In Relation to Rebirth After Death, How is Karma any Different than Supernatural gods? My questions are:

How is karma any different more believable than supernatural gods passing judgement when we are talking about rebirth after the point of death - rebirth being inextricably linked to karma?

I've read a lot about how seeds of karma ripen into result, and what seem to me to be absurd cosmological realms existing under a flat earth, but then teachers have said karma is just moment to moment. Then it changes to it is not even moment to moment but a universal law like gravity.

I mean no disrespect by this, but gravity is observable whereas being born as a human and then a dog after you die because of unskillful karma is not.
Also some humans are born in such a way (severely disabled) that dogs are smarter than they are?

Why is rebirth in human realm classified as higher when some humans suffer more than some animals and have less of an intellectual ability to reason than dogs or crows?

How are you sure this transition to lower rebirth exists, as in the hell realms which sound like really bad places that physically exist, aside from anecdotal evidence that cannot be observed through experience?
Why does no one support rebirth with any solid evidence, but claim it as a result of karma where karma is portrayed as a natural law?

If you are claiming there is evidence, where is it and how were the observations conducted? Are you just taking this persons word for it, or can you reproduce the result? How do you know this?

Personally, it seems to me that this notion of lower rebirth at the time of death could be true but is just as likely not to be true. So the people that claim it positively exists based off it just seeming to make sense or anecdotal evidence are no different than Christians or Muslims who believe in their gods because it just seems to make sense to them. There is an essay that explains this quite well and references Pali suttas.

Rebirth is Neither Plausible nor Salient.

An excerpt that asks this a bit more eloquently than I can:

  "There is one more consideration here. Rebirth is intimately linked to the Buddhist doctrine of karma. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago (Son of the Śākyas) that the idea of being judged on the basis of your actions is one that might have come into Buddhism (and Hinduism) from Zoroastrianism. All large scale cultures seem to have a metaphysical overseer. In most cultures it comes in the form of a god who monitors your behaviour. Why do we need monitoring? In ancestral small scale societies we all knew what everyone was doing because we spent all of our time together. Privacy did not really exist. But as we became civilised and started living in larger scale communities it became impossible to keep everyone under surveillance to make sure they were keeping to the rules. Society is predicated on the idea that most people follow the rules most of the time, and if we catch someone breaking the rules we punish them somehow. One of the harshest non-fatal punishments is shunning which was practised in the early Buddhist Saṅgha for some offences (it still is). So gods like Indo-Iranian Mitra/Mithra, developed to keep a celestial eye on everyone and keep order. In non-Vedic India however the function was not divine, and not anthropomorphised, but became an impersonal built-in property of the universe, i.e. karma. However the function of karma is no different to the function carried out by judicial gods (e.g. Mitra or Zeus), or the oversight function of a mono-gods (e.g. Jehovah), and that karma is still a supernatural agency. Karma was invented to make sure that private actions have public consequences, though the astute reader will notice that the consequences are mostly private—that is divorced from the society in which the action was done—as well, since they are put-off till a future life."

How is karma any different more believable than supernatural gods passing judgement when we are talking about rebirth after the point of death - rebirth being inextricably linked to karma?

The implication here is that death somehow negates the causal nature of mind states that is observed in the present moment; along with our ability to hold grudges from one life to the next, the continuation of physical changes effected by mental states, etc.

Karma is more believable than God, because karma is seen to work in this life on many levels - mental changes due to karma, changes to one's physical surrounding due to karma, changes in relationships due to karma, etc. The claim that this all ceases at the moment of death is just a claim. It makes sense from within a physicalist framework, but not from an experiential framework like Buddhism.

I mean no disrespect by this, but gravity is observable whereas being born as a human and then a dog after you die because of unskillful karma is not.

Sure it is... the dog observes that it has been born a dog. How else could it be observed? The mind cannot be observed through physical means, so it's a fault of our instruments, not of the process itself. Certainly not reason to conclude "therefore God".

Why is rebirth in human realm classified as higher when some humans suffer more than some animals and have less of an intellectual ability to reason than dogs or crows?

Classification is a human construct; there is no part of nature that says "humans are better". Generally, it's considered to be more difficult to be born as a human, due to the complexity and sophistication of the organism (opposable thumbs apparently mean a lot; complex brain functions, etc.). It takes specific mind states to be born as specific individuals, e.g. humans with Down syndrome, etc., but they still have much in favour of them over dogs (longer life span, opposable thumbs, a place in human society, etc.)

How are you sure this transition to lower rebirth exists, as in the hell realms which sound like really bad places that physically exist, aside from anecdotal evidence that cannot be observed through experience?

I have no reason to doubt that hell exists; it doesn't seem any less plausible than the fact that this realm exists. It seems reasonable that one's environment changes based on one's state of mind, since that is observable in this life, and it is reasonable to conclude that causality also plays a part in one's continuation after death. I am not sure that hell exists, but it seems reasonable to believe realms of that sort do.

Why does no one support rebirth with any solid evidence, but claim it as a result of karma where karma is portrayed as a natural law?

There have been many attempts to support rebirth with solid evidence, some quite convincing. E.g. the articles on this page:

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops/publications-page

There is also the superior form of investigation that is meditation; through simple but dedicated practice, one can for oneself regain memories of past lives, according to Buddhist teachings.

  So a bhikkhu who is a beginner and wants to recollect in this way should
  go into solitary retreat on return from his alms round after his meal. Then he
  should attain the four jhānas in succession and emerge from the fourth jhāna as
  basis for direct-knowledge. He should then advert to his most recent act of
  sitting down [for this purpose], next, to the preparation of the seat, to the entry
  into the lodging, to the putting away of the bowl and [outer] robe, to the time of
  eating, to the time of returning from the village, to the time of wandering for alms
  in the village, to the time of entering the village, to the time of setting out from the
  monastery, to the time of paying homage at the shrine terrace and the
  Enlightenment-tree terrace, to the time of washing the bowl, to the time of picking
  up the bowl, to the things done from the time of picking up the bowl back to the
  mouth washing, to the things done in the early morning, to the things done in
  the middle watch, in the first watch. In this way he should advert to all the things
  done during the whole night and day in reverse order.
  While this much, however, is evident even to his normal consciousness, it is
  especially evident to his preliminary-work consciousness. But if anything there
  is not evident, he should again attain the basic jhāna, emerge and advert. By so
  doing it becomes as evident as when a lamp is lit. And so, in reverse order too, he
  should advert to the things done on the second day back, and on the third,
  fourth and fifth day, and in the ten days, and in the fortnight, and as far back as
  a year.
  When by these means he adverts to ten years, twenty years, and so on as far
  back as his own rebirth-linking in this existence, he should advert to the
  mentality-materiality occurring at the moment of death in the preceding existence;
  for a wise bhikkhu is able at the first attempt to remove the rebirth-linking and
  make the mentality-materiality at the death moment his object.

  -- Vism XII.22-4 (Nyanamoli, trans)


I had a no-self experience, why is it a good state? I've been meditating for about 4 months without (seemingly) getting somewhere up till about 2 weeks ago when something clicked for me after watching some interviews and talks from Gary Weber and thinking carefully about what was preventing me from really meditating.

I became pretty obsessed with really seeing things clearly with the over two consecutive weekends with the "goal" of reaching the first samatha jhana (of which I already had a previous encounter).

In the first weekend I really tried to calm down the whole day and medidate the most I could take. Reaching high concentration was easier that day but still not sufficient for full blown jhana.

In the second weekend I began working on it more and reaching something like 60% there. The next day I tried to reach it again and failed because of the attachment to reach there. After learning about the practice that Gary Weber and Ramana Maharshi reccomend (who is thinking? Who is hearing? Etc..) I tried it and immidietly found it extremely potent, much more potent than regular vipassana. I soaked myself in this kind of meditation all remaining day until I got to sleep.

After I fell asleep I had a visualization of me seeing thoughts come in and physically putting them on the shelf, one by one. Also focusing on the feeling of 'I' there.

After about an hour of sleep, I suddenly found myself in the middle of switching pillows bu my whole perception completely changed. I noticed the following things:

The sense of an 'I' was gone. I continued to search for it but it was no longer there.
Experience seemed to flow one moment after another by itself without any intervention or will. Each moment kind of forces the next to nesserally, logically happen.
There was a sense of complete detachment, no will to be in this state nor to not be in it. There was just an analytic curiosity about what happens in the moment. I knew at that moment that there could not be any suffering.

So I guess I had a glipse of how it is to be awakened. And what is called "the arising and passing away" or "dependent origination". But that's just empty language.

Since then I find it much easier to slip into mindfulness, sense an attachment, automatically see the suffering in it and let it go.

When mindfulness is present the world seems to be completely neutral and analytic. There's no suffering but no joy either. I can see the benefit of removing suffering, but I dont see the joy of this analytic neutral state. I think there's something I'm missing or failing to notice.

