many place the importance of continued practice

is there a point in a very inconsistent practice ? if so in what ways  someone who has this an inconsistent practice like mine be advancing advance ?

You should consider the following

Change your approach

In Mahayana Buddhism the emphasis is on skillful means, sitting meditation is not the only practice available, there are plenty of other Dharma practices you can do, build up your base of merits first. You could focus on chanting a particular passage or mantras, this allow your mind something to focus on, and you will naturally see mindful concentration arise through this practice, even without trying to sit.

You could attend services, try to participate in any group chanting if available - Theravada is far as I know is not available for lay people in this case. But there are plenty of Mahayana Buddhist temples that offer group chanting with lay people.

You could offer to help clean up the temple, cleaning is also a powerful practice for mindful concentration if you can focus on what you are doing. Zen monks can do chores like cleaning and still experience Zen also known as Jhana. They blissfully and mindfully perform the tasks needing to be done. Go forth and volunteer! In fact, just participate and enjoy the community, you will learn something!

You can practice offering alms to your community of monks, giving is a great practice of Dāna and give rise to skillful mental qualities. In fact before you try to focus your mind on sitting meditation, try to cultivate positive qualities like love, kindness and avoid negative ones like anger in your daily life.

As you build up your merits, you will find it easier to sit because your mind will naturally begin to calm.

Know that your effort makes a difference

Yes a consistent practice is of course better, but even one single change of thought will make a difference no matter how small. Take comfort in this. Have some confidence in the fact that even when you don't seem to be 'getting somewhere' at least you are not doing something harmful, and that is already making a difference, and if you are not advancing, at least you are not sliding towards more suffering.

And your actions will eventually create the causes and conditions favorable to further your path, whether it will take years or life times. Have some faith.


Can one with eczema become a monk? According to this site, one of the questions asked at ordination is "do you have eczema?" to which the reply must be "No, Venerable" in order to ordain. Is this accurate? Is it the case the one with eczema cannot ever become a monk?

An explanation (including the origin story) of this rule is given on pages 194 through 195 of The
Buddhist
Monastic
Code II -- The Khandhaka Rules
Translated & Explained
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

It says,

  Eczema covers a wide variety of skin diseases, differing from those included under
  “leprosy” in that they are not debilitating and do not ulcerate or ooze. Thus ringworm
  and athlete’s foot would come under this category. As under the preceding category,
  small, non-spreading infestations in an area covered when fully robed would be
  allowable.


Is continuity just causation? Is continuity just causation?

When a fire is caused by a spark, is that the same kind of continuity as there is in the dependent origination of the skandhas, just with different causes and effects?

When we speak about causation we're used to thinking in terms of discrete entities interacting and causing distinct events. This is normal in materialistic view, ever obsessed with discreteness. However, when we speak about continuity, we are in the analogue world - where everything morphs and flows, and where individual "things" and "events" are more like the sums of the amplitudes of multiple intersecting waves rather than truly isolated entities.

Also, in Dependent Origination we are not as much talking about causation as we're talking about what Charles Sanders Peirce called "the habit formation", or the tendency of tendencies to self-perpetuate and grow.

You know how in men toilets there is a self-perpetuating tendency for the floor under the urinal to get wet? (It self-perpetuates by causing men to stand further away.) The same exact principle is behind Dependent Origination, and, according to Peirce, behind Evolution at large.

Mind is integrated information, regardless of media. Accumulation of regular patterns leads to development of mind's faculty of recognition, and mind's tendency to form habits and to seek comfort in familiar experiences. This in turns leads to emergence of purposeful activity towards comfortable experiences. This tendency self-perpetuates and develops into a full-blown Umwelt, complete with "objects", "other living beings" and "I".

So yeah, continuity and causation are two alternative descriptions of essentially same thing, but the tendency for habit formation is the real key in D.O.


pranayama unsettles my meditation practice I sit for a daily meditation, it will be deep most days. I have been advised to add pranayama(alternate nostril) to my practice and when i add that to my routine. It disturbs my sleep and as well my deepness in meditation. Does anyone undergo this ? Any suggestions to overcome this.

Yoga does have both physiological and psychological benefits, when practised lightly and not as an ascetic practice, however, it is not tied to the Buddhist goal of Nirvana. The Buddha also practice certain forms of it and gave up as it was not linked to the goal of Nirvana which The Buddha was searching. At certain extremities, this is counterproductive, for physical well being, psychology and meditation.

As you have said, some forms can be unsettling and not conducive to meditation. This is especially true for mindfulness.

E.g. following is a paragraph which highlights extreme forms of Khecarī mudrā / kriya leads to unsettling which is not conducive to meditation especially mindfulness:

  Clenched teeth, tongue pressed against the palate

  Aggivessana, it occurred to me,
  ‘Suppose, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, hold back,
  and crush the mind with mind.’

  So, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, held back,
  crushed the mind with mind. While I did so, sweat ran from my armpits.

  It was just as if a strong man, holding a weaker man by the head or shoulders, were to restrain,
  subdue, and attack him;

  even so, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, held
  back, and crushed the mind with mind, and sweat ran down my armpits.

  But although I exerted tireless energy, and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm,

  because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

Mahā Saccaka Sutta

Similarly, extreme Prāṇāyāma and Bandha also leads to unsettling experiences not conducive to meditation especially mindfulness:

  Breathingless meditation

  (1) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise the breathingless meditation.’

  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth and nose.
  While I did so, there was a loud sound of winds coming out from my ear-holes, just like the loud
  sound of winds from a smith’s bellows.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

  Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

  ARABLE OF THE STRONG MAN (1)

  While I did so, violent winds cut through my head, just as if a strong man were splitting my
  head open with a sharp sword.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

  (2) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

  PARABLE OF THE STRONG MAN (2)

  While I did so, there were violent pains in my head, just as if a strong man [244] were tightening a strong leather strap around my head as a headband.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

  (3) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

  PARABLE OF THE BUTCHER

  While I did so, violent winds carved up my belly,
  just as if a skilled butcher or his apprentice
  were to carve up an ox’s belly with a sharp butcher’s knife.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

  (4) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.

  PARABLE OF THE TWO MEN

  While I did so, there was a violent burning in my body, just as if two men were to seize a weaker man by both arms and roast him over a pit of burning coal.

  But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.

  But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain. Now, Aggivessana, when the devas saw me, some said: ‘The recluse Gotama is dead!’
  Other devas said: ‘The recluse Gotama is not dead but dying!’
  Still others said: ‘The recluse Gotama is neither dead nor dying: he is an arhat;
  such is how arhats
  dwell!’

Mahā Saccaka Sutta

Similar accounts are found in: (Deva) Saṅgarava Sutta, Mahā Saccaka Sutta, Bodhi Rāja,kumāra Sutta, etc. where pitfalls of these practices are discussed.

Yoga practices are fabricating practices creating new Saṅkhāra while the Buddhist practice avoids creating new Saṅkhāra, hence different in the final results.


Is the path of Zen compatible with computer science? For example, software/code/algorithms themselves can be very complex, dense, cryptic (often without value), overly detailed, stressful to understand intent (sometimes), generation of new abstractions that generate new problems... and requires more cognitive strain for advanced theory and implementations.

Zen type practices seem very opposite - simplicity, clarity, open space, non-judging, non-solving, higher non-thinking intelligence, beauty, expansiveness, ease, flow and lightness of mind/thought.

Does computer science really fit on this path...or are we trying to shove it in based on others expectations and financial wealth?

(Then of course the physical environments and people environments that tend to correlate with each).

Look at a Zen rock garden and look at well crafted code and then tell me the two aren't compatible.


Koans for beginner - dos and don'ts? I like studying Buddhism, especially Prasangika, but I find I sometimes get kind of conceptual. I practice shamata every day, but if a beginner like myself wants to try meditation/mindfulness with koans, where should he begin? Any general tips for dos and don'ts?

At the behest of ChrisW - not to sound flippant, but you really do need a teacher if you are going to study koans.  At their very core, koans are asking you to look at something outside your current way of seeing the world.  Unfortunately, you simply can't use your current system of thinking to correctly discern something outside of it.  (Godel, Escher, and Bach, right?)  You absolutely need a second opinion - someone with confirmed understanding - and that's where a teacher comes in.

