Are teaching on gratitude and "duty" nessesary? Supreme Buddha once mentioned…

  “These two people are hard to find in the world. Which two? The one who is first to do a kindness, and the one who is grateful and thankful for a kindness done.” — AN 2:118

1. So my question to you is should Gratitute be on a par with Loving Kindness?

In other words, asked from another view point...

2. Are teaching on gratitude and "duty" nessesary for the path development?

Or even otherwise asked...

3. Is it possible to gain path and fruits for an ungrateful person, a person denying his/her duties?

4. Could it be that the seldom appearing of gratitude is direct connected with the seldom appearing of people reaching path and fruit?

5. What in particular are teaching on gratitude mentioned in the suttas? (References of Dhamma-Dana in this regard)

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

Teaching on gratitude & “duty” is not necessary for Nibbana. MN 117 states gratitude & duty is a defiled (asava) right view with attachment (upadhi) siding with merit. In MN 56, Upali's stream-entry resulted in independence from the teacher. In the Vakkali Sutta, Vakkali was rebuked for wrong gratitude. Dhammapada 294 states to "kill the mother & father to attain Nibbana". In MN 86, the arahant Angulimala, ate his alms food without debt (obligation). Gratitude is a moral teaching for worldlings (puthujjana) but is unrelated to the goal of Buddhism, namely, Nibbana. Dhp 43 says:

  Na taṃ mātā pitā kayirā, aññe vāpi ca ñātakā; sammāpaṇihitaṃ cittaṃ, seyyaso naṃ tato kare

  Neither mother, father, nor any other relative can do greater good than the well-directed mind.


If Dalai Lama is enlightened, why he keeps coming back? Assuming the result of enlightenment is attainment of Nirvana, and assuming Dalai Lama is enlightened, why does he keep on getting reborn?

Could it mean that Nirvana means something else, for example a state of egolessness while still a person on planet Earth?

This is a fundamental premise of Mayayana, that the goal is not to be extinguished and leave samsara like an Arhat, but to stick around until everyone is enlightened.

Here is the zen formulation of the Bodhisattva Vow (couldn't find the Tibetan version)

  Beings are numberless; I vow to save them. Delusions are
  inexhaustible; I vow to end them. Dharma gates are boundless; I vow to
  enter them. Buddha's Way is unsurpassable; I vow to become it.

As for where one is upon enlightenment, there are more lots of formulations, I don't have a good idea on how to summarize them.


Understanding Psychosomatic ailments I am given to understand deep mental suffering can inflict physical ailments. (very understandable.)

Specifically harbouring certain kinds of negative mental constructs, for extended periods of time, leads to certain kinds of ailments.

Are there any such contexts in the Buddha's teachings that point out, categorise these?

Some quotes to this effect:

  "Over the past I do not mourn nor for the future weep,—
  I meet the present as it comes, and so my colour keep.

  Mourning about the hopeless past or some uncertain future need,—
  This dries a young man's vigour up as when you cut a fresh green reed."

  -- Jat. 538 (Cowell, trans)

and

  “Again, when a fool is on his chair or on his bed or resting on the ground, then the evil actions that he did in the past—his bodily, verbal, and mental misconduct—cover him, overspread him, and envelop him. Just as the shadow of a great mountain peak in the evening covers, overspreads, and envelops the earth, so too, when a fool is on his chair or on his bed or resting on the ground, then the evil actions that he did in the past—his bodily, verbal, and mental misconduct—cover him, overspread him, and envelop him. Then the fool thinks: ‘I have not done what is good, I have not done what is wholesome, I have not made myself a shelter from anguish. I have done what is evil, I have done what is cruel, I have done what is wicked. When I pass away, I shall go to the destination of those who have not done what is good…who have done what is wicked.’ He sorrows, grieves, and laments, he weeps beating his breast and becomes distraught. This is the third kind of pain and grief that a fool feels here and now.

  -- MN 129 (Bodhi, trans)

Also, many Dhammapada verses to this effect, e.g.:

  The evil-doer grieves here and hereafter; he grieves in both the worlds. He laments and is afflicted, recollecting his own impure deeds.

  (Buddharakkhita, trans)

I can't think of anywhere that specific mental afflictions are enumerated or categorized, though.


Did Buddha ever say that educated people would be a problem? I was reading the book "Daham Danum Sangrahaya 1" about facts of Buddhism written by a Buddhist monk. And it says if all the people in a region are educated it would be a problem.

I want to know if Buddha has ever said something like that? That education could be a problem for the society.

Thanks.

It's important to read the full context of what that teacher said. Also, if someone simply says: "The Buddha said this or that", then that's not good enough. He'll need to provide backup sutras/suttas references. For example, in the suttas education is very important:

"Friend, the Blessed One has described you as being endowed with seven amazing, astounding qualities. Which seven? 'Hatthaka of Alavi is endowed with conviction. He is virtuous. He has a sense of conscience. He has a sense of concern. He is learned. He is generous. He is discerning.' Friend, the Blessed One has described you as being endowed with these seven amazing, astounding qualities." ~ AN 8.23 ~
"Even so, he who is experienced and has a well-trained mind, who is learned and dependable, 2 clearly knowing, he can help others to understand who are willing to listen and ready to receive" ~ Sn 2.8 ~


Scientific approach of Kamma The concept of Kamma implies that information is stored in the mind (not the brain) and after the being is dead, this mind (or this data "storage") goes on and carries with it the current position of all accumulated Kamma from many previous life.

This clearly creates some scientific questions such as: Where is the information stored if there is no physical "hardware"? How does this information flows? How a new being receives it and change its body accordingly (Imagine a Kamma-Vipaka of a disease for a new born or not having a member)? Etc...

Many people will answer that these doubts represent a fetter and will not help you in the practice, so just forget about it, however I know many Buddhists have great scientific background and could help here.

Is there any detailed description, maybe Abidhamma, of this process of Kamma/information flow? Has anyone ever tried to shed a light on this topic?

The concept of Kamma implies that information is stored in the mind

No, it does not! Information and storage are concepts. Not realities! The issue here is, we make the assumption that for causes to give an effect in the future, something needs to persist in the interim. When you commit a Kamma, the action is done and finished then and there. There's nothing stored. To give an analogy, take a stick and hold it at one end with your left hand and tap at the other end with your right. Your left hand will feel the vibration. But did any molecule travel from right to left? No! It's just that when the molecules at the place you tapped vibrate, the adjacent molecules start vibrating and then the ones next to them and so on. Then we make a concept out of it and call it a wave. But there's no wave in reality! The first molecule vibrated and stopped. It didn't go anywhere.  Similarly, Kamma is also a concept given to describe a certain causes and effect process. There's nothing going from this life to the next or this moment to the next.


A question regarding the level of worldly participation for a buddhist monk I noticed some buddhist monks spend a lot of their time teaching and giving dhamma talks, while other monks spend minimal time on these things.

I was wondering if there are any rules in the monastic code for monks regarding how much time a monk should spent on teaching?

The main role of the monastic community is to preserve the Buddha's teaching, but I don't think that the Buddha gave a prescription on how exactly to do that. It's been left to each community to set rules of teaching and the level of community interaction. I don't think you're going to find one magic answer. In my tradition, you're expected to have some mastery over the subject matter before giving Dharma talks. It also helps to practice the Eightfold Path enough to where you are without reproach when you enter the community with instruction.

I don't believe it's wrong to participate and reach out to the community at any time. It just may not be helpful. Maybe like this post ;-) Then again, mastery is hard to see from the outside.

"Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water.  After enlightenment chop wood, carry water."


Buddhism, Symbolism, and Notions In reading about Zen I see encouragement to question "notions". Understand them as to some extent misrepresenting the things they represent. The map is not the territory. I'm not sure how to interpret that and I can think of a couple different meanings.

Consider a statue like The Statue of Liberty. To some it represents a country with a history of slavery and Jim Crow laws and the statue is a lie. To others, it represents a land of opportunity, an escape from tyranny. To someone else, a statue is just a bunch of copper, the copper itself being made of atoms, the atoms made up of quarks. The statue has no "romantic" or "pessimistic" meaning.

Does Buddhism make a distinction between the emotional notions like "freedom" and "tyranny" versus more material notions like "copper" and "atoms"?

I could see the distinction mattering in terms of suffering. If you see a statue and it reminds you of unpleasant things, you suffer. If you just look at the statue and just see a bunch of copper, it won't make you suffer. If "All Emotions are pain", then even positive associations with the statue are a painful thing. Neutral associations like "The Statue is made of copper" seems to be of a different substance, a concept more directly "pointing at" what it refers to whereas the emotionally loaded notions in a since "point away".

Are both kinds of notions the kinds of notions to be wary of? Even still, are there distinctions made between the two?

Does Buddhism make a distinction between the emotional notions like "freedom" and "tyranny" versus more material notions like "copper" and "atoms"?

Buddhism discerns phenomena through the idea of skandhas, meaning that our experiences consists of five components. The rupa skandha pertains to material properties, and vedana regards the emotional qualities. Thus far these skandhas correspond to your example. Further, skandhas also consists of perception, mental factors, and consciousness.

  Are both kinds of notions the kinds of notions to be wary of? Even still, are there distinctions made between the two?

One purpose of understanding the world through the concept of skandhas is that we get a closer examination of what our perceptions actually consists of. Building on this, buddhism concludes that our experiences are ever transforming and impersonal, which in turn means that they're an unreliable base for understanding the world, and how to act in it, so yes, both notions - as well as the other skandhas - are crucial to be wary of. If we fail to realize this, suffering becomes a fact. Instead, breaking out of this illusion with the aid of the noble eightfold path is an alternative to liberate us from this suffering.


