Buddhism on depression? I've seen some posts (questions and answers) talking about how feeling bad... is bad. Basically that you shouldn't feel bad because of... whatever reason. It varies.

My question is... how does that affect Buddhist teens? You know, the ones controlled by their emotions. Or the ones that are depressed. Will it not act like a Circle of Depresseion, where the person becomes more depressed by thinking that they are a bad Buddhist by being depressed?

Like, you feel sad > you're not supposed to feel sad. You're supposed to be above that > you feel sadder because you are sad and you're not supposed to.

How does newly converted buddhists face that? How does any buddhist face that?

Note that this question talks about laymen, and not munks.

Hmmm that's an interesting take. It's not that feeling bad is bad. That would indeed lead to the vicious circle you describe. It's more like feeling bad is lame. It's like you're starving when your fridge is full. Or you're itching but don't know how to take shower. Or you have cockroaches in the kitchen but don't realize that keeping it clean could solve that. That's the idea.

Per Buddhism, feeling bad is not something we should feel helpless against. Despite life always giving us trouble or even completely failing us in many ways, there are ways to feel good regardless of all that. These Buddhist techniques for feeling good are not fooling oneself, not wearing pink glasses - in fact they are more real than what we're used to call "real".

Having said that, in my experience of having a teenage son (who is now 19) they can sense B.S. from nine miles away, so unless one has really mastered it in one's own life, giving them some fairy-tale explanations is not going to work. But if you have walked the path yourself and know what you're talking about, you can totally help a teenager achieve stability and agency in their own life.


Is there person without consciousness? If we consider person(Arthma) as a consciousness. When undergoing an operation, we are temporarily unconscious. Then what happens to that person while unconscious?

Some related discussion are here:

I want to understand the technicality of rebirth and what happens to conditioned self.
If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?.
Is rebirth a delusional belief?.
What are examples of identity-view?

If we say these things are temporary illusions then how it is continued?
What are the similes use to explain this phenomena in any tradition?

Nothing happens to that person when consciousness ceases - there was never a person to begin with, only arising and ceasing of experience.

I realized after the fact that I can't sufficiently cite sources while on my phone - apologies for such an incomplete answer, I'll try and expand later :)


What would a sotapanna do? There are many arguments whether a sotapanna has a perfect morality/sila or not. But let's base this topic on this Sutta:

  With what four factors of a stream enterer is he endowed?

  ...Is endowed with virtues that are not broken, not defective, not
  spotted, consistent, not blemished, not enslaved, praised by the wise
  as conducive to concentration and desired by the noble ones He is
  endowed with these four factors of a stream enterer....Anguttara Nikaya 9.27

Now, for example, a deadly worm is in the stomach of a sotapanna's child. The only thing to help his child is to kill the worm otherwise his child will die. With his perfect morality, what would a sotapanna do, will a sotapanna (naturally) let his child die?

My guess is that a Sotapan would look into alternative removal of the worm but eventually probably get rid of it one way or another.


Is it possible to become a buddhist without a formal teacher? I was reading a particular question about conversion.

This particular answer discusses how one converts to become a buddhist: How does conversion work in Buddhism?

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

Is it possible to become a buddhist without a formal teacher or formal teaching? If so, does one just learn from online experiences and research?

Pretty much so. Buddhism is a path of personal growth, so you do what you feel it's best for your own development.

It's not something that I recommend, but you can even be a Buddhist and break all the precepts. The only requirement is that you mindfully explore the consequences of your actions (i.e. their kamma). Then you have a chance to learn why you are following the precepts, i.e. not because someone commanded you but because you know by personal experience.

If personal experience tells you that you need a teacher, then go for it. If you do better by personal research, then go for it. Experiment while always being mindful. That can never fail you.

Also read this: How does one become a lay Buddhist?


Observations appear as thoughts For example when I'm feeling a little anxious, I might think "I'm feeling threatened". These thoughts makes me feel like I am not actually being mindful, because if I actually were then I wouldn't need to think about it, you know? It's kinda hard to explain, but I feel like I'm just fooling myself into believing I'm observing myself, when it's actually all happening within my thoughts.

What's going on here? Am I misunderstanding something?

In my opinion, you are not misunderstanding something. You are being true.

Many teachers & gurus say thoughts can be observed. I personally disagree here (unless the thoughts are very subtle and very infrequent).

In my experience, thinking & observing are antagonistic. When the mind thinks, it is not particularly observant. When the mind is truly observant, it rarely thinks.

To genuinely observe anxiety, attention should be drawn to the tremblings or vibrations of the body (the nervous system) and shortness of the breathing. Try to feel the emotion, mood or feeling of anxiety; the pressure in the head (brain) & body, etc.

That said, it is not easy to do this. If you try, you may need to regularly let go of observing & do some breathing out. The important thing is to trust it is impermanent or a passing mood; like a storm temporarily clouding a clear sky.


Sacca-pabba Is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa is Jāti and Paṭisandhi," right? In saccapabba of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta:

Jāti is "khandhānaṃ patubhāvo" and "āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho".
Khandhānaṃ patubhāvo included viññāṇa-khandha.

Viññāṇa-khandha is viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda.
Rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda is rūpa-khandha.
Nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda is vedanā-, saññā-, saṇkhāra-khandha (cetana, phassa, manasikāra; see: sammādiṭṭhisuttaṃ).