By going at this yourself you run the risk of falling into two traps.  On the one hand, you might come to mistakenly think you've understood something.  We are great at deluding ourselves, after all.  This is especially true when it comes to our habits, preconceived notions, and obstacles (you know, the very things koans seek to rout out!).  Without a teacher to point out that your understanding is less than ideal (or entirely wrong!) there is no limit to how screwed up you can get.

On the other hand, and this happens with quite a bit of frequency, sometimes we actually see the very thing a koan is pointing at, but ignore it or don't take it to be significant.  Seeing into a koan isn't exactly accompanied by the singing of angels.  Well, sometimes it is.  More often than not, however, you aren't even going to understand what it is you've seen.  At the very least, you aren't going to understand why it's important.  I once sat with a koan for years thinking I hadn't answered it when I had actually seen into the very first week.  Me, in my boundless stupidity, just assumed that I was supposed to be looking for something more significant than what I was experiencing!  If I didn't have a teacher (who finally demanded a black and white, literal report on what was happening with my practice) I might still be sitting with that same koan today!


Chop wood, carry water: why? A very famous, so famous it may be apocryphal, zen quote says:

  Before Enlightenment chop wood carry water, after Enlightenment, chop
  wood carry water.

What does this mean? Specifically, is the discourse saying that time without effort is wasted time?

Admittedly, I am not a well-versed student of Zen ... or Buddhism for that matter. However, I will offer my interpretation: Before you achieve enlightenment you will have to do chores associated with everyday living. Then, even after becoming enlightened, you will still have to do the same chores - becoming enlightened does remove the need to deal with everyday things.


Question about mind control How to develop strong mind?,
how to overcome lust which comes to mind again and again?,
I have tried meditating but failed.

When you have lust recognise you have lust. Mere having lust is not failing in meditation but not recognising it is a failure.

To overcome the lust (one of the 5 hindrances) the main issue is that you have not taming you senses. You cannot avoid contact so each time some lustful thought arise in your mind look at the sensation it creates in the body. Look at this at mere thought and look at the impermanence of the sensations fantasizing or actual contact brings.

Following links might be off some help:

5 hindrances
lust


Plants may be sentient beings like animals so how do you decide what to eat? There is some evidence that plants are 'sentient beings' and can communicate (e.g. see this article or this wikipedia page). However Buddhists believe eating meat is wrong because of killing a living entity, what about plants? If this is true what can you eat?

Theravada and Vajrayana Buddhists (Tibetan, SE Asian) and Japanese Mahayana Buddhists are not vegetarian. So if you don't want to be a vegetarian, there are plenty of traditions that don't bother with this rule. And as for rules, there are plenty of traditions that de-emphasize rules altogether.

So that leaves East Asian Buddhism. The traditional arguments for vegetarianism are based on the traditional cosmology, which makes a distinction between plants and animals. Sentient beings can be born as animals but not plants.

If we don't believe in the traditional cosmology, the distinction between sentient and insentient remains.

According to wikipedia, some sects see plants as sentient being-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient_beings_(Buddhism) (Japanese and Tibetan, which aren't vegetarian). In Tien Tai, the founder suggested plants and even the insentient can attain enlightenment.

I'm not a radical non-dualist, but arguing that everything the same, (plants, animals, rocks) and that all states are the same (living, dead) is a typical radical non-dualist argument. The problem with nondualism applied to ethics is that it makes it easy to justify what ever you want.

And the "science" sounds like bunk. My computer feels pain when it overheats and ice cubes feel pain when they crack-- but only as a metaphor. My computer and the ice in my freezer (and the grass under my feet) has never had an original thought or even a thought. They don't have nervous systems of a sort that I'm familiar with (by my own experience of having a nervous system.)

For there to be a scientific grounding for the idea that plants (and maybe rocks) are sentient, you'd have to demonstrate that they have something similar to a nervous system and can react in the same way that a thinking, feeling creature can.  I admit a scientifically grounded interpretation of sentience still has edge cases-- for example, nematodes only have a few neurons, so they are borderline insentient.


Does buddhism allow for families? I have studied Buddhism for a few years now, on and off, and this one question has been bugging me for a long time.  Please correct me if I am wrong, however, the way that I understand it is that Buddhism is all about the cessation of suffering. In order to end suffering, we first need to end attachment.  By being attached to objects, we suffer when something happens to those objects.  Instead of connecting and attaching to the objects and perpetuating suffering in our lives, we should instead focus on the here and now and concentrate on existing rather than material things.

My question is: How does buddhism allow for the existence of families?  I cannot think of a more connected and attached system than the familial system.  Significant others, children, siblings are all people that we can't help but love and feel attached to.  I just can't seem to fathom a family that does not end in suffering when a member dies.  Just to be clear, I am searching for an authoritative answer from a legitimate source, not a personal anecdote or opinion.

I don't know of any canonical source explicitly and precisely dealing with this question. To start, here's what Bhikkhu Bodhi writes on the Pali Canon1:

  "Within the Pāli Canon, the texts known as the Nikāyas have the special value of being a single cohesive collection of the Buddha’s teachings in his own words. These teachings cover a wide range of topics; they deal not only with renunciation and liberation, but also with the proper relations between husbands and wives, the management of the household, and the way countries should be governed. They explain the path of spiritual development—from generosity and ethics, through mind training and the realization of wisdom, all the way up to the attainment of liberation."

What we know from these discourses and from the general structure of the buddhist communities is that:

laity (people holding jobs, wealth and family) is an important part of the buddhist community since the Buddha's time: they support monks with food, cloth, medicine, etc. (There's much more to be said here, though)
The Buddha taught to lay people how to have a proper lay life (instead of restricting himself to ask them to renounce family and wealth and become monks/nuns). That is, one conductive to good destination or Nirvana. One study2 found 208 suttas addressed to laity in the pali canon.

Now, what we can infer from the discourses is that Buddhism does not present a teleology, an ideal like "every being should be in Nirvana" as if everything else was essentially wrong (e.g. have a family, have kids, indulge in all kinds of worldly activities, etc).

What it does is recognize aspects of our reality, present an explanation for our essential anxiety, and offer a way to resolve it or diminish it, if one is so inclined to accept it and is willing to do something about it -- under various degrees of interest (from abandoning unwholesome actions of body/speech/mind, through meditation, or finally to deciding to abandon wealth and possessions to become a monk/nun). I'd say this is the character of every sutta.

Since any wholesome action is conductive to Nirvana, any wholesome action is a step forward, regardless if one is a monk or a husband. Thus Buddhism is regarded as a "path": it's a process. Furthermore, it classifies many stages of attainment, according to what kind of attachment has been eliminated.

Hence, some teachings are presented culminating in Nirvana. Other teachings are presented culminating in "a better destination after death" (e.g. some heavens where there's less suffering). If one is unwilling to abandon all attachments, Buddha dhamma still teaches how to ease suffering (and perhaps appear in a better place -- and maybe there, attain Nirvana). In any case, all buddha-dhamma teachings, ultimately, converge to Nirvana.

1 Bodhi, In the Buddha's words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon

2 Kumaratne, Manohari Savithri, Buddha's teachings applicable to the laity: Case studies from the Pali Nikayas


Tripitaka Section Numbering Does anyone have a comprehensive side by side reference to Suttas numbering from different edition (PTS, VRI, etc.) of the Tripitaka?

I have trouble with reconciliation of certain references to the Sutta names.

(UPDATED)

After some digging, it seems that indeed there is no one standard that can be truly relied upon to work for all version of the tipitaka, at least for the Samyutta and the Anguttara. For the Digha and the Majjhima, it's pretty simple to say DN 22 or MN 10, and I think the order and numbering is pretty consistent across the board.

And no, unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any such chart as you are looking for. We discussed this some time ago on the Yahoo! Pali Study list (2011) and as John Kelly said:

  For the Nikayas, clearly there is no issue for DN and MN. It is SN
  and AN that are problematic. The problem arises because the original Pali has
  no numbers and the various editions of the Pali (Be, Ce, and so on) use
  differing numbering schemes based on how their editors choose to separate the
  suttas.