Why are desires in The Five Hindrances only about "sensual" desires? The five hindrances consist of sensual desires. ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and doubt. I have often wondered why the first hindrance are limited to sensual desires as this is leaving out the desires/attachment that one can have to other things, like desires for power/control, to be loved or approved of, to achieve, to feel secure. I have always wondered why these are not included as obstacles to spiritual freedom in the dhamma, as they are often much more in the foreground than sensual desires when trying to obtain concentration. Thoughts like "I should have done otherwise", "why did she say so to me", "I need to find a solution", "I must improve" are coming from such needs or attachments. I cannot understand why the first hindrance only talks about sensual desires when there are all these other desires?

It seems that the five hindrances are obstacles to the five factors to be developed in the first jhana. There are other hindrances but these five are important in the context of progress in meditation.

According to Access To Insight:

  Buddhaghosa states that the abandonment of the five hindrances alone
  is mentioned in connection with jhana because the hindrances are the
  direct enemies of the five jhana factors, which the latter must
  eliminate and abolish. To support his point the commentator cites a
  passage demonstrating a one-to-one correspondence between the jhana
  factors and the hindrances: one-pointedness is opposed to sensual
  desire, rapture to ill will, applied thought to sloth and torpor,
  happiness to restlessness and worry, and sustained thought to doubt
  (Vism. 141; PP.147). Thus each jhana factor is seen as having the
  specific task of eliminating a particular obstruction to the jhana and
  to correlate these obstructions with the five jhana factors they are
  collected into a scheme of five hindrances.

The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html#ch1


Is there a sutta which answers where a nirvanaised consciousnesses is after death and comapres it to a fire going out? Is there a sutta which answers where a nirvanaised consciousnesses is after death and comapres it to a fire going out?

I thought there was, but can't find it. Sounds like Vacchagota mashed up with the fire sermon.

I'm asking because I like the image, and it almost appears in some modernist poetry.

Failing a sutta, any zen discourses.

Failing that, anywhere in the canon.

Failing that, any important Buddhist, living or dead.

Failing that an academic.

You're probably thinking of Itivuttaka 44:

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
  Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding
  property with no fuel remaining.

  And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining. (Note1)

  And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining." (Note2)

  Note1 and Note2 (commentary by Thanissaro Bhikkhu):
  With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel
  remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first
  case, the flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the
  second, the fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold.
  The "fuel" here is the five aggregates. While the arahant is still
  alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not
  burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the
  arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates
  here or anywhere else.


Need help with finding a specific Sutta I'm looking for a sutta wherein the Buddha explains how a person who only for a moment cultivates loving-kindness or mindfulness has not wasted his or her spiritual life.
What sutta is that?
Thank you for your time.

Here are some finger-snapping and udder-pulling moments of love and mindfulness:

AN1.53:1.1: “If, mendicants, a mendicant cultivates a mind of love even as long as a finger snap,

AN1.54:1.1: “If, mendicants, a mendicant develops a mind of love even as long as a finger snap,

AN1.55:1.1: “If, mendicants, a mendicant focuses on a mind of love even as long as a finger snap,

AN9.20:9.1: It would be more fruitful develop the perception of impermanence—even for as long as a finger snap—than to do all of these things, including developing a heart of love for as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder.”

AN9.20:8.9: It would be more fruitful to develop a heart of love—even just as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder—than to undertake the training rules.

SN20.4:1.2: “Mendicants, suppose one person was to give a gift of a hundred pots of rice in the morning, at midday, and in the evening. And someone else was to develop a heart of love, even just as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder. The latter would be more fruitful.

AN1.405:1.1: principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.405:1.1: principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.406:1.1: If they generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that bad, unskillful qualities don’t arise, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.407:1.1: If they generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that bad, unskillful qualities that have arisen are given up, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.408:1.1: If they generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that skillful qualities that have not arisen do arise, even for the time of a finger snap …

AN1.409:1.1: If they generate enthusiasm, try, make an effort, exert the mind, and strive so that skillful qualities that have arisen remain, are not lost, but increase, mature, and are fulfilled by development, even for the time of a finger snap …

There may be more...


How different is "joy of ownership" in the Dīgha,jānu Sutta from clinging onto one's wealth? In the Dīgha,jānu Sutta, accomplishment of diligence leads to the joy of ownership. Isn't "joy of ownership" just clinging onto one's wealth? What do other Buddhist schools say about this?

A possible equivalent to this in Kabbalah is Bread of Shame, defined as not earning what we receive, or in other terms, receiving without giving. Yehuda Berg states, "As the ancient kabbalists teach us, it is part of human nature and the nature of this world that no matter how much is given to us, as long as we are the ones who are receiving and not the ones who are giving, we will always feel  Bread of Shame. We will always be the vessel and not the Creator. We will always feel powerless. We will always find someone to blame for our unhappiness." It is said to be the cause of all darkness in the world. Another Stack Exchange user, Ian Taylor, states that it "refers to the fact that unearned attainments are not rewarding the same way that things you work hard for are. Part of noble eightfold path is exerting effort to attaining enlightenment— i.e. YOU must work for it."

While the purpose of both teachings is a bit different, I think the Kabbalastic notion of "bread of shame" wants to make people less selfish by attributing the feeling of shame when just taking for the self alone whereas the Buddhist Sutta reveals how to find joy in one's wealth--both of which stress the importance of effort. But, isn't being stuck in the concept of receiving and giving just another way of saying "I" and "them" - a dualistic notion that shames others or yourself. Also, "working hard for something" is a concept: one can just claim to have worked hard for it, but in reality earning something is a reflection of cultural standard. Someone can work hard but not earn what they deem to be the equivalent of their work. Is that feeling wrong, or should one accept the "joy of ownership"? The concept of earning is only rewarding insofar as it feeds our pride vis-a-vis the notion of achievement, the idea that "I" earned it-- a form of spiritual egoism when enlightenment is "attained."

How different is “joy of ownership” in the Dīgha,jānu Sutta from clinging onto one's wealth?

Actually the answer's already provided in the sutta itself. If one clings to one's wealth, s/he won't be able to have a balanced living, the necessary component to the joy of ownership:

"And what is balanced living? Here, a clansman knows his income and expenditures and leads a balanced life, neither too extravagant nor too frugal, [aware]: ‘In this way my income will exceed my expenditures rather than the reverse.’ Just as an appraiser or his apprentice, holding up a scale, knows: ‘By so much it has dipped down, by so much it has gone up,’ so a clansman knows his income and expenditures and leads a balanced life, neither too extravagant nor too frugal, [aware]: ‘In this way my income will exceed my expenditures [283] rather than the reverse.’
“If this clansman has a small income but lives luxuriously, others would say of him: ‘This clansman eats his wealth just like an eater of figs.’1751 But if he has a large income but lives sparingly, others would say of him: ‘This clansman may even starve himself.’1752 But it is called balanced living when a clansman knows his income and expenditures and leads a balanced life, neither too extravagant nor too frugal, [aware]: ‘In this way my income will exceed my expenditures rather than the reverse. ~~ AN 8.54 ~~


Question about Narakas I want to ask the following: Is there a mention in the suttas or anywhere else that tells that there is a corresponding hell (Naraka) according to specific evil deeds? I wonder if it is a random thing or there is some corresponding hell to our evil deeds.

Hells must corresponding to their evil deeds. But there are uncountable various kamma leting their uncountable corresponding resultants arise in the same seconds, too. Kamma just waiting the proper chance to let their resultants arise.

Most of hell appear in suttanta, but it will be easier to explain the hell by abhidhamma's rule.

In abhidhamma, there are trillion mind moments in a piece of second. Each mind moment must managing, kamma, their mind and mind factors, but only javana-duty mind moments have own resultants, vipaka.  So, we done kamma over many thousands millions times each second.

And each kamma will multiply it's resultants, vipaka, such as just 1 killing mind moment of last life can let uncountable resultant mind moments arise through next life, if that killing mind moment can win to process rebirth-duty, 1st mind moment of each rebirth, of next life.

Another, many kamma can work together by switch their resultants' arising between each other, such as killing mind  moment let its resultants through niraya-man's life, then the other kamma let it's resultants arise
 by make niraya man very hurt his tongue.

Their are uncountable co-working in each second for one's life, such as a second of buddha's life on parinibbana's bed:

Wholesome kamma let budhha's bhavanga mind moment arise.
Each different wholesome kamma let buddha's each organ of 32 organs
look the best beautiful.
Unwholesome kamma let buddha's body sick.
The other wholesome kamma let buddha watch many ariya around the
parinibbana's bed.

These all happened only in a second, by a very various kamma. And this is just the example. In the full situation of this second, there are many various kamma giving their resultants.


What are the arguments Yogacara makes to deny the reality of sensory objects? Yogacara and Vasubandhu etc deny that matter exists by itself but rather that is comes from awareness and is merely a perception of the mind.what are the arguments Yogacarins make to prove their main thesis?