What is the joy or bliss that supposedly arises by being mindful and present?

When I told my Zen Roshi that "I didn't exist," he simply tapped my leg and said, "What's that?" I was completely baffled and tongue-tied.

Welcome to the stream.

  “Mendicants, all those who have experiential confidence in me have entered the stream. --AN10.64

If the "world seems to be completely neutral and analytic", this can be due to indifference (i.e., lay equanimity) or renunuciate equanimity. The difference is subtle and warrants further practice and study.

  Therein, by relying on the six kinds of renunciate equanimity, give up the six kinds of lay equanimity. --MN137

Regarding your question about joy or bliss, you might be interested to read about the eight liberations. In particular, the third liberation involves beauty. Indifference cannot see beauty.

  They’re focused only on beauty. This is the third liberation. --AN8.66

The challenge provided by being just neutral and analytic is that one is still beset by choices, and those choices become more and more difficult with greater insight. Here, precepts become increasingly important along with further practice.

Also study the brahmaviharas.


Conflict between theistic religious belief and Buddhist practice? From the Buddhist perspective, is there an inherent conflict between being a believer in a theistic religion and a practitioner of Buddhist meditation?

According to Dalai Lama (targeting general public), if Buddhist ideals appeal to you, but you are already a member of another religion and worried about compatibility, you can (and should!) stay with your religion. From his perspective, all religions declare the same basic values of compassion etc. and if you practice your religion well, there is no point for you to switch.

According to Chogyam Trungpa however (targeting serious practitioners), there is a fundamental difference between theistic religions and Buddhism. Theistic religions posit a notion of Other Power (God) that you have to appeal to for your salvation. While the nontheistic teaching has practitioner depend on his own power (with Guru's help). From this perspective, the notion of God as an external entity must be transcended before the practitioner can fully reconnect with his/her fundamental sanity.

In Pure Land Buddhism practitioner initially depends on Other Power (Buddha Amitabha), which starts as an external entity, but eventually, through a change of perspective, is identified as one's true nature. So we could say, on advanced stages the notion of external God is transcended there as well.


Did the Buddha leave room for the possibility of a self? Did the Buddha teach that a self or soul (whether permanent and fixed or impermanent and changing) cannot be found, did he teach that it cannot exist, or what?

Buddha did not teach that things exist (that's one extreme) or that things do not exist (that's another extreme). Buddha teaches that things exist to some extent, in some context, relative to some frame of reference – and do not exist in other contexts. It's the same with the "self".


Can there be an action free from the taint of desire? If there can be, what is the nature of that action? There must be a desire to even bring a glass of water to drink. Without desire, no movement is possible. First, there is a sensation of thirst; out of that thirst, there is the desire for drinking water.

So, when desire is the fuel to carry out normal daily activities, what does it mean that Buddha didn't have desires?

My guess is When there was a sensation of thirst, Buddha used to not identify himself with the sensation. In other words, there was an absence ego-identity with the thirst. But again, the desire to drink water, eat, move, etc. was arising. From where it was arising?

Generalizing it better, the question turns up, Can there be an action free from the taint of desire? Because desires seem to be driving force of any action. Doesn't it? If there can be, what is the nature of that action?

Desire is a normal feeling thats why Buddha chose the middle way ,if you don't eat the desire to eat will definitely arise, its the identification with desire that poisons it as well as identification with any feeling or more accurately the attachment

Explained well here

Root of all things

.Thus effortless action is free from identification with desire .Its simple spontaneous and according to what the moment brings ,its not forced on oneself because with forcing the desire becomes identified with a person who wants to fulfill it, thus the attachment and suffering .When the desire arises and is simply known ,doing works on its own level.You can think of it in terms that desire is necessary just for action to  take place and not as a possessive mental state.

Notion of skillful desire

Also check this answer

Attainment of enlightenment without desire


What does Buddhism teach or say about Tolerance and accepting differences in general? I was wondering what Buddhism teaches or says about the concept of Tolerance and the acceptance of differences more generally speaking.

Buddhism teaches nature creates differences or diversity. For example:

  Again, the Tathagata (Buddha) understands as it actually is the world with its many & different elements. That too is a Tathagata's
  power...

  Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's
  power...

  Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too
  is a Tathagata's power...

  MN 12

Therefore, Buddhism accepts there are differences or diversity in nature and, as a result, extends tolerance, non-hatred & non-violence towards diversity. For example:

  Whatever living beings there may be;
      Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
  The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
      The seen and the unseen,
  Those living near and far away,
      Those born and to-be-born —
  May all beings be at ease!

  Let none deceive another,
      Or despise any being in any state.
  Let none through anger or ill-will
      Wish harm upon another.
  Even as a mother protects with her life
      Her child, her only child,
  So with a boundless heart
      Should one cherish all living beings;

  Karaniya Metta Sutta

However, just because Buddhism extends tolerance, non-hatred & non-violence towards difference & diversity, this does not mean Buddhism endorses, promotes or recommends all things because Buddhism only endorses, promotes or recommends a moral or non-harming way of life.

For example, Buddhism tolerates murder, theft, rape, sexual promiscuity, dishonesty, drug addiction, usury, gambling, businesses that trade in weapons, slavery, prostitution, intoxicants, etc, however Buddhism does not endorse, promote or recommend these things.

This distinction is shown in the following text about 'tolerating', 'avoiding' & 'destroying' and in Buddhist teachings about 'right' & 'wrong':

  [4] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, endures. He
  tolerates cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies,
  mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words &
  bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp,
  piercing, disagreeable, displeasing & menacing to life.

  [5] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, avoids a wild
  elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a
  bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspool, an open sewer. Reflecting
  appropriately, he avoids sitting in the sorts of unsuitable seats,
  wandering to the sorts of unsuitable habitats, and associating with
  the sorts of bad friends that would make his knowledgeable friends in
  the holy life suspect him of evil conduct.

  And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, dispels it & wipes it out of existence....Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will...Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty...Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence.

  MN 2

  In one of right view, wrong view is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong view as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right view as their condition go to the culmination of their development. In one of right resolve, wrong resolve is abolished... In one of right speech, wrong speech is abolished... In one of right action, wrong action is abolished... In one of right livelihood, wrong livelihood is abolished... In one of right effort, wrong effort is abolished... In one of right mindfulness, wrong mindfulness is abolished... In one of right concentration, wrong concentration is abolished... In one of right knowledge, wrong knowledge is abolished... In one of right release, wrong release is abolished. The many evil, unskillful qualities that come into play with wrong release as their condition are also abolished, while the many skillful qualities that have right release as their condition go to the culmination of their development. Thus, monks, there are twenty factors siding with skillfulness, and twenty with unskillfulness.

  MN 117

  1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
  follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

  2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

  Dhammapada


Body's response to meditation I have been practising Vipassana meditation for some years now.
Please advise me: why on my in-breath do my toes contract, and most times relax on my out-breath?
Sometimes my toes stay contracted for quite a few in- and out-breaths, then my toes relax. My toes' contracting usually starts over half-way through my 45 minute meditation.

That's not all that uncommon.  If it's not your toes, it'll be something else.  Personally, my hands will sometimes contract by themselves and my forearms will occasionally rotate a few degrees.  Other people usually report muscles in their faces that start to fire, maybe their shoulders will bounce a bit, etc.

All this is a result of tension leaving the body.  The more you relax into your meditation, the more your body will loosen up.  The deeper the concentration, the more relaxed you'll get.  As you keep at your practice, you might even see other places start to loosen up - places of deep seated tension that you didn't even know existed.

It's nothing to be alarmed about if that's your concern.


Are there different types of emptiness (Śūnyatā)? Even though emptiness (Śūnyatā) seems like it should just be one thing (concept/experinece/realisation) does it in fact have different types? Can it be categorised in any way? I know Buddhism is very keen on lists. Is there a list of different types of emptiness in any tradition?

The motivation for this question is that I remember hearing that there were 32 types of sūnyatā. However I can't remember where I heard this so I'm hoping that this question might cast some light on that issue.

If anyone could provide reference to canonical texts, commentaries or other sources about this, that would be particularly good.

In Tibetan Buddhism, emptiness is analyzed in many different ways. Madhyamakavatara by Candrakirti lists 16 types of emptiness. These include emptiness of emptiness, emptiness of the unobservable etc. I will not list them all here, but if you are interested you can find detailed explanations in Chandrakirti's Madhyamakavatara with Commentary by Ju Mipham.

While it is utterly impossible to give justice to such deep subject as emptiness in one answer, let me try and mention the most important points.

First, there are the two types of emptiness that represent the crucial distinction between a beginner practitioner's view and an advanced practitioner's view:

emptiness of self
emptiness of all dharmas

It is said that beginner practitioners ("hinayana") only understand corelessness of beings (anatta), but still assume various stuff to be objectively/ontologically existing. This results in them erroneously reifying such concepts as the five skandhas, 12 nidanas, 4 noble truths, nirvana, and enlightenment. Advanced practitioners ("mahayana") clearly understand that all knowable phenomena without exception are contextually defined composites.