What we do have:

http://www.suttacentral.net has a full concordance for all of the nikayas between the system used internally by the Pali Text Society and the system employed by Bhikkhu Bodhi (and ATI and the DPR). For example (picked at random):

http://suttacentral.net/sn28

    ID          Title                   Vol/Page

    SN 28.1     Vivekaja                SN iii 235
    SN 28.2     Avitakka                SN iii 235
    SN 28.3     Piti                    SN iii 236
    SN 28.4     Upekkhā                 SN iii 237
    SN 28.5     Ākāsānañcāyatana        SN iii 237
    SN 28.6     Viññāṇañcāyatana        SN iii 237
    SN 28.7     Ākiñcaññāyatana         SN iii 237
    SN 28.8     Nevasaññānāsaññāyatana  SN iii 237
    SN 28.9     Nirodhasamāpatti        SN iii 238
    SN 28.10    Sūcimukhī               SN iii 238

ID here refers to the international standard: samyutta #28, sutta #1-10.

Vol/Page refers to the PTS volume (three) and page numbers 235-8.

So, given a reference like "SN 28.5" or "SN iii.237", you could check this chart and see that the first refers to the Ākāsānañcāyatana Sutta, and the second may refer to one of five suttas, including the Ākāsānañcāyatana Sutta. Given that these are the two most common systems in use, this is probably the best you are going to get.

Also, as noted, ATI has notations for all of its suttas (it uses the international standard), and gives both the PTS and Bodhi page numbers. They also have a conversion chart for the Samyutta between the VRI and "modern" systems (the DPR actually accords with the modern system in its numbering).

Further, the VRI Tipitaka (and the Digital Pali Reader based on it) has notations for volume and page numbers of each of the major versions of the Tipitaka (Thai, Burmese, Sri Lankan and PTS), in case you come across that sort of notation.

Finally, as a bonus, the DPR has a title search function, by which you can do the opposite - given a sutta title, you can track down where it is in the tipitaka.

So, sorry to fudge my answer again and again, but here it is in (hopefully) final form.


Problem solving attitude While I could clearly improve my awareness and intuition through meditation, I want to improve my problem solving skills, not giving up attitude, analytical skills and interpersonal skills. Can meditation help me in this and how should I go about meditating for this?

Wanting to improve and having expectations is in Buddhism seen as the cause of suffering. Meditation can't help you to gain your goals, but you learn how to be content with the way things already are. As a side effect you become a better person and have a better attitude, but this is not the goal of meditation. The goal of (Buddhist) meditation is insight.


What is opinion of Nichiren Buddhism on the concept of a Creator or Supreme Being? What is the opinion of Nichiren Buddhism on the concept of a Creator or Supreme Being?

Nichiren did not address the concept of a Creator or Supreme Being. Buddhists in general do not address this, basically because Shakyamuni, the founder of buddhism in India, did not address this even when asked what he thought about it.

Also, in Japan in the thirteenth century, the general population was not interested in this so no one is recorded as having asked Nichiren about it. The lack of interest may be attributed to the influence of Shintoism and Confucianism in Japan since neither pay much attention to this question either.

In order to verify that Nichiren did not address this, the Nichiren Buddhism Library offers a searchable database for writings by Nichiren and for a record of his oral teachings as well.

A lack of concern about a creator deity may be difficult for a theist to understand. I do know some buddhists, including some Nichiren buddhists, raised theistic and polytheistic, who do believe in a creator god. In buddhism this is okay, just like it is okay to be an atheist or an agnostic. Since these questions are not considered to be decidable, the choice of belief about a creator is up to the individual. Practicing and living one's life as a human being in this life are primary.


Which mindfulness technique should I choose? Namo Buddhaya. I am a beginner.I want to dedicate rest of my life developing mindfulness.I know there are four ways of attending mindfulness. I understand all the four ways. However I am not sure how to undertake all the four ways of attending mindfulness. Is there any progressive way of attending different mindfulness techniques? Should I choose different mindfulness technique at different times ? Which mindfulness technique would be useful for me ?

The way I was taught, is that mindfulness is not practiced in-and-of-itself; instead it comes from a critical attitude to ourselves, which in turns comes from a certain goal that we set for ourselves, a certain standard of behavior.

For beginners, this goal or standard is the attitude of egolessness and non-attachment. We watch our reactions (thoughts, emotions) for signs of attachments and egoistic attitudes, and learn to overcome those, learn to be selfless. As we watch ourselves with that goal in mind, we develop a habit of awareness or mindfulness - of our mind and emotions.

For mature practitioners who have mostly mastered selflessness, the next goal is generation of positive, uplifted, powerful state of being. To achieve that, we watch our posture, gait, manners, our inner sense of comfort or discomfort, and we learn to walk in peace and gracefulness. As we work on that goal of peace and gracefulness, we develop mindfulness of our body, and a deeper level of mindfulness of mind.

Right mindfulness is NOT going around with eyes wide open, trying to do everything painstakingly deliberately. Most of our skills - from walking, to talking, to driving - are developed from scratch to the point where they become automatic. Being deliberate is only useful when you are trying to change a (bad) habit, but once you have established a good habit, it works better (faster, more smoothly) when your slow discursive thinking does not interfere. Ask any sport professional or musician or dancer about developing right instincts and right automatic responses.

So in Buddhism, mindfulness serves a goal. First we practice mindfulness of our (selfish) goals, attachments and reactions - in order to overcome them and develop the new habit: operating out of wisdom and compassion. And then we practice mindfulness of our psychosomatic state - in order to overcome inner conflict & suffering, and develop the new habit - living in peace and harmony.

Once we have achieved our two objectives, hard mindfulness is no longer necessary. In fact, at that point it would interfere with spontaneity of suchness, which is the final phase of Liberation. So at some final point very very far down the path, you are supposed to let go of all sense of self-observation and self-control and immerse 100% into spontaneity. It's not that you stop being aware and mindful at that point. It is that mindfulness has achieved such a level of perfection that it becomes fully integrated with spontaneity and suchness. At that point you ARE mindfulness.


Do Different Meditations Support One Another? I have tried meditating on compassion, just as I've tried meditating on the breath. Currently, these days, I find it hard to meditate on compassion.

My question is: Would practising meditation of any kind improve a meditation of another kind, e.g. practising breath meditation would increase compassion meditation's effectiveness?

Simply put, does every meditation type share at least some aspects with others, some basic features such as--I suppose--gathering attention, learning patience, and so on? Thus, improving those aspects through breath meditation might extend to compassion meditation?

Thank you

Yes they do support eachother imho. Whenever one directs the mind to a wholesome theme, to rouse gladness or energy, when keeping the mind on the theme one is not oblivious to the theme and this concentration is a good skill to develop. Furthermore the foremost quality for the attainment and awakening to the truth is effort and it requires contemplation and coming to agreement.

Therefore it is evident that when mind is somehow impaired one should direct the mind to a skillful theme for a purpose of gladdening or composing otherwise. When mind is unconstricted and pliant one can then retreat from that wholesome theme and stop thinking about it and just be mindful and at ease.

Traditionally speaking the guardian meditations are largely accepted to be necessary among insight and samatha meditators alike afaik. I advocate contemplation in general; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kZxstsAvjhj9Svc47RUKRIyKQMuHMD4adIvr_7pp2uI/edit?usp=drivesdk

  “There is the case of a monk who remains focused on the body in & of itself—ardent, alert, & mindful—subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on the body in & of itself, a fever based on the body arises within his body, or there is sluggishness in his awareness, or his mind becomes scattered externally. He should then direct his mind to any inspiring theme. As his mind is directed to any inspiring theme, delight arises within him. In one who feels delight, rapture arises.

  In one whose mind is enraptured, the body grows calm. His body calm, he feels pleasure. As he feels pleasure, his mind grows concentrated.

  He reflects, ‘I have attained the aim to which my mind was directed. Let me withdraw [my mind from the inspiring theme].’ He withdraws & engages neither in directed thought nor in evaluation. He
  discerns, ‘I am not thinking or evaluating. I am inwardly mindful & at ease.’

  “This, Ananda, is development based on directing.

  And what is development based on not directing? A monk, when not directing his mind to external things, discerns, ‘My mind is not directed to external
  things. It is unconstricted [asankhitta] front & back—released & undirected. And then, I remain focused on the body in & of itself. I am ardent, alert, mindful, & at ease.’

  “When not directing his mind to external things, he discerns, ‘My mind is not directed to external things. It is unconstricted front & back—released & undirected. And then, I remain focused on feelings… mind… mental qualities in & of themselves. I am ardent, alert, mindful, & at ease.’

  “This, Ananda, is development based on not directing.