They don't believe that.  That's an almost universal misunderstanding.  Yogacara doesn't make any ontological statements about the universe, perception, reality, and so forth.  Their approach was strictly soteriological.  They were exclusively concerned with liberating the mind, not with describing things as they are.  What Yogacara is concerned about is how the mind (store house consciousness and "I-making" consciousness) "perfumes" and "transforms" the sensory gates and how that in turn impacts perception.  You aren't seeing a chair, for instance, but rather your entire life history, memories, prejudices, etc. dealing with chairs.  That means that the chair you see isn't the same chair that someone at, say, the Buddha's time would see even if you were looking at the same object.  Something that you might take to be a pretty shoddy looking recliner, after all, might be a veritable throne to them!
This has very real implications when it comes to liberation.  Our personal histories impact not just our existential lives but even the very way we deal with and perceive the world.  Our habituated, unenlightened perception makes us miss so much of what's actually there.  We don't see the spaces between things, we don't perceive the energy, and we are wholly negligent of the emptiness that is always there.  Hell, we don't even hear properly.  Yogacara training (especially as manifested in Zen koan study) seeks to reacquaint us with what we are missing...not to assert any concepts regarding the nature of reality.


Why should one develop compassion? Maybe a strange question, because for some people it's obvious that you should be compassionate. I'm just interested in knowing why.

Hatred is unskillful, but why should one develop compassion instead? Why is "not hating" not enough?

One reason is that compassion softens self-boundaries the most.

Hatred strengthens boundaries of the self.  Someone does something contrary to what we value, and our emotional reaction not only strengthens our attachment to this value, but our attachment to ourselves, as we identify more strongly with us vs. the other (exemplified by that person).

Not hating (letting go) softens this for obvious reasons.

Compassion goes further, for to positively work towards the benefits of others (especially those we would normally hate) is to further soften our self-boundaries, by putting our time and energy into their welfare, and in a way, to start thinking of their welfare as our welfare (in a way, this is what caring is).

I think the best explanation for compassion's role in softening the boundaries of the self doesn't come from Buddhism but from... Einstein.  Here's a very nice quote of his:

  A human being is a part of the whole, called by us "Universe," a part
  limited in time and space.  He experiences himself, his thoughts and
  feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical
  delusion of his consciousness.  This delusion is a kind of prison for
  us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few
  persons nearest to us.  Our task must be to free ourselves from this
  prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living
  creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.  Nobody is able to
  achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in
  itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.

Now you may not agree on how completely we can achieve this, but the central idea here is that compassion relaxes the boundaries of the self, expands our sense of one-ness, and to the extent we can express compassion, we are liberated.


Over expectations and overconfidence I have caught myself many times saying to others that I will do this and that. I also tend to confirm that I can and will do things, when I'm asked about it, even when I am not sure. Often people end up criticizing me when I fail to achieve what I promised to.

I also have a lot of over-expectations about myself. I intend to learn so many things or read so many things or meditate a lot etc., and also I always get carried away buying things just for the sake of fulfillment. I want to over achieve.

My meditations have helped me realize that this was due to my obsession with wanting to be 'great'. I want to always be appreciated and want to always feel high. How can I resolve this problem of mine?

You are not alone on this… @Ashwin Kumar. You have good company. When you stop and think about it, that’s what a lot of people do in this world. They do something because they think it makes them better than other people. That whole mindset—the idea of wanting to be better than others or that they are worse than others or equal to others—is a real trap because it tends to swing you back and forth between extremes: either exaggerated self-esteem or exaggerated self-hatred, back and forth, back and forth. And either extreme can make you miserable because the idea of self, of who you are, becomes the big issue in life. You have to do everything you can to shore it up. Then when you find yourself doing things that are not up to that high standard, you feel like a failure. It’s good to remind yourself that all those issues are useless. They don’t accomplish anything at all. We are practicing this Dhamma to overcome conceit, but conceit has its uses.

So as long as there’s going to be conceit in your mind—i.e., the idea that you define yourself in a certain way and you define yourself against other people in a certain way—try to use standards that are wise. Look in terms generosity, virtue, conviction, discernment. At the very least be your own best friend in terms of your values and try to keep those values clear and articulate so that you notice when you’re deviating from them. So that even though we’re living here in a land of wrong views, you try to create an island of right views around yourself.

When you can let go of that conceit of over expectations and over-confidence—even though you can’t totally conquer it, at least put it out of your mind for the time being—it allows you to look at situations less in terms of what you are, and more in terms of what you can do with the range of skills at hand.


Who or what decides that someone has enlightened himself? Who or what decides that someone has enlightened himself?

It's just about an urge to know the point where/how enlightened one's or their followers approve that 'they are enlightened'. What happens immediately after that?

Only you can decide for yourself that you are truly enlightened.

Why: Because enlightenment is overcoming any and all ideals and dogma you impose upon yourself, including the need for enlightenment.


How is walking meditation different than other forms of activity? I've read that things like aikido, yoga, swimming, running are not meditation. How is walking meditation different?

I've read that things like aikido, yoga, swimming, running are not
  meditation. How is walking meditation different?

Could you cite the source or teacher who says this?

In my experiential understanding, and in general, in Buddhist philosophy, any action done mindfully is meditation. The goal of Buddhism is to be mindful of our actions all the time.

The Buddha goes so far as to say that it is not merely by reciting verses in praise of awakening, that we pay homage to the Buddha, but every moment we are mindful, we pay homage to the Buddha within us.

One can certainly practice running meditation if one's mindfulness is very strong.

Walking meditation is safe for the beginner who can observe the action of raaaaiiiissssssing his feet, and loooowwwwwweeeeering his feet, in many dimensions - the tug of the muscles, the raising of the hem of his garment, the brush of wind under the foot, the weight of the sandal as it hangs loose and so on.

I imagine if one was learning to observe like this in detail with an activity like swimming where rapid strokes are required, it can lead to a dangerous situation. As it is, it is common to see people unused to walking meditation stumble on their first attempt because they are so lost in observation, they forget to balance.

In Akido, and other martial arts, Mushin is a prized quality of mind.


Buddhism Society & Action According to the Buddha's teaching in the Buddhist scriptures, when is it appropriate:

  To assist in creating the structures of a group or society?

  To embrace the established structures of a group or society?

  To defend others by enforcing
  the established authority of a  group or society?

  To push away or overthrow the established structures of a group or society?

  To defend others by pushing away or overthrowing the established authority of a group or society?

I imagine Buddhism is about following the path and then, if you can, influencing others to follow the path. I imagine Buddhists such as the Buddha or Thailand's Bhikkhu Buddhadasa had the ability to influence political activists & leaders. When I lived in Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's monastery, I met the Thai Prime Minister more than once.

However, I think Buddhists can only lead by example and be careful about how they engage in political talk. For example, Thailand's Bhikkhu Buddhadasa influenced many Communists, where I imagine some of them were "martyred" in the 1976 Thammasat University Massacre.

For example, the Dalai Lama mingles within the corridors of world power but Dalai Lama appears to not actually influence evil politicians to change their ways. It is the opposite. The evil leaders appear to use the Dalai Lama to make themselves look better. Dalai Lama was paid US$180,000 per year for many years by the CIA.

Famous monks such as Ajahn Brahm often name-drop how they know this politician & that politician but, at least in Australia, the political environment moves further & further away from Dhamma each day. In fact, Ajahn Brahm maintains harmful & dangerous political narratives, such as the myth of 'Islamic terrorism' (which, in reality, is a UK-US-Saudi covert operation since WW1).

It was very unfortunate to witness the Western monks & nuns affiliated with Ajahn Brahm become politically active in Anti-Trumpism, where, even though Trump's anti-war rhetoric was obviously a lie (based on the Iran-Hater who was funding his presidential campaign); these monks & nuns were politically active supporting the major war maker Hillary Clinton & Obama, who destroyed at least three countries, namely, Libya, Syria & Yemen; plus escalated conflict in Ukraine & elsewhere.

Bhikkhu Bodhi openly lamented when Trump threatened to ban abortion. Bhikkhu Bodhi, appearing to pander to a liberal left-wing supporter base, somehow believes Buddhism supports "women's reproductive rights". While monks & nuns can plead ignorance & having no psychic powers when their political endeavors actually support covert wars, Bhikkhu Bodhi's political stance based on "women's reproductive rights" dropped the jaws of many Buddhists.

At least in Australia, recently, the religions, particularly the Catholic Church, were mostly silent about the international intervention in Syria, where covert terrorist squads murdered thousands of Christian & non-Christian people. The Christian religions in Australia were mostly silent when old Christian monastery towns were liberated by Syrian & Hezbollah defenders. This shows how narcissistic religion has become.

Today, there are Western monks grovelling to left-wing political correctness, such as attempting to appeal to the LBGT & Identitarian movements. Will siding with political correctness help Buddhism survive into the future? Or will this alliance harm Buddhism by wrecking its doctrine more than it is already wrecked in the West?

Ordinary people (puthujjana) look for affirmation in religion. They want a Protestant-style Jesus and an amoral metta Buddha to not judge or criticise them at all. Ordinary people (puthujjana) want to be justified by religious figures. Therefore, politics can easily wreck religions, such as Protestantism wrecked Christianity or Wahhabism wrecked Islam. When religion becomes mere amoral narcissistic metta, it becomes worthless. As Jesus said: "You are the salt of the earth but if the salt loses its saltiness it becomes worthless".

Often there is little we can do as Buddhists, apart from following the path and hopefully setting an example and possibly influencing others, high & low, if we can. But using the brute (military & police) force of politics - no - that does not appear to be Buddhist.