Another classification scheme I like is the one used by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche:

External Emptiness
Internal Emptiness
Absolute Emptiness

External emptiness ("form is emptiness") means: the apparent objects of the so-called physical world are not real entities. There are no real boundaries between objects, and as the time goes and the elements mix and recombine, there are no identities carried over from moment to moment. All objects are imputations of the mind. If we start with any form (a generic object of thought) and engage into analytical decomposition we will never find any stable reference point; everything is defined against of, and in terms of, something else. In other words, phenomenal reality is an illusion, or in modern terminology, what we naively assume to be reality is but an interpretation we make.

Internal emptiness ("emptiness is form") means: and yet, through the power of dependent-coarising, phenomenal reality spontaneously exists. In other words, the illusions are manifestations of the ultimate reality; our mind with its interpretations is a result of beginningless process. Our mind with all its experiences and emotions is but an interplay of forms. So not only all forms are empty imputations of the mind, the mind itself is empty interplay of forms.

Finally, absolute emptiness is the Liberating Realization, what Gotama Buddha called "the final knowledge". According to Chogyam Trungpa, "Absolute emptiness means that there is nothing particularly to do. There is nothing to work on, no one to make a reference point, nothing whatsoever."

Yet another way to explain the same progression is the Four Emptinesses of Completion Stage Meditation:

Emptiness, experienced when the first five consciousnesses (of sense-organ experiences) dissolve into the sixth (the consciousness of mental experiences).
Great Emptiness, experienced when the sixth consciousness dissolves into the seventh (emotional consciousness).
Extreme Emptiness, experienced when the seventh consciousness dissolves into the eighth (ground consciousness).
Total Emptiness, experienced when the eighth consciousness dissolves into primal wisdom.


Is there any reason of restlessness in the afternoon? I have been practicing mindfulness and watching thoughts.   I usually feel rapture, calm and desireless all the day but not in afternoon after lunch.  In afternoon, I even forget all stability including mindfulness & various desires creeps in the mind. Situations become extraordinarily better after 4-4:30PM.

Is there any particular reason of afternoon (2-4) instability? What can I do to let that not happen?

Restless drowsiness is common after eating. AN7.61 discusses remedies at length, including:

  But if by doing this you don’t shake off your drowsiness, then—percipient of what lies in front & behind—set a distance to meditate walking back & forth, your senses inwardly immersed, your mind not straying outwards. It’s possible that by doing this you will shake off your drowsiness.


In Vipassana meditation - How long does one keep watching an object? When doing vipassana meditation and when one is observing an object - for how long does one keep observing and noting the object?

I have been wondering about this for a while now since i do not know what the "correct" approach is if such an approach exist. I have once read that one should keep observing the object until it ceases to exist in order to clearly see the dissolution-step of the process that all objects follow -> Arising, Presence, Dissolution. Thereby one will be able to see the impermanent nature of phenomena.

Help would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Lanka

(This depends on the teacher or lineage.)

Generally if you stay too long on a object the following can happen:

get attached to it or obsessed with the object. Say you have a pain in your stomach then you will think this might be food poisoning. Also why is it lasting so long? It is supposed to be impermanent but why is it lingering. Likewise all kind of thoughts will keep arising due to the object.
you can miss out on other experiences in other areas. Main thing is that you should be able to see all experiences through out the body. Staying in one object means that you miss many more subtle experiences. Say your stomach hurts but there is a itching on the head. If you stay with the pain you miss the itching.

So best is to systematically change the objects (emphasis on systematic and methodically here so you don't miss watching experiences even on a small part of your body,  i.e., you have to make every inch of your body sensitive to sense the subtlest of contact / sensation, e.g. the air touching your skin in absence of any other sensations. To see things as they are you have to horn your recognising or conscious part of your mind /  aggregates to register the subtlest of realities) so you experience everything on your body at most waiting on one object for for only a few minutes or so. If you are aware of the breathing, then you can see effects on it. In my case I stay on the breath only for few breaths. (No counting the breaths.)

Likewise if there are any parts of your body which is not sensitive enough to register any input / sensation (there is an object as your facilities are in contact with something or the other by your consciousness is not strong enough to recognize it), you have to wait on that place for a short time to see if you sense something.

You have to be equanimous in facing the sensations. In the absence of craving and clinging, your perception / mental reaction towards such experiences will become weaker and weaker. Also your stop putting fuel to the fire by creating new fabrications which will create further sensual experiences in the future.

As you do this you will start seeing things dissappear faster and faster until it disappears instantly once your attention comes to the object.

Any object, arises and passes away with such rapid succession. When you are sensitive to recognise it when your attention is brought to the object itself then you will see it happening. Otherwise by staying with the object your mind can get a bit concerned and then you will start seeing the arising and passing. (Keeping in mind the above arguments. ) In the latter case if the object is something like pain sometimes it may pass away before you can get concentrated enough to see the phenomena arising and passing. (At a grosser level this is arising and passing away also. ) Any case don't get excited or disappointed.


What did the Buddha say about music? Do music help? Why sometimes it feels equal to meditation in terms of achieving bliss (may be for short span of period) Or music is just an another time wasting thing? Text with links and pictorials in your answer are the most welcome. All are welcome. Thanks

Music is not good as a meditation object as it arouses craving.
If you analyse the 40 meditation objects of Samatha, you can identify 3 kinds of objects:
neutral objects, virtuous or holy objects and unattractive or repulsive objects. All carefully chosen to subdue certain defilements or achieve Jhanas.

  What did the Buddha say about music?

For monks:

There are, bhikkhus, these five drawbacks of reciting the Dhamma with a sustained melodic intonation.

Which five?

Oneself gets attached to that intonation
Others get attached to that intonation
Householders get angry:
'Those ascetics who are followers of the Sakyans' son sing in the
same way that we do!'
There is a break in concentration for those striving [to produce] musicality
And the upcoming generations imitate what they see.

For Lay people:

7th of the 8 precepts

Nacca-gita-vadita-visukkadassana mala-gandha-vilepana-dharana-mandana-vibhusanathana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
- I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing, singing, music, going to see entertainments, wearing garlands, using perfumes, and beautifying the body with cosmetics.

The 8 precepts are usually practiced on Poya days and when you stay in a meditation center


Do Buddhists believe in Akashic records? I was reading the wiki page about Akashic records and in 'See also' there is link to Glossary of Buddhism, so it seems like it's connected.

Therefore do you believe in akashic records or something similar where all events and our experiences are stored?

I don't see "Akashic" or "record" in the linked "Glossary of Buddhism" ... so the term "Akashic" might be Theosophist and/or from a tradition other than Buddhist, but I don't know.

Buddhism does believe in "Kamma" which I suppose is a way of saying that "events and experiences are stored".

The Wikipedia article references a 19th century book titled "Esoteric Buddhism" which says,

Early Buddhism, then, clearly held to a permanency of records in the Akasa, and the potential capacity of man to read the same when he has evoluted to the stage of true individual enlightenment.

There is something similar to that described in, for example, the Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta (in which the Buddha is someone who "evoluted to the stage of true individual enlightenment"), which says towards the end,

Recollection of Past Lives
"With his mind thus ... he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, ... , many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, ...

That's part of the "miracle of instruction" (i.e. it's a miracle and instructive). Towards the top of that same sutta, the Buddha says,

Kevatta, there are these three miracles that I have declared, having directly known and realized them for myself. Which three? The miracle of psychic power, the miracle of telepathy, and the miracle of instruction.

That is somewhat quoting out of context, though.
It would be better to at least read the whole sutta than only the paragraph I quoted above, and to understand why the Buddha would call it "instructive" i.e. what he is trying to teach.


Remembering past lives Why do we not remember our past lives?
If it is possible to recollect one's previous lives by deeply concentrated thought,is it not possible for us to visit the hermits living in Himalaya area and verify the truth of doctrine of rebirth?

Why do we not remember our past lives?

It is a protective mechanism, kind of like how when you enter REM sleep your body paralyzes you to avoid hurting yourself. Similarly most of our chakras are in a semi-open, unpurified state because the full power of it can be harmful to ourselves and others. Many spiritual powers remain dormant. (I would not rely on the explanations of famous modern teachers because most of them are just intellectuals and have not put the prerequisite solitude and focus to attain realization... and sometimes they have to make publicly acceptable comments to avoid attack.)

If it is possible to recollect one's previous lives by deeply concentrated thought?

Yes. By entering the 1st jhana, one can even recall one's past lives. The below passage from MN 36 indicates Buddha went to 4th jhana before doing so, recalling many more. I would refer to the book Mind Experiment by Bavo Lievens for references on Buddhist texts, as well as beautiful Buddhist cosmology and how to go about doing this. Go to page 80.