When should you put on your robes? My question is going to be almost to "profane" for this area of SE, about it is a serious concern of mine.

I have just started out zen meditation. One of the suggestions that was given me was that to wear robes while meditating. No problem. But when should I put them on? Should I already wear them on the way to meditation practice (that is, put them on at home, and then take the bus, etc. with them on) or should I start wearing them at the temple?

I apologize again for the type of answer, and thank your for your time.

I'm curious as to who told you wearing robes was beneficial.  There are specific ways of wearing robes (as outlined in the vinaya) that can aid in mindfulness, but the simple act of having them on isn't beneficial on its own.  Be that as it may, I wouldn't put them on until you reached the meditation hall.  Wearing them in public has a bit of a "look at me" quality to it.  Taking the more humble approach is almost always best.  (Cue the folks who are going to say that I'm calling monks immodest or saying they shouldn't wear robes! - there is a distinct difference between lay practitioners and monastics on this subject.)


Does doing an ordinary day-to-day job account for good karma? If you do an ordinary job, say anything like a software engineer, or a waiter in a hotel or a farmer, anything, like a 9-5 job. Helping society in whichever peaceful means possible. Does it accumulate good karma? I understand it is a 'Right Livelihood' but does it fill the storehouse of good karma?
I understand that 'karma' is dependent on the 'intention', but doing a job has no particular intention other than fulfilling your financial monthly obligations or getting the fodder for the fire to cook dinner.
Do we have to be in a position to help millions, like the Dalai Lama or Ajahn Brahma, or just an ordinary guy doing ordinary routine will also get one in higher realms?

Observing the five precepts, Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood, i.e. virtues (sila), with heedfulness (appamāda), with the right intentions, certainly generates good karma.
In addition, accumulation of wealth as a layperson and use of this wealth in a generous, charitable way, is also good karma, generating merit.
Observance of the five precepts is also one of the prerequisites for stream entry. Please see this answer for details.
Of course, these are not sufficient for the permanent cessation of suffering. That requires renunciation. However, the path of the observing lay Buddhist may be able to lead one to stream entry.
From Ittha Sutta:

Long life, beauty, status, honor,
heaven, high birth:
To those who delight
in aspiring for these things
in great measure, continuously,
the wise praise heedfulness
in making merit.
The wise person, heedful,
acquires a two-fold welfare:
welfare in this life &
welfare in the next.
By breaking through to his welfare
he's called prudent, wise.

The Adiya Sutta speaks about five benefits that can be obtained from wealth, and ends with:

'My wealth has been enjoyed,
my dependents supported,
protected from calamities by me.
I have given supreme offerings
& performed the five oblations.
I have provided for the virtuous,
the restrained,
followers of the holy life.
For whatever aim a wise householder
would desire wealth,
that aim I have attained.
I have done what will not lead to future distress.'
When this is recollected by a mortal,
a person established in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones,
he is praised in this life
and, after death, rejoices in heaven.

From SN 3.19:

Like water
in a haunted place
that, without being imbibed,
dries up:
such is the wealth
acquired by a worthless person
who neither enjoys it himself
nor gives.
But one enlightened & knowing,
on acquiring wealth,
enjoys it & performs his duties.
He, a bull among men,
having supported his kin,
without blame
goes to the land of heaven.

And don't forget virtues once again, reminded by SN 3.20:

Grain, wealth, silver, gold,
or whatever other belongings you have;
slaves, servants, errand-runners,
& any dependents:
you must go without taking
any of them;
you must leave
all of them
behind.
What you do
with body, speech, or mind:
that is yours;
taking
that you go;
that's
your follower,
like a shadow
that never leaves.
Thus you should do what is fine
as a stash for the next life.
Acts of merit
are the support for beings
in their after-death world.


How does Buddhism deal with psychopaths & serial killer What do the suttas say about such people? Surely they're acting on their ignorance (dependent origination), but can't they make use of restraint/self control?

Is there no penalization in such cases according to the Dhamma? If murderers show no regret, then they aren't even born in hell right now.

By letting law enforcement do their thing?

Regret is not needed for the consequences of your actions to happen.


What is/was the role of agamas in Chinese and Japanese history? Recently I read/heard someone saying that the agamas are/were dismissed and downplayed in Chinese and Japanese Buddhism throughout history.

I understand that Mahayana texts received much attention in these regions, but I wonder if the (presumably) lack of importance given to the agamas are simply due to them being neglected among the vast literature, or if they were explicitly disliked (for a specific reason?) or considered inferior, or obsolete.

EDIT: Trying to be clearer: I'm looking for historical evidence for either chinese/japanese appreciation of the agamas, or evidence of reasons for chinese/japanese to neglect these books across the centuries.

They are the practice of the sravakas (voice hearers, desciple), hinayana (though not Theravada) and not the practice of the Bodhisattva, so it is ignored, as not worthy of practice.
Mahayana views in Sravaka link

In the 4th century abhidharma work Abhidharmasamuccaya, Asaṅga describes those who follow the Śrāvaka Vehicle (Skt. śrāvakayanika). These people are described as having weak faculties, following the Śrāvaka Dharma, utilizing the Śrāvaka Piṭaka, being set on their own liberation, and cultivating detachment in order to attain liberation.[29] While those in the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle (Skt. pratyekabuddhayānika) are portrayed as also utilizing the Śrāvaka Piṭaka, they are said to have medium faculties, to follow the Pratyekabuddha Dharma, and to be set on their own personal enlightenment.[30] Finally, those in the Mahāyāna (Skt. mahāyānika) are portrayed as utilizing the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, as having sharp faculties, following the Bodhisattva Dharma, and set on the perfection and liberation of all beings, and the attainment of complete enlightenment.[31]
According to Vasubandhu's Vijnanavada teachings, there are four types of Shravakas:[32]

The fixed
The arrogant
The transformed
The converted (to "Bodhi" or Buddhism)

The transformed and the converted (Buddhist) are assured in the Lotus Sutra of eventual Nirvana.

SO SAYS MAHAYANIST....hmmmmm???


Is zazen practised for its own sake, or as a means to end suffering? Experts seem to say different things It is confusing to me that what what the goal of zazen is (and is not), as proposed by various people with more or less authority on the subject, varies so greatly. Some say no goal, and others identify various goals.

Rationally speaking, no goal makes sense. It is a form of non-dualism. If there is a goal, then there is an attachment to becoming something which one is not. But no goal is also nonsense. If there is no goal, then there is no goal to end suffering. The Four Noble Truths become descriptive, and the Eightfold Path is unimportant.

This is as far as my thinking has gotten. I conclude with some verifiable examples of what the goal of zazen is said to be.

remove wrong perceptions

  the practice of meditation, the practice of looking deeply, has the purpose of removing wrong perceptions from us
  —“What is Nirvana and How Does It End Suffering?” by Thích Nhất Hạnh at MeditationPlex

see ourselves

  Zazen deliberately tries to remove all entertainment and distractions from our minds so we can see ourselves as we really are
  —The Laughing Teabowl Sangha

there is no goal

  There is no starting point nor goal, nothing to attain
  –Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind by Shunryu Suzuki

grasp enlightenment

  the only way to grasp enlightenment is through a calm and settled mind
  —Zen Guide

engage with reality (not to make your life better)

  The real practice of Zen is to engage directly with reality, not to use it as a method to improve your health or make your life better
  —“Zazen Posture” by Josho Pat Phelan at Chapel Hill Zen Center

not to learn

  Don’t think of practice in terms of “eventually”
  —“Zazen is not step-by-step learning meditation” by Harada Sekkei Roshi at Buddhism Now

compassion

  the purpose of zazen is compassion
  —“Beyond Thinking: Dogen’s Teachings on Zazen” by Norman Fischer at Upaya Zen Center

Actually, the answer is very simple: meditation is practiced to achieve tathata (suchness), which is a state of realization of the Third Noble Truth. Because tathata involves cessation of aversion to any "this" and of longing for any "that", its attainment requires a mindset without a goal. It would be more precise to say that no-goal is a method of meditation, but that would risk leaving some subtle shadow of goal in practitioner's mind, hence the official statement that meditation has no goal. Because Buddhism aims at liberation from (among other things) deep-lying stereotypes/assumptions and implicit conceptual boundaries it necessarily involves tricks like this. Another corollary of the above, is that it's never enough to reason about these things intellectually, one needs to take them on as actual frame of reference for them to have an experiential effect.