Therefore, to offer my opinion on the questions:

Yes, Buddhists can assist in creating the structures of a group or society, as long as that group or society accords with Buddhist doctrine.
Yes, Buddhists can embrace the established structures of a group or society, as long as that group or society accords with Buddhist doctrine.
Yes, Buddhists can assist defend others by enforcing the established authority of a group or society, as long as that defense & enforcement accords with Buddhist doctrine.
Yes, Buddhists can, without violence, push away or overthrow the established structures of a group or society, as long as that group or society accords with Buddhist doctrine.
Yes, Buddhists can defend others by pushing away or overthrowing the established authority of a group or society, as long as that new group or new society accords with Buddhist doctrine.

In other words:

Supporting Communism appeared not Buddhist.
Edorsement of violent Western imperialism appeared not Buddhist.
Supporting the myths of the $7 trillion taxpayer funded War On Terror against nations unrelated to the 9/11 attacks that kills & uproots millions of innocent people is not Buddhist.
Supporting psychopathic mass-murders who create deadly covert wars is not Buddhist.
Promoting abortion is not Buddhist.
Actively recruiting unsuitable people to Buddhism who may actually not be partial to the true teachings & thus attempt to change the true teachings, doesn't sound like it is Buddhist.


How to deal with petty anger? There are at present time only two things which still give me emotional responses that I seemingly have no control over. The one that I will be dealing with in this question is my inability to stop getting frustrated with video games.

So, while I do not expect that the Buddha had any remarks about how to treat your Jungler on League of Legends, I would be interested to hear any parallels in Buddhist philosophy as it pertains to the real world.

So, I will word it in reality.

When someone is doing something which I find disagreeable, and which negatively impacts me, how should I avoid falling into the trap of being angry at them for "sabotaging" me? More importantly, how do I avoid seeing it as sabotage, when surely they are doing what they think is right?

How do I avoid being angry at false expectations? In Stoic philosophy, there is this notion of avoiding expectation—i.e., there is no reason to believe that what I wish to happen will happen, and that nothing is owed to me. Are there meditative practices which can assist with this?

What does the Buddha say about these things? Or what does Buddhist philosophy have to say?

Petty anger is resentment.
From DN33 we are told:

Nine grounds for resentment. Thinking: ‘They did wrong to me,’ you harbor resentment. Thinking: ‘They are doing wrong to me’ … ‘They will do wrong to me’ … ‘They did wrong by someone I love’ … ‘They are doing wrong by someone I love’ … ‘They will do wrong by someone I love’ … ‘They helped someone I dislike’ … ‘They are helping someone I dislike’ … Thinking: ‘They will help someone I dislike,’ you harbor resentment.
Nine methods to get rid of resentment. Thinking: ‘They did wrong to me, but what can I possibly do?’ you get rid of resentment. Thinking: ‘They are doing wrong to me …’ … ‘They will do wrong to me …’ … ‘They did wrong by someone I love …’ … ‘They are doing wrong by someone I love …’ … ‘They will do wrong by someone I love …’ … ‘They helped someone I dislike …’ … ‘They are helping someone I dislike …’ … Thinking: ‘They will help someone I dislike, but what can I possibly do?’ you get rid of resentment.

I can confirm through personal experience that the above does in fact work in everyday life. Memorize and repeat.


What are some good sources to know more about the Buddha and his teachings When I was going through difficult face my life, I read little bit about the Buddha's thoughts and it really changed my life. When I started to think from his perspective, I explored a new way of looking at Life which was amazing.

I want to know more about his philosophy towards LIFE. I tried Wiki and other article over the internet, But it doesn't satisfies me. Can anybody suggest me any good source like any book English or Hindi.

Some introductory online resources are listed in the Useful resources section at the top of the Help page.


Why don't we realise space instead of Nibbana? Modes of Production
“What is it that is kamma-born, what cause-born, and what
season-born? What is it that is none of these?”
“All beings, O king are kamma-born. Fire, and all things
growing out of seeds are cause-born. The earth, water and
wind are season-born. Space and nibbàna exist independently
of kamma, cause and season. Of nibbàna, O king, it cannot
be said that it is perceptible by the five senses, but it is perceptible
by the mind. The disciple whose mind is pure, and
free from obstructions, can perceive nibbàna.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/milinda.pdf

What do you mean by "realize"? See the definition of Ākāsa here, which begins,

  'space', is, according to Com., of two kinds:

  limited space (paricchinnākāsa or paricchedākāsa),
  endless space (anantākāsa), i.e. cosmic space.

  1) Limited space, under the name of ākāsa-dhātu (space element), belongs to derived corporeality (s. khandha, Summary I; Dhs 638) and to a six fold classification of elements (s. dhātu; M.112, M.115, M.140). It is also an object of kasina meditation. It is defined as follows: "The space element has the characteristic of delimiting matter. Its function is to indicate the boundaries of matter. It is manifested as the confines of matter; or its manifestation consists in being untouched (by the 4 great elements), and in holes and apertures. Its proximate cause is the matter delimited. It is on account of the space element that one can say of material things delimited that 'this is above. below, around that' " (Vis.M. XIV.63).

  2) Endless space is called in Atthasālini ajatākāsa, 'unentangled', i.e. unobstructed or empty space. It is the object of the first immaterial absorption (s. jhāna), the sphere of boundless space (ākāsānañcāyatana). According to Abhidhamma philosophy, endless space has no objective reality (being purely conceptual), which is indicated by the fact that it is not included in the triad of the wholesome (kusalatika), which comprises the entire reality. Later Buddhist schools have regarded it as one of several unconditioned or uncreated states (asankhata dharma) - a view that is rejected in Kath. (s. Guide. p. 70). Theravāda Buddhism recognizes only Nibbāna as an unconditioned element (asankhata-dhātu: s. Dhs. 1084).

So maybe people do perceive space: both limited space (in ordinary perception) and unlimited space (as an object of meditation).


Reborn in heaven and perfect sila/morality Does someone have to have perfect morality or sila in order to be reborn in a heavenly realm? If yes, could someone provide the source?

No. A person does not need to have perfect morality to be reborn in a heavenly realm. The quote below should be self-explanatory.

From MN 136:

  "Now there is the person who has killed living beings here... has had
  wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But (perhaps)
  the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the
  good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right
  view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. And
  that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappeared in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But since he
  has killed living beings here... has had wrong view, he will feel the
  result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some
  subsequent existence.


Fearful of Compassion I started practising compassion meditation, and initially it worked very well. Yet, I feel more averse to it than initially, and when I meditate I sometimes experience a kind of distorted facial expression, almost as if I experienced pain. Part of my psychology-related background leads me to think this is either fear of compassion, or even repressed contents surfacing to consciousness.

1) Is there any way to bypass this obstacle to meditation?

2) Is there anything in Buddhist literature about fearing/aversion to compassion?

3) Is there anything to suggest some memories or karma may surface in meditation, or even simply other inner contents?

Thank you

1) Is there any way to bypass this obstacle to meditation?

2) Is there anything in Buddhist literature about fearing/aversion to compassion?

3) Is there anything to suggest some memories or karma may surface in meditation, or even simply other inner contents?

Beginning with the third question, the most effective meditation to start with is that which brings up repressed or subconscious thoughts and feelings and gets rid of them. (Bodhidharma called this cleaning house.) Anything thought that makes you uncomfortable can help you to identify these negative feelings. Once you identify a negative feeling towards someone, use Lester Levenson's Release Technique to let go of it, and then change it to a feeling of love. While the Contemplation on the Four Sublime States has you begin with people you care about, I think it's better to do the opposite. Make a list of everyone you dislike, beginning with those you dislike the most. Go down the list and work on loving each person in order; don't move on until you feel only love for each. Do this daily until you feel love for everyone. Jeffery Martin calls this the Lester Levenson Love Exercise.


Why Buddha lined up four brahmavihara in the chronological order 'metta, karuna, mudita and upeksha' It might have been from easiest cultivatable brahmavihara to the most difficult. Such that equanimity is the hardest and metta being the easiest. Is there any indication in the sutta to answer this question ?

The practitioner wishes to let the being took the benefit&happiness, lovingkindness, so the practitioner wishes to help that being when that being is suffering, wishes to congratulate with that being when he is happy, and is equanimity when whatever happen.

Upekka, equanimity, is not easier than the other three. The practitioner is ignoring, doing not care, when he practices Upekkha without practicing the other three before, i.e. the healthy practitioner is not equanimity but he is ignoring when he doesn't care the standing old woman on the bus while he is sitting.

See the path of purification brahmavihāraniddesa:

  Ñ(IX,109): One who wants to develop these four should practice them
  towards beings first as the promotion of the aspect of benefit—and
  lovingkindness has the promotion of the aspect of benefit as its
  characteristic;
  Ñ: and next, on seeing or hearing or judging that beings whose
  benefit has been thus wished for are at the mercy of suffering, they
  should be practiced as the promotion of the aspect of the removal of
  suffering—and compassion has the promotion of the aspect of the
  removal of suffering as its characteristic;
  Ñ: and then, on seeing the success of those whose benefit has been
  wished for and the removal of whose suffering has been wished for,
  they should be practiced as being glad—and gladness has the act of
  gladdening as its characteristic;
  Ñ: but after that, there is nothing to be done and so they should be
  practiced as the neutral aspect, in other words, the state of an
  onlooker—and equanimity has the promotion of the aspect of
  neutrality as its characteristic;

  Ñ: therefore, since their respective aims are the aspect of benefit,
  etc., their order should be understood to correspond, with loving
  kindness stated first, then compassion, gladness, and equanimity.


How can one point to one's consciousness? For example, I can point to my eye:

the eye itself;

I can point to an object of the eye:

a book;

But I cannot point to the eye-consciousness that arises based on the two.