Here is an excerpt from MN 36:

  "When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
  rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my
  past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth,
  two...five, ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand,
  many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many
  eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name,
  belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food,
  such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life.
  Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a
  name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my
  food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life.
  Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my
  manifold past lives in their modes & details."


Personality and Conditioning? The bulk of my personality is made up of other people's beliefs about what is lacking. These core beliefs rise up like bubbles and when the attention is placed on them, they burst into a rather coarse type of emptiness. For decades and unbeknownst to me, I have laboured over this negative self-talk which takes on various permutations of not being enough. As I investigate further, it's clear where they came from: implicit messages from society, that no matter what you can do or what you have in material possessions, it is never enough. It's like a sinister melody playing in the background of human consciousness. It is a collective and implicit agreement stationed just beyond the boundaries of normal, every day awareness and generates a perpetual attitude of always becoming yet the suffering it causes goes unquestioned - no link is formed between the thoughts and the actions.
There is so much to write about concerning these observations, but it would hurt my head if I continued mainly because I see a barrel of worms inside those karmic propensities. If I look at one person, I see only the manifold accumulation of past actions which determines their current behaviour, but they see an exclusive and individualized entity making unique and specialized decisions. They seem rather clown-like in that respect - their personality lost to the conditions of their circumstances. Then I turn towards myself, and see the same things ticking away, and so I smile and kick up one of my clown shoes. What else is left for me to do. The negative self-talk has little footing these days, but it's what I built my identity with.
As humankind's defunct tutorial meanders off it takes with it those biological conditionings: eating food has the same neutrality as shoving a letter into a postbox and women's tits look like what they are: droopy skin with a pointy circle denoting some vague hint of conceptual sensuality.
This leaves me thinking curiously about what actually drives me, what is my personality? The Buddha had a personality, for sure.
In a sense I know the answer to this question, but I'd have to start writing a curious state of affairs because language seems to do it a disservice. Then, the karmic waves come rolling in, and I've lost all direction. They seem quite annoyed over in this region even throwing obscure items like the kitchen sink.

The Buddha had a personality, for sure. His personality is who he was, moment to moment, but not the result of him desiring to become that personality.
But you are not a Buddha, and much of your life experiences has built upon the habit of creating a self-reinforcing personality. Those habits are part of who you are, moment to moment, the result of deep desires to become that personality.
You are now seeing your own personality and experiences with a different perspective, a partially complete dharmic perspective, and that too is naturally going to become part of your personality. The deep desires to have a personality will latch onto this new found perspective with excitement, but those deep desires for a personality aren't intelligent enough to realize that this perspective is set upon unravelling these very habits and what that even means.
If you are really curious and really want to know what your personality is, then you are free to ask yourself those questions. Your personality is something completely fluid that is modifiable by your own or others input. So ask yourself, what do you really want? And feel free to strive for that.


Health anxiety - how to deal with it? Health anxiety is defined in the quote below. A person suffering from it may mistakenly believe certain fluctuations in bodily sensations to be dangerous or a sign of impending critical illness, and this may cause them to become anxious. When they become anxious, they may get symptoms of anxiety (like rapid heart rate and chest discomfort) which may lead to a positive feedback loop, resulting in a panic attack, where they may think that they have a heart attack and go to the ER. That's the worst case. The best case is frequent unnecessary visits to the doctor.

Based on Buddhist techniques, what could a health anxiety sufferer do to help himself or herself?

On the other hand, if he really did have some critical illness, but convinces himself that it's not really the case, then it's not good for his health. So, how could Buddhist techniques help him find the balance?

According to this article on health anxiety:

  The False Alarm

  Health anxiety is the misinterpretation of normal bodily sensations as
  dangerous. Healthy bodies produce all sorts of physical symptoms that
  might be uncomfortable, painful, unexpected, and otherwise unwanted —
  but not dangerous. Picture a car with an alarm system. It’s useful if
  your car alarm goes off when a criminal is breaking in, but it’s
  problematic if it goes off every time someone walks by. Your car alarm
  would be misinterpreting innocent pedestrians as dangerous criminals.

  Normal physical symptoms that often produce fear and worry include
  changes in visual acuity, heart rate and blood pressure, saliva
  levels, depth of breathing, balance, and muscle tone, to name a few.
  These are normal and harmless. But when a person misinterprets them as
  symptoms of some terrible disease, it creates undue worry. This
  explains why medical tests come out negative: The physical sensations
  are real, but they are not symptoms of a disease.

  Overestimating Danger

  Misinterpretation may be due to assumptions about health and illness,
  such as, “My cousin died of cancer, so it’s only a matter of time for
  me.” Or, “Viruses spread quickly. Since people in Africa are dying of
  Ebola, it could easily spread to the United States.” People with
  health anxiety might hold rigid definitions of good health, perhaps
  believing that any discomfort means bad health.

  If they hear a news story about a few cases of a serious virus, people
  with health anxiety might start scanning their own bodies for symptoms
  of the virus. Looking for symptoms makes you notice subtle sensations
  that you might otherwise ignore. With uncertainty, the imagination has
  room to create stories. And that’s when your body’s alarm sounds off
  as you imagine the worst.

  It Gets Tricky

  Symptoms of anxiety produce very real physical symptoms: Dizziness,
  stomachaches, rapid heartbeat, tingling in the hands and feet, muscle
  tension, jitteriness, chest pressure, and the list goes on. These
  symptoms add fuel to the fire. Now you have real evidence that
  something is seriously wrong. Or do you? Perhaps it’s anxiety. So how
  do you know if these symptoms are serious? You go to the doctor… and
  then to a therapist.

  Health anxiety persists despite reassurance from the doctor. Seeking
  reassurance from doctors, insisting on repeated medical tests, and
  visits to the ER and urgent care are common if you have health
  anxiety. This habit leads you to rely on such reassurance to obtain
  relief from health worries. A vicious cycle develops of noticing a
  sensation or learning of an illness in the world, misinterpreting it
  as threatening, then becoming anxious, and finally going to the doctor
  for reassurance. Reassurance from the doctor reduces the anxiety and
  brings relief temporarily. Soon the cycle starts again.

When the patient feels sensation, he can practice Kayanupassana(mindfulness of the body) and Vedananupassana(mindfulness of feelings). When the thoughts of worry come to the mind the patient can practice Cittanupassana(mindfulness of mental activities) and Dhammanupassana(mindfulness of realities).

This technique will reduce the worry that leads to anxiety.


Is there an absolute and known hierarchy in the Dharma? Are there resolved authorities in what is called Buddhism or is there an array of separate, respected lineages practicing different things, believing different premises, and therefore in dispute on innumerable points of knowledge and aim? Are monks and nuns more advanced than what are called lay practitioners? Can we assess someone's 'Buddhist progress' by how they look, the way that they dress, speak, and behave? Will someone with knowledge of the Dharma necessarily have read a large number of sermons, tracts, or scriptures from known and agreed authorities. Are there 'solitary saints' whose innate knowledge of the Dharma is so forged as part of their being that exposure to the religion which is Buddhism was unnecessary for their role as a catalyst in waking people up?

"Are there resolved authorities in what is called Buddhism or is there an array of separate, respected lineages practicing different things, believing different premises, and therefore in dispute on innumerable points of knowledge and aim?"

Before Gautama Buddha died, he oriented his disciples to look at the teachings (say, instead of looking for a person) and refused to appoint any kind of successor or "leader of the group". That is the "Buddhism" side. The social and historical side shows (many centuries afterwards) different groups with different important figures emerging, leaders of some sort of that particular group or just influential personalities or teachers.

"Are monks and nuns more advanced than what are called lay practitioners?"

Advanced in practice? Not necessarily. The monastic idea in Buddhism is for those who want to have a greater commitment, whereas dedication with lay life would not be possible or much harder. And since people have different degrees of understanding, it's natural that being monastic or lay is not, in itself, a mark of greater or lower spiritual accomplishment.

IIRC, reports of advanced lay practitioners go back to the time of the Buddha.

However, greater commitment and proper conditions means progress is expected to be faster -- again, that's the whole point of becoming monastic, to be dedicated full time to it.

"Can we assess someone's 'Buddhist progress' by how they look, the way that they dress, speak, and behave?"

Yes. Observable signs include basic traits such as honesty, kindness and harmlessness which are easier to see ordinarily. The greater the progress, the more subtle (and difficult to assess) the signs can be.

"Will someone with knowledge of the Dharma necessarily have read a large number of sermons, tracts, or scriptures from known and agreed authorities"

Not necessarily. Someone with full knowledge of the Dharma necessarily have perfect understanding of suffering, can directly see it's origin, it's ending and, having mastered the way to end it, ended it for good. Since, in the Buddha's dispensation, this is synonym with "Dharma".