Those nāma- and rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda are piyarūpa/sātarūpa.

60 piyarūpa/sātarūpa: 6 outer āyatana, 6 āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda, and 42 nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda  (6 vedana-paṭiccasamuppāda, 6 saññā-khandha, 6x5 saṇkhāra-khandha [phassa-paṭiccasamuppāda, cetanā-paṭiccasamuppāda, vitakka, vicāra, taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda]).

So jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is viññāna-paṭiccasamuppāda.

The difference is: Jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is 5 khandha. So jāti is a conclusion of viññāna, nāma+rūpa, āyatana, phassa, vedanā, taṇhā, upādāna and bhavā-paṭiccasamuppāda. But viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda is an explanation of jhāti.

So sacca-pabba is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa Is Jāti And Paṭisandhi", right?

So jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is viññāna-paṭiccasamuppāda.

No, this is not a proper statement. jāti refers to conceptual birth of a satta, both in paṭiccasamuppāda and the sacca-pabba:

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti? Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi satta-nikāye jāti
The difference is: Jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda is 5 khandha.

jāti is the event of being born, it cannot be equated to the five khandha directly.

So jāti is a conclusion of viññāna, nāma+rūpa, āyatana, phassa, vedanā, taṇhā, upādāna and bhavā-paṭiccasamuppāda.

This is correct, of course.

But viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda is an explanation of jāti.

viññāṇa is a part of the process of jāti, but paṭiccasamuppāda is not always taught in a way relating viññāṇa to jāti.

So sacca-pabba is the reason that commentary commented "Viññāṇa Is Jāti And Paṭisandhi", right?

What commentary is this? paṭisandhi is one important viññāṇa but not the only one being spoke of in paṭiccasamuppāda. I think you are over simplifying things.


Can someone provide a transliteration of Sri Lankan script following the western Pali standard? Sadly, Indo-Germanic languages aren't well transliterated following international standards (which are far from purposes, aside of productivity and cutting down to lowest).

The romanization of Pali and Sanskrit romanization often follow a totally different standard -- it's good if Sri Lankan could follow more language conservation standards.

Maybe someone likes to help with an alphabet list that gives Pali in Sri Lankan script -- a transliteration following the international standards for Pali-to-Roman and also international romanization of Sri Lanka script -- that western could also do an effort to have no hindrances.

Be aware that SE-Asian isn't well supported by Google Translate, and so you can make much merits in Dhamma helping here personally to answer.

There is a development by Brahman Vinodh:
http://aksharamukha.appspot.com/converter

Not sure how well it works for Sri Lankan script and Pali, since the Developer heads much toward Sanskrit and worldly standards -- I at least observe in other languages that it does not fail for Buddha-Dhamma yet -- but surely also happy to receive generosity for the good parts of the Undertaking.

Not sure in how much Sri Lankan script deals well with special characters for loan words from Sanskrit and Pali aside the native language script.

[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange and stacks by for liberation from this bond]

Google translate Singhala

If you type Pali you get the Romanised version below the text.

Also, this might be helpful: Sinhala script - Use for the Pali language


U Ba Khin and his reference to Parajikan Atthakatha U Ba Khin, in IMC: Personal Experiences of Candidates, writes some quite interesting "explanatory remarks" about the experiences that Mr. J. Van Amersfoort had during a meditation course.

In those remarks U Ba Khin sees the Parajikan Atthakatha as an authoritative treatise which talks about the "realization of the Truth by an analysis of the kalapas in the body with the lens of Samadhi obtained through Anapana Sati".

I was not able to find the text of that Parajikan Atthakatha, as far I could gather it should be a Vinaya commentary. Does someone have a full English translation of it? I would be interested in how it deals with kalapas.

This (Parajikan Atthakatha) is available within Samantapāsādikā more particularly the part called Parajikakanda Atthakatha. The original is published by PTS and available in Pali at the Pariyatti Store. As for an English translation there is: The Inception of Discipline & the Vinaya Nidana: Being a Translation & Edition of the Bahiranidana of Buddhaghosa's Samantapasadika, the Vinaya Commentary (Sacred Books of the Buddhists). (Link to Inception of Discipline N.A. Jayawickrama at Pariyatti Store) I am not sure if this is complete and thorough thought as the original is a 8 volume set which seems to be condensed to 1 volume in the English translation. If you are looking fro free editions both (Pali and english) are available in https://archive.org/ which I have given the links above.

Probably U Ba Khin is referring to the following passage (PDF from Parajikakanda Atthakatha, page 160):

  Evaṃ nāmarūpaṃ vavatthapetvā tassa paccayaṃ pariyesati, pariyesanto ca taṃ disvā tīsupi addhāsu
  nāmarūpassa pavattiṃ ārabbha kaṅkhaṃ vitarati. Vitiṇṇakaṅkho kalāpasammasanavasena tilakkhaṇaṃ āropetvā
  udayabbayānupassanāya pubbabhāge uppanne obhāsādayo dasa vipassanupakkilese pahāya upakkilesavimuttaṃ
  paṭipadāñāṇaṃ ‘‘maggo’’ti vavatthapetvā udayaṃ pahāya bhaṅgānupassanaṃ patvā nirantaraṃ bhaṅgānupassanena
  bhayato upaṭṭhitesu sabbasaṅkhāresu nibbindanto virajjanto vimuccanto yathākkamaṃ cattāro ariyamagge
  pāpuṇitvā arahattaphale patiṭṭhāya ekūnavīsatibhedassa paccavekkhaṇañāṇassa pariyantappatto sadevakassa lokassa
  aggadakkhiṇeyyo hoti. Ettāvatā cassa gaṇanaṃ ādiṃ katvā vipassanāpariyosānā ānāpānassatisamādhibhāvanā ca samattā hotīti.