From MN 28:

  If, friends, internally the eye is intact but no external forms come into its range, and there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range, but there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.

Trying to point to one's consciousness is like trying to point at the wind. One can't really "point" it out. One can only point to its manifestation. How to point at the wind? When seeing a tree and its branches are shaking or feeling a breeze brushing against one's face, etc. Similarly, how to point out one's eye consciousness? By the fact that one's able to cognize the form object like a book, a table, etc..


Is intention "conscious energy" in Buddhism? I read the following intentional thought on the internet:

Intention is directed conscious energy. When we think about doing
something, where does that energy go? Thoughts like these are created
before every conscious action as a means to mitigate the quantity and
quality of the repercussion. If an individual cultivates an intention
enough, the chances of inadvertently performing the action is more
within reason.

What is "conscious energy" in Buddhism?

In Buddhism, does "conscious intention" mean "wise intention"?

If cultivating intention leads to action more within reason, are ignorant actions without intention or unintentional in Buddhism?

I can only define this from a Theravada perspective, that being: intention is the energizing of action which comes about through sensory stimulation. In that way, it could be seen as 'directed conscious energy' because, in Theravada, they often use the six-sense consciousnesses model. For instance, an object impedes the eye, a feeling/perception initiates intention. The conglomerate (heaped mass) of these components is called consciousness, or in this instance 'eye consciousness', (Pali: cakkhu-viññāṇa). It begins with form, the first of the five aggregates. That's how the passage you have quoted reads to me.
Now, occasionally I write my own suttas and as I was responding to this, one of my suttas came to mind. Here is an excerpt that may strengthen my interpretation of the passage you quoted.
...Furthermore, monks - form, feeling, perception and volition are to be observed as they are. Imagine four town pigeons in place of these four aggregates wondering loosely in the same vicinity. When food is thrown down, they swarm towards that food, they gather around that food and, in doing so, they appear to create a single mass. That single mass makes up the fifth aggregate of consciousness. In the same way, when a sense object is thrown into the range of the eye organ, form, feeling, perception and volition gather and contract into a subjective experience brought about by contact with that sense object. That very subjective experience is known as consciousness. Monks, this is birth...
In other spiritual fields, conscious energy might be given a different interpretation. For example, conscious energy could be confused with mindfulness in Buddhism and I think this answers your second question.
From a Theravada perspective, (using the six-sense consciousnesses model) directed conscious energy can be seen to produce one of three actions from which their corresponding results occur - vipaka:  wholesome, unwholesome or neutral or kusala, akusala and avyākata respectively.
To conclude, it might be best to relinquish the narrowing down of any interpretation of 'directed conscious energy' and keep it within the wider scope of the previous paragraph.


How to part with potentially harmful possessions In line with my understanding of the teachings, I have been letting go of many possessions that have been accumulating in my life. I realized they really are unnecessary, they mostly just add stress to my life, and I can possibly use them to do good for myself and others by turning them into gifts/dana.
I decided to clear out my parents garage of most of the things they are storing from my childhood. Initially, I quickly came up with the plan to sell all the valuables donating their proceeds to the Sangha, and donate anything else to Goodwill or a similar non-profit thrift store. However, as I thought about it, I began to consider the Buddha's teachings about right livelihood and the five trades he specifically discouraged as well as his teachings to the actor, Talaputa.
My understanding of this teaching regarding livelihood is that the Buddha discourages participating in trade where you will be harmed or encourage others to be harmed through the breaking of the precepts, or in arousing passions, aversion or delusion. As I thought about this, I have started wondering: is it right to sell my old valuables, or even give away possessions that may cause this kind of harm to their recipients? Would it be better to just throw these things away?
I would like to keep the question general, as perhaps others will have this same dilemma but have different possessions; but in my case, there are a few notable examples that have me perplexed, including:
Things that could be classified as weapons like fishing poles, fishing tackle. Fishing/camping/bushcraft knives.
Things that have fed my passion for sensuality (and still do even as I have firmly decided to part with them). Like my trading card game collections of Magic the Gathering and Pokemon. And my collection of retro video games.
Even things like kids toys, stuffed animals, action figures, nerf guns all seem like they will excite passion, aversion and delusion in their ultimate recipients.
So I am having this dilemma, because some of the things are valuable and could become support for the Sangha through the donation of the proceeds. But, the vast majority of the items are now questionable to me as to whether they cause harm. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to part with these possessions skillfully?

[Angulimala:] "At long last a greatly revered great seer  for my sake
has come to the great forest. Having heard your verse in line with the
Dhamma, I will go about having abandoned evil."
So saying, the bandit hurled his sword & weapons    over a cliff    into
a chasm,
a pit. Then the bandit paid homage to the feet of the One Well-gone, and right there requested the Going-forth.
The Awakened One, the compassionate great seer, the teacher of the
world, along with its devas, said to him then:    "Come, bhikkhu." That
in itself was bhikkhuhood for him.
Angulimala Sutta


Why Lord Buddha didn't stay alive till the end of this "Kalpa" I have heard that Lord Buddha once told Ananda thero that a Buddha can live till the end of a Kalpa, if he wishes so. He did this because he wanted Ananda thero to invite him to live till the end of the Kalpa.

But, Ananda thero did not invite him as Maaraya was inside his head.

My question is, if Lord Buddha was able to read minds and see future, why did he asked that question in the first place ?

Why didn't he lived till the end of this Kalpa himself ?

What I am missing here ?

The Buddha did not ask venerable Ananda to invite him to extend his life. He only hinted that it is possible for him to do so.

Mara's Appeal

And when the Venerable Ananda had gone away, Mara, the Evil One, approached the Blessed One. And standing at one side he spoke to the
Blessed One, saying: "Now, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his
final passing away; let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has
come for the Parinibbana of the Lord.

"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not
come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and
bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples —
wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma,
living according to the Dhamma, abiding by the appropriate conduct,
and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach
it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and
make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able
to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and
liberating Dhamma.' [23]

"And now, O Lord, bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have become the Blessed One's disciples in just this way. So, O Lord,
let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! The time has come
for the Parinibbana of the Lord.

"For the Blessed One, O Lord, spoke these words to me: 'I shall not
come to my final passing away, Evil One, until this holy life taught
by me has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular, and
widespread, until it is well proclaimed among gods and men.' And this
too has come to pass in just this way. So, O Lord, let the Blessed One
come to his final passing away, let the Happy One utterly pass away!
The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord."
......................................................
-Maha Parinibbana Sutta

Buddhas do as they proclaim, so once the Sasana is well established, the lord would not extend life without an invitation as Buddhas do not have the desire to live on. Besides, venerable Ananda was the one attending to the Buddha. So it is only proper that the Buddha hinted it to him. Also, it was always going to be someone who has not yet attained Arahanthship that should invite the Buddha to stay on as Arahanths have already achieved what needs to be achieved and do not require the Buddha to stay.
Buddhists do not believe in determinism. The future is not fixed in all situations. Only some things can be predicted to happen for sure. The Mara stopping venerable Ananda from inviting the Buddha was not destined to happen. He would have invited if he was able to overcome Mara at that time.
In any case, the word Kalpa here means an Ayu-Kalpa. Which means the Buddha would have lived 120 years at most, even if ven. Ananda had invited.


Are there any Buddhist monasteries near Varanasi? I am in Varanasi , India where Buddha gave his sermons. I want to know ,are there any Buddhist monasteries near Varanasi ?

Venerable Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche has built a classic Tibetan monastery in Sarnath called Vajra Vidya Institute. When you reach Sarnath, go to the backside of the Deer Park. The area is known as Kajoohay. Ask for directions to the "Big Tibetan Temple" or "Big Mandhir".

There are other Buddhist temples and monasteries in Sarnath: Tibetan, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Sri Lankan, Cambodian, Vietnamese etc.


What is the goal of Meditation- is it increasing the gap? When I sit for meditation, sometimes I realize my breath has stopped and thoughts are subtle, for but a very minimum amount of time, but that time I feel totally in a present moment, in a moment.

It this a goal of meditation? or something else? or analyzing? When is the awareness aware of awareness? Is feeling the gap awareness?

Source: Anapanasati

If you see step 4 above it says "Tranquilise the bodily activities". In this stage you do calm the breath, i.e., increase the gap, but you do not manipulate the breath directly.

For further reference on claiming the breath see: LECTURE THREE: CALMING THE KAYA from ANAPANASATI - MINDFULNESS WITH BREATHING Unveiling the Secrets of Life: a Manual for Serious Beginners by BUDDHADASA BHIKKHU, Knowing and Seeing 4th Ed. by Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw p35.

Also in meditation you have to be in the present moment and see arising and passing or sensation at the present moment as you have realise.


Buddhas of The Ten Directions What are the Buddhas of the ten directions?  What are the applications of this teaching in the Buddhist traditions?

Firstly, what are the 10 directions:

  "Specifically, the ten directions are the eight directions of the
  compass—north, south, east, west, northwest, northeast, southeast, and
  southwest—plus up and down."

ref: http://www.sgilibrary.org/search_dict.php?id=2245

Second, sutras that attempt to list and describe the 10 buddhas.
http://www.tientai.net/teachings/dharma/buddha/10directions.htm

The traditional cosmology imagined that there could only be one Buddha in the world at a time. By imagining more universes, there could be more than one Buddha.