That, of course, if we understanding "Dharma" above as the principles of reality of interest. Since "Dharma" can also mean "the teachings of the Buddha" (conflated from "buddha-dharma"), in that case, one certainly has to know the recorded words of the Buddha, which are his teachings.

"Are there 'solitary saints' whose innate knowledge of the Dharma is so forged as part of their being that exposure to the religion which is Buddhism was unnecessary for their role as a catalyst in waking people up?"

Generally, in the Buddhist tradition, these people are known as Buddhas: those who discovered the way out of suffering without being exposed to the teachings of another Buddha. In the tradition, all Buddhas discover the same laws, so what they teach is essentially the same.

The designations get a bit more detailed to distinguish between different people.

For example, Gautama Buddha is referred to as a sammasambuddha: a perfectly enlightened person. This designation is reserved to those who (re)discover the dharma and decide to teach. Because of their special dedication and strivings (and mistakes along the way), they are broadly developed and have full command of the "do's and don'ts" to achieve the goal -- hence being regarded as the "best teacher".

It's generally believed that no sammasambuddha arises while the teachings of a previous Buddha is known. Only when there's no trace of a previous dharma, there are conditions for someone to become a Buddha.

Another designation which is related to the question is the pratyekabuddha, referring to those Buddhas who, after (re)discovering the nature of suffering and ending it, choose to live in solitude instead of teaching.


Can a buddhist get married? Im 42 years old man...i have a girlfriend..and studying Yoga, Meditation and some basics of buddhism.
I came from a Hindu religion but somehow the buddhism suits me more.
I wonder if someone that is practicing buddhism or being a monk can be married to. Cos i love my girlfriend and thinking about getting married in couple of months...on the other hand i also feels like spending more time to study the buddhism and i also feel like to become a monk in the future.

Is there a middle way..like being married, studying buddhism and become a monk or is that not possible ?

thank.

Monks cannot marry, but in your case best course of action is to practice as a lay person until you are fully ready to leave the householders responsibility and and become a monk. Being a monk would mean you will have to leave your girlfriend.


Friendship and Compassion I've realized that that I don't feel much friendliness for a person which I considered my friend previously. At the level of friendship, things are not the same.

Yet, this person has done nothing wrong against me. I know they care deeply for me, they value me, and they have a hard time making friends. Their life situation is also difficult.

I would describe them as a virtuous person, extremely caring, curious spiritually. For me, it is only the fact I don't feel the friendship to be there anymore that detracts me.

In Buddhism, is friendship linked with compassion? Should I disregard the fact this person may suffer because sustaining the friendship would be untrue? Or, should I perhaps try to see things differently, and more compassionately?

Thank you

In everyday speech, the word "friendship" implies mutual support. One remembers birthdays, celebrates marriages, introduces romantic partners, etc.  And yet many of the things a conventional friend would support become meaningless on the Noble Eightfold Path. For example, the Vinaya prohibits matchmaking, which causes one to become entangled in the cravings of others.

Yet a friend is also one who supports one on a spiritual path, providing encouragement when faith lags and self-doubt causes one to flounder and lose hope. Indeed, from SN45.2 we have:

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

Given that your friend is a "virtuous person, extremely caring, curious spiritually," there would be common ground in discussing the precepts or observances either one of you has taken. And where the understanding of spiritual goals differs, then much fruitful discussion can unfold to benefit both.  These conversations will naturally develop as you observe your own precepts. Inevitably, those observances will cause surprise in others you interact with. For example, if you are not eating dinner, then being invited to dinner creates some interesting conversations!

In these conversations, compassion will be critical. One's own understanding of a precept and its observance may only be superficial. Our wisdom grows as we apply the precepts compassionately to our own conduct in relating to others.

Perhaps your friend will become a good spiritual companion and associate.

Another important point is your statement about "not feeling much friendliness". As equanimity and tranquility fill your life, it becomes less driven by pleasant or painful feelings. If your friendship was based on pleasant feelings and shared cravings, then that basis for relationship would naturally vanish. For example, choosing celibacy would drastically change the nature of a relationship.

Examine that "not feeling much friendliness" and ask yourself if there might now be an element of unwholesomeness to formerly enjoyed shared activity. Here, too, compassion is crucial because it is the activity you would avoid, not the human being that is your friend.


Dana in Thailand or Sri Lanka I'm sorry it may be a little off topic, does anyone here know anywhere in Thailand or Sri Lanka where Dana is being carried out? Preferably central area, more accessible.
Thanks!

Well, if you are a layman looking for free food, come to Sri Lanka during the Vesak or Poson full moon poya days. You will find many free food outlets. Usually you can get rice & curry, noodles, sandwiches, ice cream, various beverages etc.

If you are a monk, you can go on alms round on any day. You will be offered food in most cities.

If you're actually looking to do the dana offering to monks, just go to any temple and make your wishes known to the head monk: they will give you a date. Alternately, you can go near monasteries like Meethirigala and try to catch a monk who's going on alms round. Here's a recording I did in January: Pindapathe on Election Day


Does "old karma" come from our parents, family, community, surroundings? In SN 35.145 (below), we see that the body, intellect etc. is "old karma", capable to be felt. But it doesn't say whose "old karma" it is. The sutta also talks about "new karma" generated by decisions and actions within our control, but also not pinned to a specific individual self identity. Also SN 12.37 reiterates this.

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma,
fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The
tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma,
fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

The following comes from SN 12.17 (although this quote comes from here). Here, karma is not pinned to a specific self identity or a specific individual. Karma is attributed to past decisions and actions, coming from dependently originated conditions.

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)".

From MN 38, SN 22.85, SN 12.20 and other suttas, and from "sabbe dhamma anatta" (all phenomena is not self - Dhp 279), we have learned that there is no specific individual self that is permanent, unchanging and continues to wander within this or other lives. The endeavouring being (self) (AN 6.38) is ever-changing and arises from dependently originated conditions.
So, where does the "old karma" which generated our physical body and our mind come from?
Does it come from our parents, family, community, media, books, surroundings?
Are there any scriptural references or commentaries to support this?

When you feel a breeze on your skin, where does the breeze come from? Is there a single time or place where we can say "The breeze started here"? Is there a group of air molecules such that we can say "These molecules (and no others) are the breeze"? A breeze comes from everywhere and nowhere. It is the culmination of all the movements of the atmosphere, dependent on all the breezes that came before, and on the heat of the sun and the earth as they pass through the days and the seasons.
Karma is like the breeze: neither here nor there, not specific to this or that, not inherent in him or her or them. It's not personal. It's the culmination of all the movements of human minds as they brush past and push against each other, dependent on all the actions of all who have come before. Our bodies are given to us by the actions or our parents, our grandparents, our great grandparents, etc... Our minds our shaped by the minds of our parents, which were in turn shaped by the minds of our grandparents... Our bodies and minds are continuations of karma that ran through them to us, and continues on from us to others.


Is Nibbana devoid of a permanent and eternal substance? I read the following on the internet:

  According to Wikipedia by the way, Nagarjuna wrote, in the
  Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, "[A]ll experienced phenomena are empty (sunya).
  This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore,
  non-existent; only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal
  substance (svabhava) because, like a dream, they are mere projections
  of human consciousness. Since these imaginary fictions are
  experienced, they are not mere names (prajnapti).

Is Nibbana devoid of a permanent and eternal substance?

Also, is Nibbana a mere projection of human consciousness?

Also, are all things "mere names"?

From this page, according to Nagarjuna's MMK, XXIV, 18 - 19:

  Whatever is relativity, we proclaim that emptiness. It is dependent designation. It is also the central way.
  Nothing whatsoever is found which is not relativistically originated. Therefore, nothing whatsoever is found which is not empty.

A fish spends all its time in water, but may not understand what water means, unless it leaves it momentarily.

Similarly, from my understanding of Nagarjuna, if you have no samsara, then no one would understand what Nirvana means. Nirvana is identified only to contrast it with samsara. Hence, Nirvana is empty of an intrinsic essence, because its definition is relativistic i.e. relative to samsara.

Also, from this page:

  Nevertheless to assert that all things are empty of any intrinsic
  reality, for Nāgārjuna, is not to undermine the existential status of
  things as simply nothing. On the contrary, Nāgārjuna argues, to assert
  that the things are empty of any intrinsic reality is to explain the
  way things really are as causally conditioned phenomena
  (pratītyasamputpaṅhā).

This means Nagarjuna does not say that Nirvana does not exist or is nothing. Rather he says that it depends on something else. Nirvana does not substantially depend on samsara i.e. it is not conditioned or compounded by anything. However, it depends on samsara for its relativistic definition i.e. Nirvana depends on samsara semantically, rather than substantially.

Another analogy is this - if a tree falls in a forest, but there is no one there to listen to it, does it still make a sound? The sound of a tree falling is only defined relative to a listener. If there is no listener, then it does not make sense to identify sound as such. But it does not mean that it doesn't exist. Similarly, in the case of Nirvana, it is defined relative to samsara.