That turns out to be a quote from Visuddhimagga (viii-224 and viii-225), part of a commentary on the first tetrad of anapana meditation. The English Bhikkhu Ñánamoli’s translation is the following:

  Having defined mentality-materiality in this way, he seeks its condition. With search he finds it, and so overcomes his doubts about
  the way of mentalitymateriality’s occurrence in the three divisions of
  time (Ch. XIX). His doubts being overcome, he attributes the three
  characteristics [beginning with that of suffering to mentality and
  materiality], comprehending [them] by groups (XX.2f.); he abandons the
  ten imperfections of insight beginning with illumination, which arise
  in the first stages of the contemplation of rise and fall (XX.105f.),
  and he defines as “the path” the knowledge of the way that is free
  from these imperfections (XX.126f.). He reaches contemplation of
  dissolution by abandoning [attention to] arising. When all formations
  have appeared as terror owing to the contemplation of their incessant
  dissolution, he becomes dispassionate towards them (Ch. XXI), his
  greed for them fades away, and he is liberated from them (Ch. XXII).
  After he has [thus] reached the four noble paths in due succession and
  has become established in the fruition of Arahantship, he at last
  attains to the nineteen kinds of reviewing knowledge (XXII.19f.), and
  he becomes fit to receive the highest gifts from the world with its
  deities.
  At this point his development of concentration through mindfulness of breathing, beginning with counting and ending with
  looking back (§189) is completed.


What happens if a monk is called for jury duty? Is it possible for a monk to be called for jury duty in the U.S.A.? If so, does the Buddhist religion prevent them from taking part int he judicial process, as it involves passing judgment on others? Furthermore, would it be considered an offense for a lay person to be a member of a jury that had to decide on a death penalty case?

There is another question on here about whether or not a buddhist can harm another person https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7767/471 it claims that the buddha said that judicial action wasn't blameworthy.
So you could get away with saying that taking part in judicial action was not blameworty, but if it was me, I would have great difficulty in judging whether or not they had actually committed the crime. And it would be upsetting to discover that they were innocent but my vote was for guilty.


What is path and fruition? Path and fruition for the 4 stages of holy disciple are frequently mentioned.
I understand that the fruition is the removal of the fetters and realization of the knowledge of that respective attainment (stream entry, once returner, non returner, arhatship ). The holy disciple knows that he is a stream entrant upon attainment of stream entry fruition.......he knows he is an arhat upon attainment of arhatship.

But what is the attainment of path? How would one describe rightly the attainment of the path?

What is the difference in an ordinary person, a faithful disciple who has not attained any path and the holy one who has attained any of the respective path?

I would really appreciate actual words of the Buddha for this answer.

But what is the attainment of path? How would one describe rightly the
  attainment of the path?

The path to nibbana has four steps as you mentioned stream entry, once returner, non returner, arhatship. As you have asked How would one describe rightly the attainment of the path? I'll answer to that as below.

What is Stream Entry
When someone achieved this state he drops three fetters self-view (sakkāya-ditthi), clinging to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa), and skeptical indecision (Vicikitsa). Ref. But there's a mistake in this. Which is how (sakkāya-ditthi) is defined. It's translated as self-view. With this mistake we are trying to think to attain stream entry we need to drop the myself view. Which is not the correct buddhism.

If someone feels like down voting this, first read this full and question back, before doing that. Because this is the real buddhism

First I'll prove why it cannot be self-view.

If someone drops him self in the first stage (drops the fetter of self-view) then who is going to attain the once returner state who is going to follow the rest of the path of Enlightment. To do that there should be a person, there should be a self who is doing that.
Dropping fetter mānasaṃ which happens when becoming Arhat cause to drop the self-view not the vise versa. And only after someone becomes Arhat he has no view of him self. He is not going to compare anything with him, as everything is irrelative (opposite of relative) to him (there's no him at this state).

Now let's see what's the real sakkāya means.
sakkāya means, Something you are attached (upaadanaya) is worth. As an example, we think nice car is something worth to have, pretty lady / handsome boy is worth, Think about anything that you think it is worth (This can be your children, laptop, parents, pen, pair of shoes, phone with latest Tech etc). Now ask the below questions from your self (If you are not Arhat then there's a self).

Why you think that's worth? : Answer would be it exists the way you want. You think the existence of that happens as per your wish. Until that happens, you protect it, you keep it, sometime you archive it saying that had been with you for this much of years (eg: you may keeping a pen which is no longer use, but just because it was given to you by someone special, therefore it's worth for you)
Is the same thing worth for some other person as well? : Answer would be No. Why? because it's something you build in your mind. If the real worthiness is in that object (eg: pen, phone, lover, car etc.) it should be worth to everyone. The only answer which explains why everyone doesn't like (doesn't think worth) the same thing, is because its made up in your mind.