I think the particular phrase is one of the rhetorical flourishes you see a lot of in Mahayana-- it's a nice way to say all the Buddha's, everywhere.  The various names of the realms and 10 Buddhas mentioned in the Dasabhumika (realms like "Without Distress" or "Skillfulness") and Buddha's name "Virtue of Goodness" and "Practicing the 3 vehicles" are reminders of what the goals of Buddhism are and what is worth emulating.


Does the Buddha deny genetic differences? In MN.98, the Buddha seems to deny the ethnic/racial/genetic differences between humans. He seems to indicate that differences in physical traits between individuals are not determined by birth as in the rest of the animal world. This seems totally contrary to genetics:

I. Humans are genetically part of the animal world and follow the same laws of heritability.

II. Whether we speak of race or ethnicity, there are many identifiable genetic clusters within humanity.

III. Even without going that far it is obvious that between two individuals there will be physical differences according to their genetics (height, eye colors, features, hair, etc). The Buddha seems to deny this completely.

He says for example that the differences in eyes/nose/shoulders, etc., between two individuals are not defined by birth but by convention... this is totally false: children inherit the traits of their parents and two parents with the Asian phenotype do not give birth to an African child by pure chance or convention. I thought it was because he wanted to say that all these genetic differences were conventional and I would have agreed, but it can't be that since he's only saying that for humans and recognizes the validity of these differences for animals and plants... I don't understand this sutta?

  While the differences between these species are defined by their birth, the differences between humans are not defined by their birth. Not by hair nor by head, not by ear nor by eye, not by mouth nor by nose, not by lips nor by eyebrow, not by shoulder nor by neck, not by belly nor by back, not by buttocks nor by breast, not by genitals nor by groin, not by hands nor by feet, not by fingers nor by nails, not by knees nor by thighs, not by color nor by voice: none of these are defined by birth
  as it is for other species. In individual human bodies you can’t find such distinctions. The distinctions among humans are spoken of by convention.

  The Buddha

MN 98 is about "jati" or "social identity". The Buddha says physical birth or "ancestry" is unrelated to jati; that the jatis are verbal designations assigned due to kamma (actions).

For example, Michael Jordan's great great grandparents were probably slaves. Where as Michael Jordan was a sporting superstar & billionaire. Jordan was born at Cumberland Hospital in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, to Deloris, who worked in banking, and James R. Jordan Sr., an equipment supervisor. These distinctions of "slave", "banker", "supervisor" vs "basketball billionaire" are not related to physical birth or ancestry. They are related to social kamma (activity).

Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist. His parents were Hermann Einstein, a salesman and engineer, and Pauline Koch. The Einsteins were non-observant Ashkenazi Jews, and Albert attended a Catholic elementary school.

  You’re a brahmin by your deeds, Kammunā brāhmaṇo hoti,

  and by deeds a non-brahmin. kammunā hoti abrāhmaṇo.

  You’re a farmer by your deeds, Kassako kammunā hoti,

  by deeds you’re a professional; sippiko hoti kammunā;

  you’re a trader by your deeds, Vāṇijo kammunā hoti,

  by deeds are you an employee; pessako hoti kammunā.

  you’re a bandit by your deeds, Coropi kammunā hoti,

  by deeds you’re a soldier; yodhājīvopi kammunā;

  you’re a sacrificer by your deeds, Yājako kammunā hoti,

  by deeds you’re a ruler. rājāpi hoti kammunā.

  In this way in accord with truth, Evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ,

  the astute regard deeds. kammaṃ passanti paṇḍitā;

  Seeing dependent origination, Paṭiccasamuppādadassā,

  they’re expert in deeds and their results. kammavipākakovidā.

  Deeds make the world go on, Kammunā vattati loko,

  deeds make people go on; kammunā vattati pajā;

  sentient beings are bound by deeds, Kammanibandhanā sattā,

  like a moving chariot’s linchpin. rathassāṇīva yāyato.

  MN 98


How can we know the original meaning of a word with certainty? In a lot of discussions here in B.S.E, the topic of the exact meaning of some terms keeps recurring, and nobody seems to have the last word.

Words such as 'upapajjati', 'paccājāyati', 'abhinibbatti' are often translated as "rebirth", but for some, that doesn't seem to be the case. Or other terms as 'deva' or 'abhiñña' are understood as "god" and "psychic powers", respectively. Or even outside of Buddhist culture we find some terms such as 'prana', 'chakra', 'messiah', and so on.

How can we now the way people contemporary to the origin of such words understood those terms?

It is possible that they used those words to describe phenomena that we currently know by other more scientific terms?

For instance, in this entry (https://torvol.wordpress.com/2017/11/27/the-chakra-system-is-an-analogy-to-get-your-shit-together-not-spiritual-woo-woo/), this blogger assures that 'chakras' were the way used to talk about the regulation of emotions.

I hope you can understand my point.

Have a nice day, and thanks for your time!

How can we know the original meaning of a word with certainty?
Yes.
I'm sure there's a scholarly answer -- not this from me though.
Your mentioning "chakras" reminds of something similar, i.e. the "chi" that we're taught in Tai Chi -- which I learned from, was taught by, a Chinese master.
His English wasn't good, even with a translator I didn't ask complicated question, my own Chinese was non-existent though, I'm not complaining. Anyway part of what he'd do is describe the movement of chi -- especially the dan tien for example -- in reply, some students would say they could feel the chi, others not.
Based on a couple of answers (one on Skeptics.SE, another on MartialArts, which I won't reference) I've decided that "chi" doesn't exist as such -- not objectively measurable, and/or not separate from other things.
But ...
A lot of the preliminary work is to affect how you stand -- posture -- knees, hips, back, neck, and so on. We're told to "stand straight" ... and to, "imagine there's a thread, from the sky to the top of your head, and that you're hanging from that thread -- so instead of being pressed and heavy and bent by gravity, you're being pulled and light-weight and hanging straight, with vertebrae aligned each above the other".
The exercise is effective, at least when you see it and follow along.
In reality, there is no such "thread"! :-) -- but I think it's a useful visualisation exercise. It helps you to stand straight ...

I guess I'm getting around to saying that "meaning" of a word is maybe difficult to ascertain.
One way, perhaps an important way, to know a word is by its effect -- what does it mean to you? What does it mean to other people? What is the effect of using the word?
In Tai Chi you can kind of judge how people practice --- how well (they practice), and how beneficial (their practice is).
Perhaps it's something similar in Buddhism -- i.e. you practice for a purpose, towards a purpose ... perhaps a purpose of your own ... or perhaps toward a goal and following a curriculum set by a teacher -- and the meaning of the words might be assessed by their effect, whether they help you to practice.
In a word like "rebirth" I think there are two important questions:

What does it originally mean?
What does it mean to me?

I see those as separate questions. I don't, can't, assume that I know the original meaning. I don't assume that what I understand is the real meaning.
It's partly a matter of ... is "humility" the right word? Knowing what you don't know? For example there's a bunch of stuff I know, that children don't -- how to drive a car, even how to bicycle. I imagine explaining that to a child, if they ask ... or "How does a radio work?" I could use words to explain, but would the words have the same meaning? If I say "electromagnetic radiation", what's that to someone who hasn't studied it? What is it even to someone who has studied it?
Similarly I, being only very ... you know ... a student, I don't think I should assume that I'm able to understand the "meaning" even when it's explained.
But "what does it originally mean?" is an important question. I've posted questions, "what does X mean?", so that people can explain that. And I don't think I should post to say "It doesn't mean that". I don't want to misrepresent, I don't want to falsify the transmission.
It used to be that my knowledge of, access to Buddhism was very second-hand, third-hand, fourth-hand -- e.g. I'd read a book, explaining Buddhism, written by someone who had studied with people who had studied with other people -- and what's written in the book is, sort of, their opinion, their summary ... which is OK but, maybe not reliable, and maybe not much depth, the words are an easy explanation and superficial and there isn't much there, much substance, to study.
So I'm grateful to meet something like an original scripture and be able to study that, like, to be able to read what people are talking about.
But "What does it mean to me?" is an important question too, though. It's good to ask and good to be told, not enough though to be only able to repeat what you've been told. It's like, maybe I go to a Maths lecture -- and being able to repeat what was said, to memorise the lesson, that's one thing -- to use what's learned, to understand new (Maths) problems and to know how to solve them properly, that's another.
So I take an interest in both:

What is the, what is an, orthodox doctrine ... about the meaning? Can I understand it? Can I reference it? Can I, even, repeat it without distorting it?
Are there several orthodox doctrines? Not overly surprising if there were. Does a word have more than one meaning? Does the meaning depend on the context? Did it have several meanings in the original? If several people understood it, did it have several meanings then? Was it intended for several people, perhaps with different understandings?

What does it mean to me? How can I use that doctrine? Can I use it? If I only understand it partially, is there a part of it I can use?

I guess a final question might be, how do I manage a part doctrine that I don't understand? I guess I "neither approve nor disapprove" but "put it aside". There's a lot of knowledge in the world -- practical and theoretical knowledge, science, arts, know-how -- the fact that I don't know something or don't understand it doesn't mean it's untrue, doesn't mean it's impractical, or badly taught.
nobody seems to have the last word
No.
This is meant to be a Q+A site, is one thing, so in theory everybody "has the last word". You ask a question, people answer, and you select from among the answers to build your own understanding. There may be some good answers, maybe some less good, you don't always have to have the last word, or do you.
One of the stack exchange guidelines I read was that answers should be "backed up" or "based on" something, either:

A reference
Something you have experience personally

I think that's quite a good guideline for this site and this topic (i.e. Buddhism) too.
If I answer I like to ...

provide a reference
and/or, explain from my personal experience

... and by doing that I hope to be not misleading.
(Not that all answers require references on this site ... e.g. with many people/users/readers are familiar with the same doctrines and it's often enough and more convenient to explain a doctrine without references).