This point is well illustrated by Dutiya Anuruddha Sutta (AN 3.128 or 3.130 or 131 depending how you count) -- the below amateurish translation is mine but here is another one.

  Then venerable Anuruddha came to venerable Shariputra and
  said:

  -- As much as I, friend Shariputra, try and look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, try and see things with thousandfold-superhuman
  vision, train in confidence unmovable, in awareness undimmable, in
  tranquillity imperturbable, and in focused mind unscattered, still I
  can't "having stopped maintaining intoxication, achieve liberation of
  mind".

  -- All these thoughts, friend Anuruddha, of the kind "I try and look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, I try and see things with
  thousandfold-superhuman vision" -- this is your conceit.

  And the thoughts of the kind "I train in confidence unmovable, in
  awareness undimmable, in tranquillity imperturbable, and in focused
  mind unscattered" -- this is your pathologic restlessness.

  And the thoughts of the kind "still I can't "having stopped
  maintaining intoxication, achieve liberation of mind" -- this is your
  remorse.

  You'd better, friend Anuruddha, these three dharmas abandon; To these
  three dharmas not attending, the deathless aspect assemble with mind.

Here "the deathless aspect" (amrita-dhatu) refers to Nirvana, in this context also described as vajradhatu, "the indestructible space that accommodates everything, samsara and nirvana. Nothing can challenge this space. In spite of its clarity, or discriminating wisdom, it is still indestructible." (Chogyam Trungpa)

"see ourselves as we really are", "engage directly with reality" and "grasp enlightenment" -- all refer to the same thing. This is when "compassion" happens naturally. In order for this to happen, one has to "remove wrong perceptions", "remove all entertainment and distractions" -- which includes removing the notion of goal or attainment, hence "no starting point nor goal, nothing to attain" without any trace of "eventually".


Historically, where do the concepts of Karma, Nirvana, Dharma and Samsara come from? From a historical perspective where do the concepts of Karma, Nirvana, Dharma and Samsara come from? I'm aware that they predated Buddhism but do they come from the Vedas, Shramanic tradition or somewhere else? I appreciate that Nirvana might have started with Buddhism (maybe?) but this would be based on the concept of Moksha which definitely did predate Buddhism.

If possible could people please refer to sources or reasonable authoritative sites with the answers.

These concepts all (with the exception of Dharma, which is sort of a Pan-Indian concept that's in all Indian religions) derive from the Shramanical tradition, which is a general term referring to those who became Śramaṇa (Samaṇa in Pali) which simply means an ascetic.

These ascetics formed a parallel system of religious thought of both the Veidic religion and the local folk religion focused on worshiping local Devas, Nagas, and Yakshas. The Shramanic tradition had a great deal of internal diversity, but the common denominator for most of these groups was a belief in repeated rebirth, Karma, an enlightened state in which one is free from this repeated rebirth, etc...

The Shramanical tradition even seems to have a sort of common vocabulary. If you compare the religious terminology of Buddhism and Jainism for example, you can see that often one religion uses as a standard term something that the other religion also uses in its terminology, although non-standard. For example, the Buddhist term for someone who has become freed from defilement and rebirth is the term Arahant, and Jainism occasionally uses the Ardhamagadhi equivalent term Arihant. In Jainism, the standard term for the same thing is Jina, which means "one who has achieved victory" which in Buddhism is a title of the Buddha.

Some terms are totally identical. Samsara, Karma, and Nirvana are common to both Buddhism and Jainism and are absent in the Brahmanical literature (e.g. the early Upanishads) from the same period, so logically, the commonality has to stem from their common non-Vedic source, which is their shared ascetic tradition.

We can see then that when the Buddha uses these terms he is adopting an idea that already existed and we can also see that he often gives them a radically new interpretation. In Jainism for example, Karma is imagined to be almost like an invisible sticky substance that sticks to your soul (called Jiva in ardhamagadhi) and causes suffering, and so the goal of Jain practice is to purge all karma through ascetic spiritual practice after which one's soul would ascend to a formless perfect heaven inhabited by disembodied souls. In contrast to this the Buddha defined the cause of suffering to be craving, and ultimately ignorance of reality, and emphatically insisted quite often:

  "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
  body, speech, & intellect."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html#part-5

If you want some contempraneous sources on what some of the other Shramanical schools thought, the Samanaphala Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html) has a listing of six such schools and their teachings. Note that Mahavira, the leader of the Jains, is given the name Nigantha Nataputta. Also, some of those groups believed some pretty far out things that aren't nessisarily representative of what all Shramanas thought, and in all likelihood the most outlandish aspects of their doctrines are stated in the most unappealing way possible so I wouldn't take it as an overly accurate depiction of some of the groups. You do clearly the common elements with some of them though, even in the more outlandish ones in that they were at least considering questions about rebirth and karma.


What are the main warning signs in a Buddhist centre? I have been to different temples/centers/monasteries from different schools, most of them I would return regularly, but in a few I found things that didn't agree with some personal views. I must say 100% of the time I found people with nothing but good intentions, but not always I agreed with the methodology, practices or some core believes, for example: Having a "cult style".

That said, I would like to ask: What are the main "warning signs" (if any) we should look for when going to a temple for the first time? (I'm not talking about a simple visit, but Dhamma talks, classes and meditation).

This question aims to help beginners, it is very hard to identify "unusual practices" when a person is just starting with Buddhism and have no idea what is Vinaya or the Suttas for example.

Best is to do some reading of the main Suttas, such as: Anapanasati Sutta, Maha Satipatthana Sutta and see if what the center in question teaches corresponds with the Suttas.

Also see if the operations / techniques adhere to this:

Should ideally be run by donations and not by charging a fee
Should not be cultish
Should allow free thought and inquiry
Should not have practices which harm oneself or make oneself agitated or do the same for others

The last point you can only know when you have practiced the techniques taught at the place and found out you are are at peace and also cordial with others. Now if you do find a lack of peace and cordiality, it may be there is something wrong with how or what you practice. However, you should then take care -- and it is easy to misjudge this -- that you are indeed following their instructions. If you do that, and rule out the possibility that you haven't followed their instructions (in which case, maybe you're just doing your own thing and that is the problem), then there is a good chance there is something wrong with what you have been taught at the particular center.

Sometimes certain traditions may not encourage practices outside the tradition (including reading). In that case you have to look at the motivation behind it. Is it trying to have a grip or hold over the person? Or is it concern that undesired results may be brought about by mixing different techniques? Or is it concern about not being able to handle dangerous results of an unfamiliar technique? Many traditions are geared towards preserving the techniques exactly as handed down through generations and due to this, variation may hamper the results/benefits. This is why you have to be very careful and try to look at it without prejudice.


Why do we need to work? I am a software engineer. Is it shameful if I became a monk throwing away all the knowledge that I have accumulated all these years(more than a decade). In my previous years, I was amused by programming. But now, I have become dispassioned with everything about my work. I see my accumulation of ideas / knowledge as useless.

I am extremely confused.

If you can attain the real peace of meditation, it is like becoming a millionaire.

Since you have so much knowledge, who can easily get a job and earn a living, you can consider taking a holiday for a year or more to explore meditation.


How or why do arahants not experience aging & death? There are various verses in the Pali suttta that give the impression arahants not experience aging & death, as follows:

  Then, monks, being subject myself to aging... death... seeking the aging-less, deathless... unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I
  reached the aging-less... deathless... unexcelled rest from the yoke:
  Unbinding. MN 26

  A sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would
  be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not
  dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?
  It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled
  where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of
  construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' MN 140

  21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead
  already. Dhammapada

How or why do arahants not experience aging & death?

A sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' MN 140

Here, I think the Buddha is telling that an arahant wouldn’t be born in future lives. Therefore, there will be no aging. When there is no birth and aging there will be no death.

Arahants don’t experience aging and death in this because they know that only their body is aging. Their body still age but they don’t assume the body to be “me” or “them” because they have cut off all fetters.

  The sage at peace is not reborn, does not grow old, and does not die. They are not shaken, and do not yearn. For they have nothing which would cause them to be reborn. Not being reborn, how could they grow old? Not growing old, how could they die? Not dying, how could they be shaken? Not shaking, for what could they yearn? ‘They have four foundations, standing on which the streams of conceit don’t flow. And when the streams of conceit don’t flow, they’re called a sage at peace.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it. Mendicant, you should remember this brief analysis of the six elements.”
  https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/sujato

Here, it said a sage is not reborn


Satori and stream entry Is Satori like a stage of stream entry? Is Satori only an intellectual knowing or something deeper than that?