So now it should be clear that the real worthiness does not exist in out side world (outside object). Its always something we build in our own mind. Now you should think deeply, how you can expect the same model which you built on your mind will be reflecting in the outside object. (eg: wife thinks, husband will love her forever, man thinks the car will exists as he expects). These are two different things. One in outside and one in your mind. And just because we attached to an outside world (external world) object, then we try to make / control outside world object to make it identical with the model we made it in our mind. But you will not be able to achieve this. This is the real meaning of Anicca not the impermanence.

Now back to sakkāya, It is that we think the external world is worth. And we attached (craving) to that without understanding (not knowing = ignorance) the Anicca behaviour of the world. Therefore to drop the sakkāya you need to understand the Anicca behaviour. Which make you understand nothing is worth in this world, but if you have experienced something is worth (exists according to the same picture built in your mind), it is because that's how it supposed to behave according to the law of nature (which is Pratītyasamutpāda), and not because of the picture in your mind or because of your wish. So when someone understand this he drops the other two fetters which are clinging to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa) and skeptical indecision (Vicikitsa)

  What is the difference in an ordinary person, a faithful disciple who
  has not attained any path and the holy one who has attained any of the
  respective path?

Answer to the second part of the question:
An ordinary person and a faithful disciple who has not attained any path are the same Puthujjana level. And only the person, who has attained the stream entry (Sotāpanna) after knowing the Anicca behaviour of the world, acts differently. Because he knows the truth of the world, to understand that very well and he will not run after attachments as the way he used to be. He has slown down the speed of running after attachments as he knows and understands the truth up to some level.

So stream entry person starts meditating after he become stream entry, and get to the four stages of dhyana as he can deeply concentrate the truth of the world (Anicca) and how world behaves (Pratītyasamutpāda) in dyana state. Which cause him moving to the other three steps and finally attain Nibbana

Hope this clears grey areas in Buddhism.


Is actively reporting wrongdoing considered divisive speech? I've been reading through the newest version of the code of conduct of the company I work for, and I've been weighing each rule against my Buddhist ethics, and it has brought up some interesting questions for me.
One thing the code of conduct says is that if one witnesses something improper, and does not report it, that constitutes a violation. I think, for most serious offenses this is in line with the Buddha's teachings (for example, sexual harassment, violence, etc). But for certain other offenses, it's not very clear to me whether reporting them would be considered divisive speech, i.e. wrong speech.
The Buddha defines unskillful verbal action, in part, thusly:

What he has heard here he tells there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he tells here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus breaking apart those who are united and stirring up strife between those who have broken apart, he loves factionalism, delights in factionalism, enjoys factionalism, speaks things that create factionalism.

— AN 10:165
So, two questions pertaining to two very concrete examples:

Suppose one witnesses corruption. If one reports it to the police, is that considered divisive speech? Could it be said that one is setting up the police against the perpetrator?
Suppose someone confides in one about a relationship in the workplace (not disallowed by the code of conduct, unless it goes unreported). Could it be considered divisive speech if one reports the relationship to the company's ethics body?

Apparently, according to the commentary on rule number 3 of the Pācittiya section of the Pāṭimokkha, one of the defining characteristics of divisive speech is that one has to have the intention of either gaining favor with another party, or causing the disgrace of another. Whereas if one is acting with the genuine intention of putting an end to harm, or to have someone help the other person see the error of their ways, it is not considered divisive speech.
More discussion can be found here.
So, some possible answers might be:

If one does not develop ill will toward the perpetrator of the act of corruption, and one is genuinely interested in preventing or stopping harm, one can report the act to the police and it would not be considered divisive speech. Although the severity of the criminal consequences here raise more interesting questions in this case.
If, by not reporting the workplace relationship, harm would befall the witness or the people involved in the relationship once the relationship is discovered; and, additionally, one does not have the desire to shame the people involved; then one can report the relationship to the ethics body of the company without being considered divisive speech. Since in this specific case, the code of conduct does not forbid relationships, but only unreported ones, no additional harm would come from the report.


Why did Buddha put so much emphasis on no-self? Why should we care if we have no-self or have a self. Ultimately it is of no help. I know any buddhist teacher will say that feelings or body are not-self, so you shouldn't get attached to it, but even if we do assume that we have no-self still we face the consequences of kamma. We just can't pretend that this body is not-self and cherish once it starts to decay. Everyone understands that no-self is truth but how can it help us remove our suffering? The only option I see is that you pretend that because of no-self your suffering has lessened, but does this pretending ever help? No,never.

In short, how does the theory of no-self help us in a real sense, not just in pretending sense. Why is this no-self so important to Buddha?

You're speaking of the self as if it is real. Only when you know it is not does the benefit of knowing otherwise become real. Being told the self is unreal will be of no help to you except as a clue. The idea is most definitely not to pretend anything.

You say 'Even if we do assume....' It would be an error to assume anything, and of no use at all. When you see beyond the self you wont be asking about the benefits but marveling at them. The theory is practically useless, the reality is all that counts.

You say everyone understands that no-self is truth but this is far from being the case. Even you seem to be questioning it. I'd guess 1 in 500 would be an optimistic estimate of how may people think non-self is truth, and those who know are even thinner on the ground. Most people wouldn't know what you're talking about.