Nagarjuna is really discussing the mental concept of Nirvana, rather than Nirvana itself.


What are The Four Great Elements? Can someone provide a comprehensive explanation, on what the four great elements are and how they work and exist?

I also have a special interest about the "mobility-element", in the four great elements.

I am interested in Theravada teachings.

The 4 elements are:

pruṭhavī-dhātu - solidity or attraction. This holds something together. You feel this as tightness, pressure in the body.
āpa-dhātu - liquidity or relative motion. See below.
teja-dhātu - heat or energy. Body temperature, vibrations in the body you feel in meditation. Difference of temperature in and out meditation.
vāyu-dhātu - expansion or repulsive forces. You feel this as pulsation or expansion and contraction in the body or flow of respiration, rumbling gasses in the belly and passing of wind.

Mobility element is liquidity like liquidly nature in the nose, saliva, urine, sweat. You can look at the flowing nature of these elements in mediation. Though solidity, heat, air element can be experienced through the body liquidity can be experienced or constructed through the mind only.

More particularly, the experience of the 3 elements (earth, heat, air) are happen through Body - Conciousness accompanied by either Pain, Pleasure, or Neutral Sensation and liquidity (motion) through the mind.

Some translators translate Air Element (vāyu-dhātu) as motion element.

Also see: Matter and Moments, Matter & moments and feeling 1, Rupa (Form), Lectures on Rupa 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d by Piya Tan for more academic analysis of the Elements. Wikipedia entry on Mahābhūta.


Rebirth versus genetic recombination Humans like nearly all other species have their genetic base as a mixture 50:50 from the genes of their father and from the genes of their mother. Each generation represents a new combination of genes from the gene pool of the species. The genetic basis determines to a large amount who we are.

Does this fact contradict the rebirth of individuals?

This goes back to an argument that was very popular in 19th century: "is person's character inborn or is it a result of upbringing?"...

What is meant by "rebirth" in Buddhism is rebirth of the state of mind. In modern terms we could say that the living brain is only a carrier. So where does our state of mind come from?

Once as I meditated, I realized that some of my typical thoughts came back from my childhood, from my parent's dysfunctional family situation. And the roots of that situation can be traced to my father's childhood, and probably beyond, to his father's life.

Not all of it is passed down the family lines either. Today at least some of my thoughts came from news I read online about the situation in Ukraine. Do you understand? Our state of mind at any moment consists of elements each of which came down a chain of interactions that can be traced back to beginningless times!

Our state of mind is not "one thing", not an entity, there is no "I".  The boundary between inner and outer is a fiction; there is an infinite sea of interacting mental and physical factors.

So why call it rebirth then? Because of appropriation. We appropriate a combination of traits as "I", "me", "mine". My country, my family, my childhood, my education, my believe, my values, my principles, my pride etc. Appropriation of these causes rebirth and suffering.


I feel uncomfortable about jury duty I have been asked to do jury duty. As I follow a Buddhist philosophy of Ahimsa, no-harm, I feel conflicted. If I vote guilty, and the defendant is not, I would feel guilty myself. If he/she is guilty, and I vote to acquit, likewise I would feel guilty. So I will be asked to be excused on religious grounds. Is this a valid reason for me to be excused?

Thank you,
Thomas Ramsay.

Just follow the laws that are there. If you are unsure about guilt or innocence say so. Even monks and nuns stand in judgement over one another when they commit an offense and there is a consequence for it. If you find the person broke law but are uncomfortable with the consequences i.e., sentence, ask to be excused. But even senior monks have a responsibility to judge monks who broke the rules and generally speaking citizens have the same responsibility.


Is it not conceit when you compare yourself to other people? Are we not thinking of ourselves as either you're better than they are, or equal to them, or worse that they are?

From the Buddhist viewpoint, conceit is a delusion that convinces us that we are the sum of our experiences. When we compare ourselves to others, we create a sense of self in our minds. then that sense of self is involved in comparison to others that generates "self" inflicted suffering, which is where the concept of no-self comes into Buddhist thought as an antidote to that particular suffering.

According to the Buddha, there are three conceits. The first conceit, I am better that others, leads to pride and arrogance. The second, I am worse than others, leads to envy or resentment. The third, I am the same as others, generates complacency.

"And what are the three kinds of conceit that are to be abandoned? (1) Conceit, (2) the inferiority complex, and (3) arrogance: these are the three kinds of conceit that are to be abandoned."
from AN 6.106, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi

Conceit is among that which defiles the mind, and can generate several of the others on that list.

"Imperfections that defile the mind:
(1) covetousness and unrighteous greed
(2) ill will
(3) anger
(4) revenge
(5) contempt
(6) a domineering attitude
(7) envy
(8) avarice
(9) deceit
(10) fraud
(11) obstinacy
(12) presumption
(13) conceit (mana)
(14) arrogance
(15) vanity
(16) negligence"
from MN7, translated by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi

Lastly, the short answer to your question is...Yes.


Is realizing anatta, will it help meditation? If i realise anatta will it help me calm and focus my mind in meditation? If so how?

Eliminating self-view (first realisation of Anatta) is the pre-requisite becoming a Sotapanna.
There is two type of meditation. (Samatha and Vipassana)
Realisation of Anatta is not required for Samatha meditation.
However, in Vipassana we contemplate on the Anatta.

My personal opinion is that realisation of Anatta will help both meditations.


Most efficient (timewise) meditation techniques to experience joy and bliss? If meditation techniques were ranked by how quickly they can instill and develop the feelings of joy and bliss within oneself, which ones would be ranked at the top and why?

Joy and bliss arise when the five hindrances (desire, ill-will, sloth-and-torpor, restlessness-and-worry, and doubt) subside.

The desire for joy and bliss falls under the first hindrance. So whatever is the fastest technique to make you forget that you're seeking bliss... that's the fastest technique for seeking bliss :)

Subduing the five hindrances is the "first stop" for all meditation techniques, whether it is breath-counting, breath-following, metta, noting, or devotional practices. Different people respond in different ways to each of these. So try them all out and see which one motivates you to stick with it- that will be the best.

Two warnings:

(1) Joy and bliss are conditioned states, so they can disappear as quickly as they arise, especially early in your practice (and "early" may mean years). If joy / bliss fades, or doesn't last past the sitting time, it isn't a failure. It's the natural passing away of all conditioned states.

(2) Not everybody experiences joy and bliss when the hindrances subside. Some people, particularly those with a trauma history (though nobody knows for certain why), may experience disturbing imagery or emotions. If this happens, be careful about pushing your technique too hard. Some Buddhists will insist that it is a sign that you are not meditating hard enough. Be wary of this kind of advice. Not all problems are solved by meditation, and other kinds of work may be necessary too.


Attaining a calm mind During the last 5 months I made observation regarding my inner mind process. The inner chatter which most people know during their day disappeared completely in my mind.
I practiced mindfullnes during my day and meditated as well. Is their a specific term in Buddhism which refers to achieving a quite or calm mind?

One could call it jhāna or dhyāna which is the meditation with a calm mind. You are on a great path. Perhaps you want to meditate on the heart sutra where it says:

"No suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
also no attainment with nothing to attain. "

The moment where you recognize a calm mind (the absence of something) as achievement, the ego crawls back up and claims having attained something. The true you is just about to get this ego to quite down. As you begin to research terms and more about having attained this great achievement you might create artificial distance again. Always remember that you are neither the mind nor the body.


Can anyone explain how 'stimulus / response' appears in Chinese or Japanese Buddhism? Can anyone explain how 'stimulus / response' appears in Chinese or Japanese Buddhism?
What does it mean?

I can recall barely nothing about it, but I do know that it features in Zhiyi's work, Chin Fa-hua-hsüan-i at least. I'm especially interested in how the terms, which I believe are paired, may have a universal meaning.

This is an extremely broad question, I will limit my response to Ch'an/Zen Buddhism.

Starting in the earliest schools of Ch'an in Sung China, we find the practice of a stimulus/response ritual the Japanese call sassho. It usually (but not necessarily) takes the form of a question-answer dialog between master and student and is used to both invoke and verify insight/realization. Some of these dialogs have become (in)famous and were compiled into Kung'An/Koan collections still used today.

The basic philosophy behind sassho is to verify whether the answer to a teacher's question is free-flowing or (pre)conceived. In the latter case, the answer would be rejected and the student would be requested to meditate further on the question.


Ignorance and the root of suffering? Searching the Pali Canon for the "root of suffering", we find the direct  definition only occurs in a few suttas:

delight is the root of suffering (MN1)
attachment is the root of suffering (MN105, MN66)
desire is the root of suffering ([MN42.11])
what is greed? ... that which is...root of suffering (Vb17)

We also have that ignorance is simply one product of dependent origination (SN 22.81):

  And that craving, that feeling, that contact, and that ignorance are also impermanent, conditioned, and dependently originated.