From the wikipedia entry about Satori:

  Satori is considered a "first step" or embarkation toward Buddhahood

This is very much what Stream Entry means in Theravada. Everything else in that entry makes Satori appear to be the same thing as Stream Entry.

The meaning of Satori as "seeing into one's true nature" is also the same as the meaning of Stream entry when you consider that "one's true nature" in the context of Chan Buddhism is Nirvana/Nibbana.

Therefore it seems that these two terms do refer to the same thing.


Meditation and 'not trying to change anything' I've been practicing mindfulness meditation for around three months now. I've heard many times that a key aim for meditation is to be with whatever thoughts and feelings are present, without trying to change anything. I understand to a large extent why this is important, as much upset is caused by suppressing and mentally running away from things that we are afraid of.

However, in my practice I have found that if I consciously try to relax during a session (muscular tension is an issue with me) it can be a much more fulfilling, refreshing experience. Is this not an example of trying to change something, and therefore 'bad' practice?

'Not trying to change anything' is a modern idea and is not what is taught in the original Buddhist teachings.
In the original teachings, there are four right efforts, namely: (i) effort to prevent unwholesome states of mind; (ii) effort to dispel unwholesome states of mind; (iii) effort to cultivate wholesome states of mind; and (iv) effort to maintain & increase wholesome states of mind.
'Refreshing' calmness/tranquility ('samatha') is considered a wholesome state of mind that is preferably developed. To cultivate calmness requires a keen/observant yet very gentle effort to keep the mind clear & equanimous.

For him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path...the
four right efforts... go to the culmination of their development.
[And] for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity
(samatha) & insight (vipassana).
MN 149


Dealing with intense negative emotions What would you recommend as a short-term fix for someone in serious psychological/emotional pain? If meditation, what kind?

I feel pretty angry/powerless/frustrated right now, or "unenlightened". I don't want a long-term solution, as any long-term goal requires short-term will which I don't feel I have. I find that the problem with overcoming powerlessness is that the process of "overcoming" in itself requires power, which by definition is not present in the powerless person.

So, in other words, how do things ever change or break out of their self-creating cycles? How are these cycles created to begin with? And, more specifically, how the hell do I get out of the cycle I've suddenly found myself in? How do I go from CONCEIVING of it as inescapable, to at least getting to the point where I CONCEIVE of it as fixable by me, and in other words, create something out of nothing, and not stay in this rut? Is it just by not thinking altogether, and deprogramming my mind to the point where I (or God, or the powers that be) can reprogram it again from scratch, but this time with superior software? I know this is a terrible SE question as it's so general, but I just really wanted to vent. I got out once, but apparently fell back again. I have no real clue how either happened right now, as I am totally, totally in the shit. Feel free to judge away, or not.

As a side note: AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EDIT: Ok, I've had some time to cool down and am feeling better now. Thanks to both Ahmed & jitin for hearing my rant; I will most definitely give the body scanning/observation technique a try.

Use the body scan emotional release technique.

Be calmly aware.

Don't desire to get rid of it.

Don't try to put it into thoughts (don't try to understand whatever situation this problem arose from). If your mind continues to try to figure it out, just notice that too. Realize that you are NOT your thoughts or emotions. You are the Mastermind, the Overseer, the Watcher. You are Him that sees all!

Just be with your pain and notice how it ever so slightly changes from one place to another, from one color to another, from one feeling to another.

JUST FEEL.

Don't force anything to happen, just FEEL what is.

Eventually, the energies will dissipate on their own and transform themselves into their positive counterparts.

These instructions are ample and I can confidently overcome leftover emotions from rejection, remaining hatred after argument, and even tiredness by using this practice. All these instructions are one step: totally accepting, almost-curious awareness. If it helps, you can prepare yourself by labelling the emotions or freely writing/journalling about them until you are ready to give them up--sometimes with extremely powerful emotions you HAVE to do that as preparation.

Also, don't be so ready to give them up. There is much to learn from great suffering.

Also, this practice is definitely a Buddhist practice of the highest standard (Vipassana) with infinite room to grow and you will be doing The Most Important Thing, carrying on your cultivation throughout your life and even beyond death.


Unpleasant side effects of meditation I am 45 years old. I’ve come to realize that I have been more or less unhappy in my life. So I met a clinical psychologist and I do show some childhood codependency issues and we could no CBT and anapanasati for 10in a day to get rid of my anxiety.
Contrary to all our expectations  a day or so after meditation, noticing the breath at nostrils, I become into a very strange mood, low energy, edgy, sad and rarely aggressive. After few days I started having panic attacks and I was asked to stop and do simple relaxation.
But my concern is why is this practise giving me such negative side effects? While others enjoy calm and peace. My psychologist was of the view that it might be the traumatic childhood I underwent with my father. Which was 40 years ago.
Also, I had very painful dreams of my childhood during this time. Also, loss of appetite, tension headaches and loss of taste.
Does anyone had any idea why I’m getting this unwelcomed side effect? Will it stop at some point or should I give up?
Kindly share your experiences.

My local Buddhist temple's resident teacher Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo has this beautiful metaphor of the "poop soup", highly relevant to yours (and the rest of ours) situation.
In this metaphor we accumulate all kinds of neuroses ("poop")     in the bowl of our psyche, until after many years it becomes veritable poop soup. Then, as we get older and more restrained, the poop gets harder and the surface of the soup becomes nice and flat. Couple more years and it gets covered by a layer of beautiful silver fungi, giving the whole thing a surreal appearance of something ethereal and fluffy. We become an adult, sometimes even an admirable person, and almost forget what hides in our bowl under its surface level.
The bowl is full of shit! (excuse my language.)
So when we start meditating, we puncture a hole in the lid of fungi and hard poop and start stirring the content. Guess what happens then? It does not smell nice. To be very honest it stinks and looks nauseating.
But wouldn't it be insincere if we kept pretending to be a nice admirable person while holding on to all that baggage?
We must work through it until our cup gets empty and squeaky clean. There's no "unpleasant side effects of meditation", these are The Results of meditation, its fruit and its blessing.
Keep working until you get through it and come out on the other side.


Is it allowed to quote a Buddhist teaching in a fiction book? I am writing a romance book. In it one of my character's recites a portion of the Dhammapada. If I publish my book, will I be violating any copyright laws? How would I go about getting permission to put the quote in my book?

Buddhist scriptures are so old they are not under copyright. Translations maybe. Some are made freely available. Best is just ask the author or do your own translation. Also quoting a small portion may be acceptable as fair use.


How to tolerate if someone insulting Buddhism? I first apologize to ask like this, I'm so sorry but I found people who don't respect other religions by my one older question I had to ask almost like this one that one I'm asking. As this religion is secular and against violence. Teaching kindness, forgiveness and beyond the concept of god and religion. But at the time when someone insulting Buddhism what to do ? In Buddha's time he was en lighted he could make them feel what they are doing, there were so many incidents he changed them but when I seen someone insulting Buddhism I feel like I must break first precept; all the time I tolerate because I'm not violent and it's not what I learn, but I get really really angry.
Also bad people look at us as beneficial sake and annoying that we are non-violence and so can't do nothing. There's quote of Napoleon Bonaparte “The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people."
I don't expecting war and violence but peace. Thank you.

But at the time when someone insulting Buddhism what to do ?

I think you're supposed to remember that people are heir to their own karma.

If people insult Buddhism instead of respecting and learning from it, instead of benefiting from it, then you might feel pity for them (or preferably compassion).

I'm not sure you or I should see a need for forgiveness (i.e. a need for us to forgive them) because I (hypothetically) don't see their disrespect as hurtful towards "you" or "me". Perhaps you're identifying with Buddhism in some way (thinking that their disrespect is hurts others or hurts you, and needs forgiveness)?

I get really really angry.

See for example the Dhammapada, which
begins with,

  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
  Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
  There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

Getting really angry doesn't seem to me appropriate. I think of replying with anger as being like "putting out fire with gasoline", i.e. it may fuel disrespect and further anger, rather than putting it out.