The 'theory' of no-self is not designed to help us. It's not designed at all. It's just what is the case. It is not a theory for those who know but just the way things are.


Does eating eggs break the precepts? On the Buddhist days for eating vegetarian, as laypeople is it okay if we eat eggs? I hear people say that eggs grown for eating are not devoid of life. If eaten, is one guilty of killing?

There is are few incidents mentioned in Buddhism about egg consuming leading to bad karma.

Explanation - "How could eggs be bad"

Recognition of life in Buddhism is not only walking talking life,it also includes potential life(like an egg).An egg is not a creature,true.But if correct conditions are given it turns to life,So it is potential life.And killing things alive or killing potential life is recognized as bad Karma.

People mentioned to have suffered from bad karma(From the consumption of eggs)when Lord Buddha was alive.

"One day a prince invited  Lord Buddha to his new castle.He laid a carpet thinking if i will have children Lord Buddha will enter my palace walking on this carpet.When Lord Buddha arrived no such thing happend.Lord Buddha skipped the carpet and set foot on the ground.In the end the price asked why.Lord Buddha said i knew your wish,unfortunately you two will have no children so i didn't used the carpet.And Lord Buddha went on to describe why.

Lord Buddha said once in a previous life you were a merchant sailing across the sea to do your business.One day a storm took your ship and you were washed up to a beach of a small island.there was nothing but bird nests.
You,fearing for your life consumed eggs of those birds.Because of that Karma you generated you will have no children"

This prince never had children as Lord Buddha said!

If you look you would find many tales of such incidents,we are Buddhists from birth in my country (Sri Lanka) and we are not in a common understanding about Farmed eggs (the white eggs you see in the market) because they supposedly have been modified to not to give bith.But most of us keep away from eggs unwilling to take the risk.


Ambition and Expectation I'm very interested in the polarity between ambition and expectation. On one hand to be ambitious is to be confident, to be strong, to have faith. With that comes a sense of hope, expectation that good fortune persevere.

Dennis Prager is quoted with saying:

  The more expectations you have, the less gratitude you will have.

Can you be ambitious and not have expectations? Is being ambitious a bad thing? Are expectations the root of unhappiness? Alternatively, is it how we handle failure or disappointment when things don't go according to plan that is what creates unhappiness?

Are expectations the root of unhappiness?

I think the "root" of unhappiness is (according to the second noble truth) meant to be various types of "craving" e.g. as described here.

Slightly more broadly, the three poisons are said to be at the "root" of the wheel of life.

Is being ambitious a bad thing?

I think the Buddhist concept called "Right Intention" could be described as a form of ambition ... and so can "Right Livelihood".

Also, there might be some important differences between Buddhist monks and Buddhist laity (see for example this answer): and part of the reason for that might be a difference in their view of ambition.

Can you be ambitious and not have expectations?

Buddhism is meant to be useful to different people who are at different stages of enlightenment: which is I think what is meant when it's described as, "good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end".

Also, I think we're supposed to remember that there is a Middle Way -- by which I mean that whenever someone asks the question "is it all or nothing?" then I think that a Buddhist answer is often, "it's neither" (or "it's both", or sometimes "that's the wrong question"). For example instead of "ambition: yes or no?" there are other questions to ask -- like "what should we be ambitious for?" and "what happens to us if ambition is thwarted?"

Alternatively, is it how we handle failure or disappointment when things don't go according to plan that is what creates unhappiness?

Yes, that too.

For me personally, the way I interpret it (which isn't how other people must interpret it) is that, if I have an expectation and if that expectation doesn't work out as planned, then my understanding of Buddhism suggests that I 'should' (and 'will') let go of (i.e. change) my expectation, instead of being attached to my previous and now-obviously-unskillful expectation.

FYI there's this piece of 'Zen' advice titled No Attachment to Dust which includes the line,

  Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe.


What is the etymology of "byāpāda" The standard description of Wrong Thought (micchāsaṅkappo) in Pali is

  Katamo ca, bhikkhave, micchāsaṅkappo? Kāmasaṅkappo, byāpādasaṅkappo, vihiṃsāsaṅkappo—ayaṃ, bhikkhave, micchāsaṅkappo. (from MN 117)

The translation says:

  “And what, bhikkhus, is wrong intention? The intention of sensual desire, the intention of ill will, and the intention of cruelty: this is wrong intention.

I have problems understanding the difference between byāpāda (~ ill will) and vihiṃsā (~ cruelty). I know that vihiṃsā means something like "wishing someone harm". But I didn't find where the word byāpāda comes from and in what quality the meaning of it is different from vihiṃsā. Can someone please help me out?

To help understand the differences between the two words, let’s try to understand the meaning of the words independently.  Vyäpäda is ill will. It is a stronger word than patigha. Because of kamachanda, “dosa” or long-lasting hateful situations arise. In the present day Sinhala language, we say ‘dvesa’ for the term ‘dosa’. This long-lasting hateful situation, at its extreme brings out the second of the five hindrances, ‘Vyäpäda’. We can break this word into “vaya”+”pada”. “Vaya” means decline even in native Sinhala. and “Pada” means walk towards.  Thus ‘Vyäpäda’ means one is on a path of (moral) decline. kamachanda and Vyäpäda are the main reasons that we suffer. By disciplining ourselves through speech and bodily actions we can remove any thoughts of extreme greed and hate as they come to the mind.