Perhaps I should, I don't know whether I should, mention one more thing -- i.e. that you might want to know, be certain of, your own understanding -- perhaps to ask, "what do I understand?", to avoid confusion.
For me personally I think it's right to, I think we're taught to, disentangle from a "thicket of views", perhaps recognise and avoid "a thicket" from a distance, maybe "know your own mind" for what that's worth as they in English, and maybe no "It means this! No, it means that!" like the sectarians.


Did the Buddha ever cure someone? Perhaps you could say that by teaching his path he healed many people; but what I meant is more direct, physical healing: is there something written about that?

This article Ministering to the Sick and the Terminally Ill contains examples (references to suttas and the vinaya), certainly of caring for or ministering to people who are physically unwell.

There are also some accounts of people being "healed": see for example the paragraphs which begin,

  It seems that those who are highly developed mentally are able to suppress illness ...

See also the paragraph which begins,

  The advice given by Nakulamata to Nakulapita ...


Is anxiety connected to the three unwholesome roots? I have read that anxiety/worry is unwholesome. Is this because it is a form of aversion, one of the three unwholesome roots, or something else?

Anxiety/worry taken together are one of the five "nīvarana" in the Buddha Dhamma. "Nīvarana" are states of mind that conceals, hinders, covers, prevents the understanding of the true nature things.

Restlessness (uddhacca) and worry (kukkucca)

  Restlessness (uddhacca) has the characteristic of disquietude,
  like water whipped by the wind. Its function is to make the mind
  unsteady, as the wind makes a banner ripple. It is manifested as
  turmoil. Its proximate cause is unwise attention to mental disquiet.

  Kukkucca is worry or remorse after having done wrong. Its
  characteristic is subsequent regret. Its function is to sorrow over
  what has and what has not been done. It is manifested as remorse. Its
  proximate cause is what has and what has not been done (i.e. wrongs of
  commission and omission).

Bhikkhu Bodhi

  Is this because it is a form of aversion, one of the three unwholesome
  roots, or something else?

Yes, and could also be caused by the other 2 unwholesome roots as well. Anxiety can be due to a state of conflict. The mind in a fight or flight situation. Or caused by a state of desire, an expectation, or a state of ignorance.

Restlessness and worry are painful states of existence.

You can find more about the 5 Hindrances here and recommendations on how to overcome them.

May you be happy.


Friend who is the same in happiness and sorrow Sigalovada Sutta: The Discourse to Sigala
The Layperson's Code of Discipline includes,

"These four, young householder, should be understood as warm-hearted friends:
(1) he who is a helpmate,
(2) he who is the same in happiness and sorrow,
(3) he who gives good counsel,
(4) he who sympathises.

And

(2) "In four ways, young householder, should one who is the same in happiness and sorrow be understood as a warm-hearted friend:
(i) he reveals his secrets,
(ii) he conceals one's own secrets,
(iii) in misfortune he does not forsake one,
(iv) his life even he sacrifices for one's sake.

I thought I could guess the correlation between being "warm-hearted" and being "the same in happiness and sorrow"; but, my guesses didn't really match any of the four ways given, except for the 3rd way (i.e. perhaps I understand why "being the same" includes "does not forsake", but don't understand the others). So:

Does "being the same in happiness and sorrow" mean Upekkha?
Does "warm-hearted friend" mean Kalyana Mittas?
Why are revealing and concealing secrets mentioned? What kinds of secrets? What do "secrets" have to do with being "the same in happiness and sorrow"?
The last item, "his life even he sacrifices for one's sake" -- can that be reconciled with the answers to the question, How to be compassionate to a friend in need? Those answers seem to suggest that you can only help yourself.

In indo-european folklore the common expression "the same in happiness and sorrow" usually means one who stays a loyal friend not only in happy times but also in times of trouble, when having all responsibilities of a true friend could be taxing. This corresponds with #3 on the list, "in misfortune he does not forsake one".

By extension, "the same in happiness and sorrow" means one who is not seeking a benefit for oneself from the friendship, but sincerely gives oneself away to the friend. This is where the other three come from:

  (i) he reveals his secrets,
  (ii) he conceals one's own secrets,
  ...
  (iv) his life even he sacrifices for one's sake.

"Warm-hearted" means a friend whose relationship of trust and commitment comes from the heart, is unforced and natural. Such friend would not have to make an effort to "sacrifice his life for one's sake", it would come naturally.

Altogether, the above is not to be understood literally, but is meant to portray the attitude of uncalculated selfless fondness, almost love, as the perfection of friendship.


Is peeking a "blind box" considered as stealing? Or breaking of any precepts? Blind Box means you don't know which specific design from a series you might be receiving.
The boxes and/or bags are sealed and we don't know which toy is inside them.
It's kinda like buying trading cards, except you don't get pieces of cards, you get a cool toy.
Lots of series even feature rare special designs.

Imagine this scenario, I want a Spiderman toy from a blind box set. There are 3 ways I can do.

Buy a few until I get "Spiderman"
Go ebay or some other website to buy from someone else whom had bought and open those blind boxes. It will cost more. And if "Spiderman" happens to be the "rare special designs", it will probably cost a few times more.
Secretly open those boxes carefully in toy-r-us or some other shop and take a peek. If it's "Spiderman", I'll buy it. Else, I'll repeat step 3 until I find "Spiderman".

My question is whether method 3 is considered as stealing or breaking of any precepts?
Let's make an assumption that peeking the box doesn't spoil the packaging, and therefore other consumers will still want to buy it if they want to.

The answer is that '''I want a Spiderman toy from a blind box set''   is the opposite of  samma sankappa (aspiration towards renunciation and good will) https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html so you are not on the path and create karma once you act on this will, (creating karma is always the opposite of the path, even creating good karma), which in your post is speculating about how to get the right box, then later on executing your plan which is peeking, then choosing the box.

The way to respect the precept is not to compare each one of your activities with the precepts and then speculate whether or not your actions comply with them, in order to determine whether or not you are a good person. If you compare your actions with the precepts, it just means you are already on the verge of breaking the precepts.
The precepts are here to be an explicit border for your actions. If you wonder or not your actions break a precepts, like precept of taking what is not given,  then it just means you do not understand samma ditthi nor samma sankappa, which is normal for any puthujjana, especially a puthujjana who does not get the citta into samma samadhi.

THe way to respect the precepts is to first track and judge your thoughts and vedanna+sanna, to judge  whether the thoughts and vedanna are meritorious or not (for most puthujjanas, the vedanas, sannas and thougths experienced are demeritorious), to judge whether they lead to affliction to somebody, and then to strive to execute only good thoughts.
This way, you are guaranteed to never ever break a precept. The next step is to ''incline the citta towards renunciation'' by seeing the danger in lust for sensuality and ill-will https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.041.than.html. At this point you get samma samadhi and you can make merit (respecting the precept and avoiding bad thoughts is more about avoiding demeritorious actions than generating merit) since well the samma samadhi is the way to get ''desirable contact'', meaning meritorious vedana, sanna and creating good karma.
THis is what the buddha explains here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html

Once you want to stop making karma, you really need to destroy the sankharas, so even abiding in the jhanas as a puthujjana is not enough. of course, in theory getting samma smadhi from samma ditthi already does not rely on sankharas, therefore only generates ''kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.'', from here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html,  but in practice puthujjanas always rely on sankharas, especially at the beginning, because they have to force themsleves  to follow only the good thoughts.

in one sutta, the proper behavior is here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.200.than.html https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN45_2.html


Does any real existent or genuine person end with parinibbana? Does modern Theravada accept that no real person ends with the break up of the body of a realized one? That the moment after the break up of the body of a realized one is the same as the moment before?

In SN 22.85 With Yamaka (sujato) and alternative translation Sariputta seems to rebut the notion that any substantial change happens during the break up of the body of a realized one:

  Now at that time a mendicant called Yamaka had the following harmful
  misconception: “As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who
  has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.”

  Several mendicants heard about this. They went to Yamaka and exchanged
  greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were
  over, they sat down to one side and said to him:

  “Is it really true, Reverend Yamaka, that you have such a harmful
  misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who
  has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body
  breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’” “Yes, reverends, that’s
  how I understand the Buddha’s teaching.”

  “Don’t say that, Yamaka! Don’t misrepresent the Buddha, for
  misrepresentation of the Buddha is not good. And the Buddha would not
  say that.” But even though admonished by those mendicants, Yamaka
  obstinately held on to that misconception and insisted on stating it.

After talking with Sariputta it seems Yamaka has a change of heart after this question by Sariputta:

  “What do you think, Yamaka? Do you regard the Realized One as one who
  is without form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
  “No, reverend.” “In that case, Reverend Yamaka, since you don’t
  acknowledge the Realized One as a genuine fact in the present life, is
  it appropriate to declare: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a
  mendicant who has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed
  when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’?”

Here is the same portion in Venerable Bodhi's translation:

  “But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real
  and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare:
  ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
  taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
  the body and does not exist after death’?”

So does this mean the break up of the body is just like any moment in this very life where moment to moment no person truly ends or changes because a real person doesn't truly exist in the first place?

EDIT:

I'm aware that orthodox Theravada tenet systems posit the selflessness of persons, but are either agnostic or outright reject the selflessness of phenomena. However, most pali canon suttas seem to stop at the coarse level of selflessness, but here Sariputta seems to be speaking about the subtler levels of the selflessness of persons if only in embryonic form. Is this true?