Ignorance does indeed result in suffering, but to claim it as the root of suffering feels a bit misleading.

Can one assert “ignorance is the root of suffering?”

Can one assert “ignorance is NOT the root of suffering?”

In your answers, kindly include actual sutta references, preferably from the Pali Canon. This is necessary to avoid arguing about personal interpretation since supported translations are provided by ordained and well-respected monks. As a Sangha, we have to respect and uphold the Dhamma.

Let me introduce you to the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article):

  In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
  bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
  describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
  “consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
  has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
  monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
  back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
  physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
  served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
  lethal.

The monkey needs to let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice. He got stuck in the trap in the first place due to his craving for rice.

But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance about how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would be free from his suffering.

So, the root of the monkey's misery is craving, and not ignorance, as stated in SN 22.31:

  “And what, bhikkhus, is misery? Form is misery; feeling is misery;
  perception is misery; volitional formations are misery; consciousness
  is misery. This is called misery.

  “And what, bhikkhus, is the root of misery? It is this craving that
  leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking
  delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures,
  craving for existence, craving for extermination. This is called the
  root of misery.”

But to uproot craving, the monkey must first overcome his ignorance.

If the monkey had ignorance of the working of the trap, but if he had no craving, he would not get stuck in the trap. If the monkey had craving but did not have ignorance, he could still neglect his knowledge and get caught in the trap, due to greed and clinging. Hence, craving is the root of suffering, and not ignorance.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)


Is aversion toward unwholesome deeds normal? The more we do wholesome deeds the more the inclination to do more good deeds and avoid unwholesome deeds.
Wholesome deeds are encouraged but not unwholesome deeds.
We need to keep doing wholesome actions, (attach to them) make them become our habit, the same thing with unwholesome actions if we do not want suffering.

So is avoiding unwholesome actions the same thing as aversion? It's said even Sakka Devaraja is not free from aversion. Is it normal and necessary to have or cultivate aversion toward unwholesome actions than toward wholesome actions?

On the initial stages, cultivation of aversion towards unwholesome is normal, one might say even critical.

There are numerous examples in the Pali Canon suggesting cultivation of aversion to the unwholesome, many of them revolving around cultivation of disgust with the body as an antidote to lust:

  Since your perception is distorted,
  Your heart with passion is aflame.
  The marks of beauty should you shun,
  Bound up with lustful longing and desire.

  Your mind, one-pointed and collected,
  In seeing foulness should be cultivated.
  With mindfulness directed on the body,
  Dwell often in disgust concerning it.

But also more generally:

  Having done a mental action, you should reflect on it: 'This mental action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should feel distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it. Feeling distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it, you should exercise restraint in the future.

On the middling stages, once the separation from the coarse unwholesome qualities (habitual tendencies) has been accomplished, cultivation of aversion is substituted for cultivation of joy:

  Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; just so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of [directed thought and evaluation on one's successful] withdrawal [from sensuality, from unskillful qualities].

And then on the advanced stages, cultivation of joy (and then equanimity) is superseded by cultivation of disenchantment:

  ... that he keep cultivating disenchantment with regard to form, that he keep cultivating disenchantment with regard to feeling, that he keep cultivating disenchantment with regard to perception, that he keep cultivating disenchantment with regard to fabrications, that he keep cultivating disenchantment with regard to consciousness.

From Kimattha Sutta:

  Ananda: "And what is the purpose of disenchantment? What is its reward?"
  Buddha: "Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward."
  A: "And what is the purpose of dispassion? What is its reward?"
  B: "Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.

  Ananda, skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward. In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship.

These disenchantment and dispassion born of "the knowledge & vision of things as they actually are" is the very end of the path:

  the Tathagata — the worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one, who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form and the rest of the five skandhas) is released — is termed 'rightly self-awakened.' And a discernment-released monk — who from disenchantment with form, from dispassion, from cessation, from lack of clinging (for form etc.) is released — is termed 'discernment-released.

Once "the knowledge & vision of release" has been achieved, there is no cultivation at all:

  One who is dependent has wavering. One who is independent has no wavering. There being no wavering, there is calm. There being calm, there is no yearning. There being no yearning, there is no coming or going. There being no coming or going, there is no passing away or arising. There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a there nor a between-the-two. This, just this, is the end of stress.

And finally, total unbinding:

  Any form (and the rest of five skandhas) by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification (of form etc.), Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea.


What were the Buddha's meditation methods and practices during his pre-enlightenment wandering years in India? I am not clear about one important phase of the Buddha's life: when he was a wandering aspirant, after leaving his two earlier teachers of yoga. There is not much reliable information available about how the Buddha conducted his practices of meditation and thought control.

The best I know is some fragment of a text wherein the Buddha talks about how he sought to control his thoughts by jamming his tongue to the roof of his mouth. At best, that description sounds like a struggle, not a practice or a method.
Is there any sermon where he talks about his struggle? Or a sutra which gives an account of his efforts?

Can you throw some light? Thank you.

The Buddha talks about this in MN 36: Maha-Saccaka Sutta. It's quite a long and detailed passage, in which he describes how he went to different teachers who taught him the Jhanas and starved his body to the extreme. His story sums up the extreme ways of practicing, that one should avoid using The Middle Path: First living in sensual indulgence & luxury while growing up in a powerful family, then leaving this live behind and almost starving himself to death.

  "I thought: 'Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the past have felt painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None have been greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the future will feel painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None will be greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the present are feeling painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None is greater than this. But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'


Special connection with animals After I started to practice meditation and the Dhamma, I had some very unusual situation with animals, receiving a lot of kindness from them, I was never very "popular" with cats and dogs and it completely changed, more than once cats (very affraid of strangers) came to me in a lovely way, also I had crazy situations with moths that if someone told me I would probably not believe.

So 2 questions I would like to ask:

Is there any Buddhist explanation for that? I know Buddha had a special connection with sentient beings, but he was a Buddha!!

Does anyone had a similar experience?


What kind of mistakes can a new meditator in his/her early 20's avoid? I am currently in my late twenties and I began meditation in my early twenties. I often think that the path that I am on being correct as it is and it has provided it's justification through practice- I am unsure what I will think of me in my thirties or forties I am pretty certain I am making some mistakes that I am not aware now and will be with the passage of time.
This question stems from the fact that I personally know how my meditation journey began as a yuppie and how I thought more an did less. Also following books and authors without knowing that it's not really my own wisdom but someone else's. Trying to be someone else unconsciously without thinking what I want from my life. Intellectual discussions and tryin to prove a point without having metta for the other person. Learning to accept family as they are without doubting or questioning their motives (still beats me). The list goes on.
Well I am sure there are many more experienced and mature meditators who can probably provide a glimpse on their twenties. All this only for a healthy comparison as I don't have any friends my age who take meditation seriously.
Metta

Choose the middle between all extreme contrasts.

If you are going too fast, go slower.

In your meditation you might choose a kind of meditation.
Then you would try to keep yourself on doing only that one thing you have choosen.
You would be disturbed by thoughts or feelings and might not keep yourself on one point.
This is OK. This is meditation: if you come back from things which disturb you, back to point you have choosen. - Many people might think they do not meditate if they can not keep themself on one point - that is wrong.

I think you allready know you need patience, but also there might be a time where a change can help.


Is forgiving someone an issue in Buddhism and what does it mean? In most religions forgiving each other or by God is very common but is in Buddhism forgiving something wiht any value? If so what does it really mean, what does it effect and how is it done?

Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.

Source: Dhammapada Verse 5 Kalayakkhini Vatthu
In Buddhism forgiveness is between one another than by an external agency. Having said this no external agency is behind Karma. It is only your tainted or pure mind. And once done the results follow.

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

Source: Dhammapada Verse 1 Cakkhupalatthera Vatthu
... similarly for good deeds good results follow ...

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, happiness (sukha) follows him like a shadow that never leaves him.

Source: Dhammapada Verse 2 Matthakundali Vatthu
Following highlights no external agency can affect Karma than the mind itself:

This is explained in the Pathama Mahanama Sutta, by the simile of an earthern pot filled partly with gravels and stones and partly with fat and butter. By throwing this pot into water and smashing it with a stick, it will be seen that gravels and stones quickly sink to the bottom while fat and butter rise to the surface of the water. Likewise, when a person who has established himself in the five wholesome dhammas of faith, conduct, learning, charity and insight dies, his body remains to get decomposed but his extremely purified mental continuum continues in higher states of existence as birth-linking consciousness, patisandhi citta.
In the concluding suttas are expositions on the Middle Path, the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Path of Eight Constituents.

Source: Guide to Tipitaka - 6. Samyutta Nikaya by Professor Ko Lay


How a sotapanna person experiences the mind? What is the difference between lay person and a person who achieves sotapanna?Does sotapanna person experience less thoughts?Would they experience as dukka,happiness,pain like mind states?