Vihimsa can be said as cruelty and harmfulness. Its opposite is harmlessness (avihimsa). The following Pali phrase in short means MOLEST NONE…. It’s full meaning is… “He who seeks his own happiness by harming others who also desire to have happiness will not find happiness hereafter.

  ”Sukha kamani bhutani yo dandena VIHIMSATI
  Attano sukham esano pecca so na labhate sukham.

If we take ‘Sankappo’ to mean thoughts, then…     Nekkhamma-sankappo  is  ‘thoughts of renunciation’, i.e., thoughts to cultivate when being at ease in quiet, solitary places.

Avyäpäda -sankappo  is ‘thoughts of non-anger, non-hatred’: We don’t have to keep
thinking about our own bad points or the bad points of others and let these thoughts of ill-will fester.

Avihinsa-saakappo is ‘thoughts of not doing harm’, not creating trouble or doing harm to ourselves and others. i.e., This also entails not thinking about our own shortcomings, which would depress us; if we think about our own shortcomings, it’ll spread to that of others shortcomings too. For this reason, the wise would lift their thoughts to the level of goodness so that they project love and good will for themselves, and in turn feel love and good will for others too.


When and why did monks stop meditating? My understanding is that meditation went through a revival in the last two centuries, in part due to the efforts of the Theosophical Society. Supposedly in the past, monks had nearly or totally stopped meditating. Can anyone fill out the picture?

Main question in the title, when and why did monks stop meditating?
Were other elements involved in the revival?
Is this perspective more descriptive of Theravadan countries?
How did reality differ from this picture?

A long time ago in Sri Lanka the Sangha began to divide itself into two sort of specialties of Monks. There were city Monks who lived in monasteries inside the cities and villages, and they specialized in the study of texts and doing ceremonial functions while the forest Monks lived either in monasteries outside of settlements or they wandered from place to place. Such forest monks specialized in meditation. Over time distinct customs grew up with these two specializations, so for example in Thailand, city Monks (with the exception of the Dhammayut monks) wear bright yellow or orange robes while forest monks always wear brown or ochre colored robes.

Over time these customs evolved further, so for example in Thailand for a long time forest Monks also became specialists in using special chants and other kinds of things that are usually thought of as magic.

In the case of Thailand at least the revival came partly as the result of a reform movement that was founded by King Rama IV when he was a monk that focused on improving the standards of the Vinaya. When this movement grew to include forest monks, this reform movement created a lot of dedicated monks who wanted to live the forest monk lifestyle in a much more meditative role rather than the semi-shamanistic role that the forest monks had slipped into, and that became the foundation of what is now the Thai forest tradition today.

In Sri Lanka the revival had a lot to do with the rising sense of anti-colonial sentiment towards the British who controlled Sri Lanka at the time, with Buddhism growing again as a response to Christian missionaries. This Buddhist pushback started when the Monk Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera began putting out pamphlets refuting Christian missionary literature, and this gave way to a series of debates which culminated in the city of Panadura, and it was the Ven. Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera who won the series of debates.

This sparked the Buddhist revival movement and it was at that point the Theosophical society lent support, and meditation became more common as serious study of texts became more common.

As for Burma, I think the meditative side of revival there is largely the result of the Ledi Sayadaw's influence. He was a major scholar (In Burma, scholar monks are usually more influential) who learned meditation from someone (no one really knows who) from the hills in the Sagaing region, and he popularized that style of meditation through his teaching and scholarly writings.


Are there pictures/paintings of Nirvana? I´m writing an article about pictures of the afterlifes/havens in different religions. But I wasn´t able to find pictures/paintings/artworks that picture Nirvana on the internet. So my question is: Are there pictures of Nirvana?

Nirvana isn't a heaven, but a state or condition where there is no
  death, because there is also no birth, no coming into existence,
  nothing made by conditioning, and therefore no time.

See Wikipedia - Nibbana

It isn't a place of pleasures, like heavens typically are, but a state of no becoming, no dualities like pleasure and pain. It neither is, nor isn't.

  In a famous passage in the Nibbana Sutta (Udana 8.1), the Buddha
  states:

  There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor
  fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor
  dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of
  nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception;
  neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there,
  I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing
  away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support
  [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress (dukkha;
  suffering)

Does that mean there are no heavens in Buddhism? Not like the Christian idea, as a final destination, no.

However, there are realms (ex. Trayatimsa) which are more pleasurable than earth, where one can with enough merit be reborn and eventually die to be reborn again, ad inifinitum till Nirvana i.e. cessation. See Wikipedia-Buddhist Cosmology

Here's an artist's imagination of Trayatimsa realm, however there can be no picture of Nirvana. (Image source: Wikimedia-commons)

EDIT:

Considering it some more, I think the abstract expressionism of the Zen Ensō or circle is what you want.

  The ensō symbolizes absolute enlightenment, strength, elegance, the
  universe, and mu (the void). It is characterised by a minimalism born
  of Japanese aesthetics.