I realize many people feel that they shouldn't usually get angry, but might feel that sometimes anger is excusable, normal, necessary, even praise-worthy, and inevitable (e.g. "if I get angry that their fault for being disrespectful, not my fault"); for example:

I don't usually get angry; but if you insult my mother then I'll punch you!
I wouldn't usually fight; if you attack my country then of course I will!
I'm usually a nice guy; but if you attack my religion then I can't stand it!

I also realize that some countries/societies criminalize disrespect, which might make it see normal to try to punish disrespect (e.g. by meeting it with anger), and/or to be averse to (and unaccustomed to) disrespect.

But ignoring what society does and looking at the scripture, remember the parable of the saw:

  Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.

because of the silence of the good people

If you think it might help, maybe you can disagree without getting angry.

If someone tells a lie about Buddhism, for example, maybe you can say what the truth is; or if it's not an appropriate place and time for a lecture, maybe say something short like "I disagree" or "I don't think so" ... enough so that if someone is interested then they can ask for more.

The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people.

I think that Buddhism teaches that causes of suffering are ignorance, craving and attachment and so on.


Is Buddhism a religion? I want to know that what is Buddhism and is it a religion or just a philosophy or a exercise ?

I really want to know more about it , is there a book about learning Buddhism?

The Buddha did not ask for anyone to take his word with respect to Dhamma - things as they are. He asked people to not blindly obey, to not follow ritual, to not ignore or go against what they directly observe. In this respect, Buddhism is at its core a scientific method.

The Buddha's primary insight was acknowledging that all observed phenomena are conditioned and impermanent. This is not a speculation, but an observation. The reasoning then goes through the logical inference of dukkha (unsatisfactoriness, stress/suffering - impermanent things cannot be permanently satisfactory), bringing around the doctrine of non-Self, anatta - which does requires faith in that the direct observation of this truth is only available upon enlightenment, or the ceasing of mental fermentations.

The Kalama Sutta and MN27 offer direct evidence that the Buddha's message was closer to a scientific method than a religion, though one with a soteriological goal.

  "So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
  traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for
  yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
  blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
  qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" —
  then you should abandon them.'

(the above does still feature the wise, but not as absolute arbiters of right or wrong actions - that arbiter is solely the individual living his own practice, the wise offer previously gained experience, and are more accurately guides)

The similarities or differences between the modern scientific method and religions in general is what sources they accept for stated truths. Pramanas are a helpful guide for Hindu religions, but can be extrapolated to the Judeo-Christian world a bit.

Most major religions accept testimony of the wise, seers, prophets etc as truths, as well as others from the above link. Buddhism does not. Aside from direct perception as in MN27, inference is used in a limited way - as above when going from impermanence to non-Self, an inferred knowledge is gained about the nature of 'things', but this is not directly observed until nibbana, and inferred truths are not given any great weight within the scriptures. In addition, inferred truths can only arise from individually observed principles, so they rest on a base that is less prone to doubt than inferred truths resting on the base of prophetic statements etc.

Faith is required by a person who reads the Dhamma with respect to impermanence, if they at first disagree with it, and later non-Self, because gaining direct insight into this truth takes much more time and practice. Faith, so long as it starts from a verifiable base, is not by definition religious.

If you want the spiritual side, go to the source and read the Pali canon or Agamas (Chinese line), these are the closest you will get to the Buddha's direct words. There is philosophy, to the limit that it is a useful tool for gaining insight into things as they are, more often though it offers more practical lessons helping one aim for pacification of mind.

If you want the philosophy first, read Mulamadhyamakakarika - it is the culmination of Buddhist philosophical analysis. This is written 600-700 years after the Buddha, so is a more rigorous analysis of the above canon's statements on anatta.

It is, of course, possible to elevate Dhamma, 'things as they are', into a religion, and layties that have accepted Buddhism have often merged their cultural identities with the Buddha's message. But, to quote MN22, which sums up the process:

  “And how is the bhikkhu a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose
  burden is lowered, who is unfettered? Here a bhikkhu has abandoned the
  conceit ‘I am,’ has cut it off at the root …so that it is no longer
  subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is a noble one
  whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered.

  “Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati
  seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find
  anything of which they could say: ‘The consciousness of one thus gone
  is supported by this.’ Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is
  untraceable here and now.

  “So saying, bhikkhus, so
  proclaiming, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly
  misrepresented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama
  is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction,
  the extermination of an existing being.’ As I am not, as I do not
  proclaim, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly
  misrepres ented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse
  Gotama is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the
  destruction, the extermination of an existing being.’

  “Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the
  cessation of suffering. If others abuse, revile, scold, and harass the
  Tathāgata for that, the Tathāgata on that account feels no annoyance,
  bitterness, or dejection of the heart. And if others honour, respect,
  revere, and venerate the Tathāgata for that, the Tathāgata on that
  account feels no delight, joy, or elation of the heart. If others
  honour, respect, revere, and venerate the Tathāgata for that, the
  Tathāgata on that account thinks thus: ‘They perform such services as
  these for me in regard to this which earlier was fully understood.’

Religion - more broadly, any ideology - in my mind, ask for blind faith. The Buddha's message was only about dukkha and how be free of it. His method requires each individual to follow their own path, with an observer verifiable rationale behind it - blind faith never features.


Anapanasati practice: what’s the correct way to focus on breath? I have practiced anapanasati for a while and encountered some difficulties. I can easily find my breath in front of nostril. Then I started to pay attention to the in-and-out of the breath continuously. But after a while, pain raised in my chest around heart. As I tried to focus more on the breath, the pain increased. In addition, if I suddenly stopped paying attention to the breath, I found my neck and shoulder very rigid and uncomfortable. I also felt exhausted after the meditation.

I’m wondering if I focus too much. Before I know anapanasati, I used to practice simple meditation like just relaxing and checking any thoughts if they arise. I felt much better by not paying attention to any object.

So my question is: what is a good “attention” to breath? Thanks!

There is no need to focus on the breath.

The practise of the Buddha is to keep the mind without craving, without attachment, without past, without future. Silent still mind.

When the mind is quiet, it will connect with the breath, itself, automatically.

Experiencing the breath is merely the "sign" the mind is without craving.

  And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go,
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.

  Indriya-vibhanga Sutta


Monks chosen for Tibetan Telepathy In Tibetan Buddhism there is a sect of monks who specialize in "Telepathy". Their job essentially is to protect the Tibetan people from natural disasters. Does anyone know the process on how these Tibetan monks are chosen? And why are not all worthy Tibetan monks allowed in this position?

Not all worthy (enlightened) monks have psychic powers. In fact, Satan or Mara also has psychic powers. The Buddha's enemy Devadatta, who tried to murder Buddha, also had psychic powers. Psychic powers, such as telepathy, can only be developed by individuals that have a latent disposition for them. The Buddha had many fully enlightened disciples but they all did not have psychic powers. The most lucid (Sariputta) did not have psychic powers. The disciple famed for his psychic powers (Maha Moggallana)  was said to be Mara in a past life (MN 50). In original Buddhism, psychic powers were not considered a sign of sanctity.


What is the origin or history of the concept of 'Buddha Sasana"? There is some information here at wikipedia
I am curious to know if that came from Buddha himself or mentioned in any suttas. The 'sasana' concepts restricts appearence of solitary buddhas or Prateyakabuddhas or paccekabuddhas (as described in Isigili Sutta and Rhinocerous Sutta) without a Sangha. Any thoughts...

Here are some pali sutta references.

Ānanda, if women had not obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life would have lasted long, the true Dhamma would have lasted 1,000 years. But now that they have obtained the Going-forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, the holy life will not last long, the true Dhamma will last only 500 years. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_51.html

“That’s the way it is, Kassapa. When beings are degenerating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, there are more training rules and yet fewer monks established in final gnosis. There is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. Just as there is no disappearance of gold as long as a counterfeit of gold has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of gold when a counterfeit of gold has arisen in the world, in the same way there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma as long as a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has not arisen in the world, but there is the disappearance of the true Dhamma when a counterfeit of the true Dhamma has arisen in the world. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN16_13.html#sn16.13note01

I think it's natural to assume that 500 years refers to the appearance of counterfeit Dhamma but there are people who believe otherwise.
There is a lot of controversy around how disappearance comes about.


Sutta reference or teachings about Sleep timings? In a Vipassana retreat you are made to wake up at 4 am, also similar is the case in the Zen retreat.