Also, if the body of a person is regarded as a real substantial thing in Theravada how about the consciousness of a person? Is that regarded as a real substantial thing?

I think you (the OP) have mistakenly assumed that the Pali Yamaka Sutta supports the Mahayana Madhyamika concept of emptiness that nothing is substantially real.

Actually, the Yamaka Sutta quote of the Bodhi translation indeed confirms emptiness, but it's the Theravada emptiness and not the Mahayana emptiness. And what is the Theravada emptiness? It's that all phenomena is empty of a self (see Suñña Sutta). Before parinibbana, there was no self (as in an eternal self or soul at the core of the Buddha's being) that has suddenly ceased to exist after parinibbana.

However, the Pali suttas do not explicitly support the Mahayana Madhyamika concept of emptiness. The  Buddha's body was considered to be real but not constant or permanent. It is subject to change, arising and ceasing. But that does not mean that it's not real in Theravada.

To prove this, I'll quote Itivuttaka 44:

  This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property.
  Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding
  property with no fuel remaining.

  And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining. (Note1)

  And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining." (Note2)

  Note1 and Note2 by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:
  With fuel remaining
  (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy
  here is to a fire. In the first case, the flames are out, but the
  embers are still glowing. In the second, the fire is so thoroughly out
  that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel" here is the five
  aggregates. While the arahant is still alive,
  he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not burn
  with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the arahant
  passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates here or
  anywhere else.

Next, to answer the question:

  OP: So does this mean death is just like any moment in this very life where moment to moment nothing truly ends or changes because it
  doesn't truly exist in the first place?

Before and after the Buddha's final passing, all phenomena is empty of a self. The Buddha's five aggregates existed and was subject to change, arising and passing. Nibbana existed and does not change, arise or pass away. But the self (in the sense of an eternal self or soul at the core of our being) never existed at any time, in all phenomena, including the five aggregates and Nibbana. This is the interpretation according to Theravada.

Your interpretation appears to be different and based upon the concept of Mahayana emptiness.


How to change myself? It seems that no matter how much I meditate, practice mindfulness, read dhamma books and attempt to follow the 8fold path etc it only takes one little thing to happen and I just instantly revert to very entrenched maladaptive, negative, and I suppose conditioned thoughts and behaviours.Then I feel lots of shame, hopelessness and guilt etc. how do I work with this and change myself for the better  permanently?   I've changed a little since I begun about 6 years ago but I'm impatient as life is going by very quickly, I'm getting older and I want to be happy and live a fulfilling life  but I keep thinking, saying and doing  things that are not conducive towards that. I don't have much hope that I'll ever make any lasting positive change.  My brain seems to be wired to fail.   How can buddhism help me with this conundrum?

So a client hires me as their personal trainer.  They say, "I've been working out for five years.  I never see any results.  I just don't think I'll ever get into shape!"  I ask them to workout for me.  They go from machine to machine doing all sorts of bizarre rep schemes.  They take five minutes between sets.  They use weight that's easily 50% less than what they should be doing.  They get on the treadmill and do ten minutes at about 2.5 MPH.  I ask them how often they do their workout out.  "At least once a week.  Sometimes twice.  Sometimes I don't go at all."

I put them on a basic, consistent, progressive program.  Since they are paying me $25 an hour whether they come or not, suddenly they start going to the gym with more frequency.  After six weeks, they've seen more progress than in their previous five years of training.

Seng Ts'an says that "to live in the great way is neither easy nor difficult, but those with limited views are fearful and irresolute."  If I was to look at your practice, how much would it resemble one of my fitness clients?  Are you really showing up or are you just going through the motions with your practice?

Simple exercise regiments often work just as well as the most complicated.  The deciding factors are effort and consistency.  The Buddhist path is no different.  At most, there are three things to keep in mind - sila, samadhi, and prajna.  Practice these three things wholeheartedly and you will make progress.  It's absolutely inevitable.  This means paying close attention to the precepts, meditating every day for at least an hour, going on regular retreats, and meeting often with your teacher.  It also helps to sit with a sangha.  This gives you accountability in a way that practicing by yourself simply cannot.

You can change, you simply have to work at it with everything you've got.  If you get derailed, simply get back on the cushion and keep going.


Why is “nibbana” considered to be “unconditioned”? I’m aware that a similar question has been asked before:
How is Nibbana unconditioned?
However, I’m looking for an answer (1) in the language of science that is (2) clear and comprehensible to readers who know nothing of buddhism. i.e. In the spirit of the great teacher, Richard Feynman, answers which depend only upon concepts which the general public are familiar with.
The term “nibbana”:
For example, I’m assuming that nibbana, when observed in a brain scan, looks something like the subjugation of the “task negative network” by the “task positive network.”
The term “conditioned”:
My understanding is that the term “conditioned” has its origins in “dependent origination”.
Bhikkhu Bodhi, for example, says the “hallmark of the dharma” is the verse “All phenomenon originate with causes and conditions and with the cessation of those conditions, the dependent phenomenon also cease.”
For example:
From the 4 noble truths:
The origin of suffering is craving and clinging.
The conditions which give rise to suffering are “craving and clinging”.
With the cessation of craving and clinging, the dependent phenomenon, suffering, also ceases.
From this example, my best guess is that “unconditioned” simply means the cessation of the arising of the conditions (craving and clinging) which give rise to suffering. i.e. un-conditioned means the cessation of conditions.
It does not mean that the mind state of nibbana can be achieved without creating the conditions of the cessation of craving and clinging.
Is this correct?

Good question. Nirvana/Nibbana is not a state of mind, rather it's a quality or an aspect that is always present regardless of any conditions, but even though it's always present it is not always seen. The state of being aware of the ever-present N is dependent on conditions while the N itself is not.
You know this quality of mind that watches everything silently and just witnesses things without judging, whether circumstances are good or bad and whether you're well or tired or scared? N is similar because it doesn't stop nor change regardless of circumstances, not even when you're asleep or dead. This is why it's called unconditional.
Traditionally they say there are three ways to approach seeing N. One is through methodical incremental cessation of progressively more and more subtle forms of conflict inherent to craving/aversion, even of conflict inherent to aversion towards samsara and craving for N. Once you completely stopped generating conflict, completely gave up all aversion and craving - what's left to be experienced is N, pure and simple.
Another method is a bit more technical, it involves tracing how in your mind things are always defined relative to one another by dividing some sort of Whole into e.g. left and right, this and that, object and background, better and worse etc. In this method we try to ascend this graph of relative definitions up to its root by climbing the ladder of progressively more and more subtle forms of division that generates such relative concepts. The root of the graph is N which is not defined relative to anything else.
The third and final method consists in methodically trying to find something unalienable that truly belongs to oneself and cannot be taken away by the unstoppable passage of time nor swayed by circumstances. In this method one analyzes and discards all things that are subject to change and cessation, starting from obvious ones such as the physical body and moving on to subtle things such as one's memories, sense of identity, and various states of mind. As one fully and exhaustively understands the workings of conditionality and conditionally dependent arising/cessation of phenomena, one arrives at the only remaining answer, which is N.
From these explanations it should be clear that N is not something limited that is defined in juxtaposition to anything else and this unbounded supraconceptual suchness is exactly what allows it to not be dependent on any conditions or circumstances.


Why are children represented as inessential in some Buddhist text? There are multiple question related to this already asked, but none of the response or question address as to why children are presented in Buddhist text as inessential, such as these:

  … That is not a strong fetter, the wise say, which is made of iron,
  wood or hemp. But the infatuation and longing for jewels and
  ornaments, children and wives — that, they say, is a far stronger
  fetter, which pulls one downward and, though seemingly loose, is hard
  to remove…

again

  … Ten children I bore from this physical heap. Then weak from that,
  aged, I went to a nun. She taught me the Dhamma

and again

  …. Those with children    grieve because of their children. Those with
  cattle grieve because of their cows. A person's grief comes from
  acquisitions, since a person with no acquisitions doesn't grieve…

again What the Buddha said to Visakha when she express her wish to have as many children & grandchildren.

  “those who have a hundred dear ones have a hundred sufferings”

and many more can be listed.

With such representation, how do lay Buddhists reconcile have children ask skillful?

Such texts should be read in context: written for and by the Sangha - and mostly for and by male-sangha, though you found one quote that sounds like a tired grandmother.

Buddhism is really a dual religion. The religion for lay-people is very practical: attend to your duties and avoid wrong-doing. That includes taking care of any partner and children. Traditionally things like meditation were limited to the Sangha, and a minority in there as well.

If you want to become a monk or nun, obviously children are an obstacle as long as they're young. And women do - especially when there is no good medical help - suffer physically from childbirth. Without proper medical attention women die in childbirth in alarming numbers. Women who survived that and grew to an age where they were free to become nuns (very much a minority at any time in Buddhist history) would be encouraged to meditate on topics that helped them let go of their attachment to their children and focus also on the limitations of the body that bore them. No wonder one writes:

  … Ten children I bore from this physical heap. Then weak from that, aged, I went to a nun. She taught me the Dhamma

The Buddha himself walked away from his wife and son - which is hardly a good example to follow. The only mitigating circumstance was that his father was rich and quite capable of taking care of them.

As lay people we should read such texts within their context: written by monks, for monks. They're not written for lay people. Lay people did not have access to texts and most of the texts that survived don't portray even nuns very well.