Source: Ensō - Wikipedia


Why have a legal/ justice system? Let karma take care of things? We all know people who are living immoral lives committing crimes but getting away by bending the law towards their side due to wealth and influence. When ever I see or hear something like this I keep telling my self that karma will get them even though the legal system cannot. But then again I keep question as to why we need a legal system at all when we know that there is a natural system or justice called karma?

I think your idea is not practical. A justice system is a convention developed based on social norms and logic. But karma is a metaphysical phenomenon which goes beyond logic. Therefore, we will have to let karma take its course and respect the conventional legal system.


Books on meditation? I am a beginner Buddhist and have tried meditating (by concentrating on the breath) but have not experienced any benefits from it. Are there any good books on meditation out there that can help me achieve a better meditation practice?

You can try reading:

THE TRUE POWER OF KANNI MEDITATION －The Essential Guide to Anapanassati & Vipassana
Anapanasati: Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life
Mindfulness of Breathing and Four Elements Meditation
Right Mindfulness: Memory & Ardency on the Buddhist Path

Breath meditation is covered in Ānâpāna,sati Sutta which you can directly read.


Back from a retreat: what to practice? I need to give some background before I can ask my question so, my apologies for the long winded post.

I am back from a wonderful 6 days retreat (Bhikkhu Buddhadasa teaching/ Anapanasati). With the last 3 days of those in newly reached blissful state, working on exploring this sate and doing body scans to sharpen the mind further -and bring me back to earth- (as discussed with the instructor since I had previous experience with the Goenka method).

Since the retreat is over, I have spend some time reading about what happened to me (Rapture, Jhana, ...) as the dhamma talks did not covered this topic (it was a beginners retreat).

I can still focus my mind or have a quiet mind for some period of time, but, when I let go, I reach I very weak bliss state, if at all... (which I am OK with: I  have a lot to deal with in my life right now and only opportunity for 1 sitting a day in the early morning in poor conditions).

What should I use my little sitting meditation time doing?

I was thinking spending every second sitting doing metta meditation and the other one simply watching the beautiful breath (as defined by Ajahn Brahm), going back to body scan at later stage, when my life is a bit more in order and I have my own space to practice. Probably leaving my further investigations of Jhana for my next retreat...

Any advice or experience on this topic appreciated. Thank you.

Your idea to practise alternate metta & breath meditation sounds ideal.

You correctly understand that the development of rapture & jhana generally require retreat conditions thus generally cannot be cultivated when there is limited time.


What's the relation between feelings of neither-pleasure-nor-pain and ignorance? I often see in some suttas that there are some habitual tendencies that, after the arising of pleasent feeling or painful feelings, lead to suffering due to passion for the pleasure and aversion for the pain.

But beside those two modes of feelings, there is a neutral kind of feeling, which neither-pleasent-nor-painful. In the suttas, such as MN 44 and MN 148, it is stated that neutral feeling accompanied with ignorance leads to suffering, because one does not see the gratification, the danger and the escape from suffering.

I do understand the reasoning behind the two former modes of feelings and their relation with passion and aversion, but I can't grasp the idea behind neutral feelings and ignorance.

Can someone explain the influence of ignorance over neutral feelings and its connection with suffering?

Maybe some examples from the suttas or from everyday life might be helpful.

Thanks for your time and patience!

The definition of the 3 feelings come in MN 44 and their relationships to the 3 underlying tendencies towards greed, repulsion and ignorance:

  “Pleasant feeling is pleasant when it remains and painful when it
  perishes.
  “Sukhā kho, āvuso visākha, vedanā ṭhitisukhā vipariṇāmadukkhā;

  Painful feeling is painful when it remains and pleasant when it
  perishes.
  dukkhā vedanā ṭhitidukkhā vipariṇāmasukhā;

  Neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge, and painful when
  there is ignorance.”
  adukkhamasukhā vedanā ñāṇasukhā aññāṇadukkhā”ti.

  “The underlying tendency for greed underlies pleasant feeling. The
  underlying tendency for repulsion underlies painful feeling. The
  underlying tendency for ignorance underlies neutral feeling.”
  “Sukhāya kho, āvuso visākha, vedanāya rāgānusayo anuseti, dukkhāya
  vedanāya paṭighānusayo anuseti, adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya avijjānusayo
  anusetī”ti.

In Contemplation of Feeling, Nyanaponika Thera explained this:

  Pleasant feeling is habitually linked with enjoyment and desire;
  unpleasant feeling with aversion; neutral feeling with boredom and
  confusion, but also serving as background for wrong views.

Also in SN 36.5:

  “Mendicants, there are these three feelings. What three? Pleasant,
  painful, and neutral feeling. Pleasant feeling should be seen as
  suffering. Painful feeling should be seen as a dart. Neutral feeling
  should be seen as impermanent. When a mendicant has seen these three
  feelings in this way, they’re called a mendicant who has cut off
  craving, untied the fetters, and by rightly comprehending conceit has
  made an end of suffering.

The neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings also known as neutral feelings, normally make us bored or dissatisfied. Cravings would lead one to seek pleasures (kama tanha) or to become something or achieve something (bhava tanha) rather than sit around all day experiencing neutral feelings that don't bring satisfaction.