I have read numerous articles on advantage on waking up early.

Are there any Sutta references or teachings of Monks or Lama or Zen master which give advise on waking up early and going to bed early?

Sutta Pitaka Vol 4 : Sutta. Ma. Mū. Mahāassapurasuttaṃ:

  What more is there to do?

  You should train yourselves like this: ‘We will be committed to
  wakefulness.

  When practicing walking and sitting meditation by day, we will
  purifying our mind from obstacles.
  In the evening, we will continue to practice walking and sitting
  meditation.
  In the middle of the night, we will lie down in the lion’s
  posture—on the right side, placing one foot on top of the
  other—mindful and aware, and focused on the time of getting up.
  In the last part of the night, we will get up and continue to
  practice walking and sitting meditation, purifying our mind from
  obstacles.’

  Now, mendicants, you might think: ‘We have conscience and prudence,
  our bodily, verbal, and mental behavior is pure, our livelihood is
  pure, our sense doors are restrained, we don’t eat too much, and we
  are committed to wakefulness. Just this much is enough …’


What is the difference between Yogacara Buddhism and Idealism? I've often heard the Yogacara school of Buddhism being described as 'Mind Only'. To my untutored mind this seems reminiscent of the western philosophy of Idealism.

So there is a description of Yogacara which goes

  the reality we think we perceive does not exist except as as a process
  of knowing. Phenomena, anything that can be experienced, have no
  reality in themselves.

And a description from Idealism which goes

  [..] reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally
  constructed, or otherwise immaterial.

To me they seem similar but actually my feeling is in reality the two philosophies are very different. Can someone help me understand how they are different?

Note: I know the two quotes are from sources that have been identified as potentially unreliable (Barbara O'Brien and Wikipedia) but really I'm just want to use them as an illustration of how similar the two philosophies appear to me. I'm not claiming accuracy - in fact they could well lack it.

Some scholars, notably Dan Lusthaus, have argued that Yogācāra is not a form of Idealism. Lusthaus is one of the leading living authorities on Yogācāra and author of the authoritative analysis, Buddhist Phenomenology. The charge of Idealism is simply a mistaken reading of Yogācāra. For example in the introduction to his paper, What is and isn't Yogācāra he argues

  Yogācāra focused on the processes involved in cognition in order to overcome the ignorance that prevents one from attaining liberation from the karmic rounds of birth and death. Yogācārins' sustained attention to issues such as cognition, consciousness, perception, and epistemology, coupled with claims such as "external objects do not exist," has led some to misinterpret Yogācāra as a form of metaphysical idealism. They did not focus on consciousness to assert it as ultimately real (Yogācāra claims consciousness is only conventionally real since it arises from moment to moment due to fluctuating causes and conditions), but rather because it is the cause of the karmic problem they are seeking to eliminate.

However, some scholars, for example Sean Butler, in his essay Idealism in Yogācāra Buddhism *, remain unconvinced by Lusthaus's argument. Butler cites Vasubandhu's Trimsika for example (and here he cite's Lusthaus's own translations):

  The transformation of consciousness is imagination. What is imagined by
  it does not exist. Therefore everything is representation-only.
  For consciousness is the seed of everything. Transformation in such and such ways Proceeds through mutual influence, so that such and such imagination is born.

A note of caution is that Butler seems to be confused by Kant's Transcendental Idealism, which is not really a form of Idealism, in that it does not argue that the mind is all there is, but does argued that experience is all that can be known (Transcendental Idealism is not an ontological theory in the way that Idealism is). But he does go on to discuss more relevant definitions of Idealism. Butler weighs the arguments for and against labelling Yogācāra as Idealist and considers that he has decisively shown that it is.

Although Yogācāra is not my area of speciality, I am an advocate for Dr Sue Hamilton's hermeneutic strategy of treating all Buddhist doctrines as though they are addressing the topic of what we experience rather than what exists, which she outlines in Early Buddhism a New Approach. This outlook is in fact evident in Early Buddhist texts. As Bhikkhu Bodhi says:

  “The world with which the Buddha’s teaching is principally concerned is ‘the world of experience,’ and even the objective world is of interest only to the extent that it serves as that necessary external condition for experience.” (Bodhi 2000, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: 394, n.182)

If we read the early Buddhist texts as being concerned with experience, or in Buddhist terms with the arising and passing away of mental states, then a number of confusions are resolved. We can for example dispense with the confusing Two Truths doctrine that phenomena are both existent and non-existent. Early Buddhist texts take the view that when it comes to experience, ontological commitments like "existent" (atthitā) and non-existence (n'atthitā) simply do not and cannot apply. This need not imply a commitment to the proposition that only mental states exist (which is what Bishop Berkeley claims). But like Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, we might have to conclude that there is an epistemological limit on what we can know, since all of our knowledge comes via experience.

There is accumulating evidence that this early Buddhist outlook continues into the Prajñāpāramitā literature (See my long essay Form is (Not) Emptiness). So that it might persist into the Yogācāra ought not to surprise us. And for this reason I am predisposed to give Lusthaus the benefit of the doubt and accept his assertion that Yogācāra is not Idealist because it sees vijñāna as only conventionally real, in line with the Yogacāra interpretation of the Two Truths, which is distinctive to the Yogācāra. (Incidentally Lusthaus has written a good article on this subject: The Two Truths (Saṃvṛti-satya and Paramārtha-satya) in Early Yogācāra. Despite the philosophical problems entailed by the Two Truths, the fact that Yogācārins accept the consequences of their version of the doctrine makes it unlikely that they fell into the Idealist trap.

However one has to weigh the criticism of Butler and others. I think the jury is still out.


Who was ignorant about the Truth in the beginning? In the dependent origin co-arising, ignorance came before consciousness and self.In fact we begin with ignorance. This ignorance is the ignorance about the 4 noble truths.

My questions are :

Who is ignorant about the 4 noble Truths in the beginning of dependent origin co-arising when there was no self or consciousness?

How can ignorance exist without consciousness ?

"Who is ignorant about the 4 noble Truths in the beginning of
  dependent origin co-arising when there was no self or consciousness?"

You were ignorant.

Being ignorant, you created self.

Being ignorant, you created consciousness.

  "How can ignorance exist without consciousness ?"

It cannot.

Where there is ignorance, there is consciousness.

Where there is wisdom, there is no consciousness.

It's because you don't know what is consciousness, that you are bewildered by my answer.

And what is consciousness?

It's a fabrication. It's made up. It's fabricated with mental and physical activities. That is consciousness.

It is you fabricating this consciousness.

Now ask yourself, who is that "you" that I'm referring to in my answer?

No matter where you'd look, you would not find this "you".

So, who is ignorant if there is no "you" that can be found?

You is ignorant.

It's because you don't know who you are, that you are bewildered by my answer.

Find out who you are. Meditate. You will not find this "you". It's when not being able to find this "you", that you are seeing who you are. Once you see, examine how it works and truth will be realized: from ignorance arises fabrications, from fabrications consciousness, from consciousness birth, etc.


difference between material pleasure and spirtual happiness What is the difference betweenchappiness which we can get from this world and the spirtual joy or happiness which buddha taught us?
Is the spirtual joy more greater than sensual pleasure like drinking, eating, having sex, riding bikes, cars etc? If yes why and how so? Why should someone ignore everything in this world just to achieve that joy?

As i know the spirtual joy is continious, without any disturbance unlike material joy which comes and goes like wind. But in scientific way is spritual joy which person gets after doing right concentration as buddha told is more stronger and pleasures than the sensual joy?

Material pleasures are based on sensations. Ultimate spiritual pleasures of Nirvana independent of sensation.

Regarding material pleasure, or pleasure of a householder, there are 6 types which is elaborated in Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta.

At an intermediate state or spirituality (still working towards Nirvana) there are 6 kinds of pleasures associated with renunciation which is elaborated in Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta.

In simple terms the difference is the householder pleasure is through acquiring and getting pleasant experiences while spiritual pleases is thought renunciation and understanding / wisdom / seeing things as they are.

Since the ultimate spiritual pressure does not end or pass away and independent of any external factor or cause it is far superior than any pleasure based on sensations which are temporary and not in one's control and cause by or dependent on any other factors and causes.

The intermediate pleasures or pleasures of renunciation,  are still based on understanding and wisdom, hence they are also superior.