Maybe the simplest answer to this question is that a sotāpanna does experience the mind, whereas most people identify with the mind so strongly that they cannot experience it at all. They are immersed in their thoughts, emotions, and urges, and cannot effectively separate themselves from these mental conditions.

Someone is sotāpanna when they have eliminated the following three obstructions:

Self-view
Clinging to rites and rituals
Skeptical doubt

The first — the elimination of self-view — means that they have abandoned the idea that the self is intrinsically bound to the 'five aggregates': physical forms, feelings or sensations, perceptions, mind structures, and discriminative thinking. All of these still arise in a sotāpanna, but the sotāpanna realizes that these are not identical to him/herself. For instance, imagine a man who feels a sudden wave of hatred towards something. If he is unskilled he merely hates, with no qualifiers; if he has the skills of a sotāpanna he recognizes the hatred as something separate arising within his mind. He may still be controlled by it because his attachments are still strong, but he has created a certain spaciousness — a mental distance from the arising — that he can cultivate with further practice. As he progresses, this spaciousness grows and those arisings weaken.

Sotāpanna is just the first step, and there's no sense expecting the unconscious habits of a lifetime to fall away like dead leaves. So yes, dukkha and tanhā will still be there; the mind will still be filled with thoughts and feelings and urges. We have to get into the water first, and only after that can we start to learn how to swim. But getting into the water is an accomplishment.


Vajrayana VS theravada - after death theories - do they contradict each other? As far as i understand the having opposing views  about what happens between after you die until you are reborn again right ?  or do they "sit together" some how ?

From Wikipedia on the Tibetan bardos:

  Kyenay bardo (skye gnas bar do): is the first bardo of birth and life. This bardo commences from conception until the last breath, when
  the mindstream withdraws from the body.
  Milam bardo (rmi lam bar do): is the second bardo of the dream state. The Milam Bardo is a subset of the first Bardo. Dream Yoga
  develops practices to integrate the dream state into Buddhist sadhana.
  Samten bardo (bsam gtan bar do) is the third bardo of meditation. This bardo is generally only experienced by meditators, though
  individuals may have spontaneous experience of it. Samten Bardo is a
  subset of the Shinay Bardo.
  Chikhai bardo ('chi kha'i bar do): is the fourth bardo of the moment of death. According to tradition, this bardo is held to
  commence when the outer and inner signs presage that the onset of
  death is nigh, and continues through the dissolution or transmutation
  of the Mahabhuta until the external and internal breath has completed.
  Chönyi bardo (chos nyid bar do): is the fifth bardo of the luminosity of the true nature which commences after the final 'inner
  breath' (Sanskrit: prana, vayu; Tibetan: rlung). It is within this
  Bardo that visions and auditory phenomena occur. In the Dzogchen
  teachings, these are known as the spontaneously manifesting Thödgal
  (Tibetan: thod-rgyal) visions. Concomitant to these visions, there is
  a welling of profound peace and pristine awareness. Sentient beings
  who have not practiced during their lived experience and/or who do not
  recognize the clear light (Tibetan: od gsal) at the moment of death
  are usually deluded throughout the fifth bardo of luminosity.
  Sidpa bardo (srid pa bar do): is the sixth bardo of becoming or transmigration. This bardo endures until the inner-breath commences in
  the new transmigrating form determined by the "karmic seeds" within
  the storehouse consciousness.

Above, you can see that the fifth and sixth bardos are located between death and rebirth.

However, the Theravada view according to Ven. Narada Mahathera from his book The Buddha and His Teachings, chapter 28:

  In the foregoing case, the thought experienced before death being a
  moral one, the resultant rebirth-consciousness takes for its material
  an appropriate sperm and ovum cell of human parents. The
  rebirth-consciousness (patisandhi vi?āna) then lapses into the
  Bhavanga state.

  The continuity of the flux, at death, is unbroken in point of time,
  and there is no breach in the stream of consciousness.

  Rebirth takes place immediately, irrespective of the place of birth,
  just as an electromagnetic wave, projected into space, is immediately
  reproduced in a receiving radio set. Rebirth of the mental flux is
  also instantaneous and leaves no room whatever for any intermediate
  state (antarabhava). Pure Buddhism does not support the belief
  that a spirit of the deceased person takes lodgement in some temporary
  state until it finds a suitable place for its "reincarnation."

From the above two excerpts, it appears that the Tibetan and Theravadan views are contradictory.


Attention to itching makes me unable to focus on anything else I am spending some time alone in a day (in solitude). During that alone time and during the rest of the day i am feeling itching and tingling. I can ignore both by just watching it as someone described in the below article about itching. However, both are really annoying and feels like i'm unable to focus on anything, as my focus then turn to the itch/tingling.

Reference: https://zenhabits.net/itchy/

Here's the canonical answer:

In this way he dwells contemplating feelings in feelings internally,
or dwells contemplating feelings in feelings externally, or dwells
contemplating feelings in feelings [both] internally and externally;
or dwells contemplating in feelings [their] nature of arising, or
dwells contemplating in feelings [their]  nature of vanishing, or
dwells contemplating in feelings [their] nature of [both] arising and
vanishing.  Or else his mindfulness that ‘there are feelings’ is
established simply to the extent necessary for bare knowledge, for
repeated mindfulness. And he dwells independent, and does not cling to
anything in the world. Thus also, monks, a monk dwells contemplating
feelings in feelings. (Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, MN10 translated by Aggacitta Bhikkhu)

Take note though that feelings here does not refer to the itch, but how you feel about it.


Why is there Hindu gods in this decorated wall in the Vihara of Bhaja I am a student of art and I am studying on Buddhist art .In the Vihara of Bhaja  there is a decorated wall with two important gods of Hindusim, namely Surya and Indra. It refers to the Shunga period.

Why they have used images from Hindu gods?
Why would they have made this kind of art at all?

I thought that Buddha was against Hindu gods, and that people should follow him because Buddha advised that people should rely on themselves and not on the gods!

From Wikipedia, Buddhism and Hinduism:

  Hinduism and Buddhism, have common origins in the Ganges culture of northern India during the so-called "second urbanisation" around 500 BCE. They have shared parallel beliefs that have existed side by side, but also pronounced differences.

The Bhaja Caves date to around 200 BCE, so at the time of the relief carvings, Buddhism would only have been around for roughly 300 years. At this point Buddhism would have been considered fairly "young", and would have lacked as much of the independent symbolism, art, etc. that we see today (after the passage of ~2,200 years).

Within the first 300 years of Buddhism, mainstream society in India would still have been very much Hindu-oriented. Hinduism would have been everywhere, reflected in all aspects of daily life. So it follows that artists would have used familiar symbolism and artistic subjects, taken from the Hindu-driven mainstream culture.

This is, of course, as good a guess as any. We'll never know that specific artist's personal motivations or the circumstances that led to the choice of those particular carvings. But looking back on the period holistically, I don't think it's too surprising that we'd see a lot of Hindu art everywhere, even in and around "Buddhist sites".


Why Alaya Vinnana and Manas is not supported in Theravada? Why Alaya Vinnana and Manas is not supported in Theravada?

The objective of this question is not to criticise Mahayana teaching, but to compare and contrast the idea so we will have a better understanding of Theravada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses

It is - https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha195.htm

"Thus we can see that vijnana represents the simple reaction or response of the sense-organs when they come in contact with external objects. This is the uppermost or superficial aspect or layer of the vijnanaskandha. Manas represents the aspect of its mental functioning, thinking, reasoning, conceiving ideas, etc. Citta, which is here called alayavijnana, represents the deepest, finest and subtlest aspect or layer of the Aggregate of Consciousness. It contains all the traces or impressions of the past actions and all good and bad future potentialities. The Sandhinirmocana-sutra also says that alayavijnana is called citta (Tibetan sems)."


What is Wholesome Meditation? Apologies, this question has been brewing for some time after observing so many expressions of suffering from maybe not so much as misinformation, but more misdirection.
Are there any scriptures defining what "wholesome meditation" is with relation to all the Skandha and not just one?
Wouldn't wholesome imply a working towards balance between all components that constitute an individual? Because every meditation is a technique of cultivation for the 'individual' to reach enlightenment...?
Would this also mean enforcing one and neglecting the other four is not only counterintuitive, but potentially dilapidating for the cultivation of an individual? And such imbalance may shed some light on how there are so many questions regarding some form of suffering while meditating?
Watering a tree, but no offering of light, mineral rich food, interaction from the world or even foundational soil for constitution.
Yet, plant the tree in the sun, near a creek in soil complimenting and feeding it's roots and birds to spread it's seed...

Wholesome means without defilements of greed, hatred & delusion; regardless of which or how many khandhas.

"And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of
the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.

"And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root
of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html