No feelings at all, would also be a cause for boredom and dissatisfaction. From the same article by Nyanaponika Thera, we read the commentary of the suttas and his comment:

  Comy.: "From the fourth Jhana onwards, it is the
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling (that is present in these
  meditative states). But this neutral feeling, too, is called
  'pleasure' (sukha), on account of its being peaceful and sublime. What
  arises by way of the five cords of sensual desire and by way of the
  eight meditative attainments is called 'pleasure as being felt'
  (vedayita-sukha). The state of Cessation of Perception and Feeling is
  a 'pleasure, not being felt' (avedayita-sukha). Hence, whether it be
  pleasure felt or not felt, both are assuredly 'pleasure,' in the sense
  of their being painfree states (niddukkhabhava-sankhatena sukhena)."

  In AN 9.34, the venerable Sariputta exclaims: "Nibbana is happiness,
  friend; Nibbana is happiness, indeed!" The monk Udayi then asked: "How
  can there be happiness when there is no feeling?" The venerable
  Sariputta replied: "Just this is happiness, friend, that therein there
  is no feeling."

To the arahant, neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana are all pleasant.


Meditation - how to breathe naturally? Just starting with meditation, I can't get the breathing right.

As soon as I concentrate on breathing (as there is not much else to concentrate on), I unvolunteraly assume concious control over when to breath in and out.
That leads to either to little or to much breathing and makes me feel dizzy.

How ever, when I stop conciously breathing in and out, I don't breath at all - my breathing reflex wont kick in as long as I think about breathing. The result is an awkward cycle of holding breath, turning blue, conciously breathing like just surfaced from a freedive, holding breath again.

Not thinking about breathing works only so long before I realise that I avoid to think about breathing...

Is this common at all? How do you handle this?

I bicycle regularly so maybe I'm good at breathing (get a good amount of oxygen from each breath).

If I sit at rest I seem to need about 4 breaths per minutes. Apparently that's abnormal (maybe even pathological), the internet says that 12/minute is normal for adults, 8/minute for athletes. Also I've been diagnosed with sleep apnea so I have a CPAP machine for sleeping. I say this to warn you that "your mileage may vary".

Anyway, sitting at rest it takes me about:

5 seconds to inhale
5 seconds to exhale
Pause for about 5 seconds, until my body feels it wants to begin to take another breath to avoid a shortage

So 15 seconds per cycle, 4 per minute, including a 5 second pause in each cycle.

I breathe continuously on a bicycle (i.e. during aerobic exercise), and don't try to breathe continuously when I'm at rest, i.e. at rest I do expect to pause between each breath -- and not take the next breath until I feel I begin to need it.

It doesn't have to be exact: if you start a breath a couple of seconds too late or too early, it doesn't matter.

By breathing deeply and continuously I can slow that to 3 breaths/minute:

10 seconds to inhale
10 seconds to exhale
No pause between breaths

That feels abnormal though, an effort to breathe extra deeply and extra slowly.

Anyway, maybe what you're missing is the pause between breaths. IMO if I didn't pause (when I'm at rest) I'd hyperventilate. You can vary the duration of the pause. The trick is not to begin to inhale, until you begin to feel that you begin to need the next breath. If you wait until you just begin to need to breath, don't worry: because you're at rest you'll easily be able to satisfy your need with just one breath, maybe two at most.

Sometimes there's a sudden urge to take an extra quick inhale. If that happens then just let that happen.

Also you wrote, "an awkward cycle of holding breath", as if you're pausing with your lungs full. I pause after each exhale:

Inhale engages some muscular effort
Exhale releases that muscular effort
Pause/idle while the muscles are at rest (not breathing and the body held upright just by being balanced on an upright skeleton, minimum use of muscles to hold yourself in place).

See also How to breathe into your stomach and not get light headed during meditation?

I kind of recommend the book, Anapanasati -- Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Bikkhu Buddhadasa ... plenty of detail, adapt as necessary.


Which Jatakas illustrate Viriya Paramita As far as I know, the story of Khantivadi illustrates the perfection of Khanti by the Bodhisatta, and the Vessantara Jataka illustrates the perfection of Dana - on similar lines - is there a Jataka(s) which illustrates the perfection of Viriya in the Pali Canon ?
Also , Could anyone point out references to other articles/suttas/commentaries etc. inside/outside the Pali Canon on the topic of Viriya Paramita and its cultivation ?

The commentary cites the Maha-Janaka Jataka (539) as the pinnacle of the perfection of effort:

So I will ever do my best to fight through ocean to the shore;
While strength holds out I still will strive, nor yield till I can strive no more."
(Cowell, trans)

Also, the Vaṇṇupatha Jataka (#2) deals with this perfection. There's also one about a bird trying to put out a forest fire that comes to mind, but can't find it right now.


How does one know that he's reached a Jhana level in Metta meditation? When someone practices Metta meditation towards a beloved person using a phrase,

  e.g. May xx be be free from enmity and danger

what is the counterpart sign (nimitta) in this method and how does the practitioner identify whether he's reached a Jhana level?

IMO, you are mixing apples and oranges. Metta meditation is practiced towards "the state of brahmas" (AN 4.190 and AN 3.63), not one of the Four Jhanas. The "state of brahmas" (brahmapatta) is a state of non-dualistic unity with the world. The way to attain it, is through progressively expanding the context of Metta meditation, starting from yourself, to include a closest person (e.g. mom), then friends, then neutral people, then enemies, then all the world. The sign of having reached the state of Brahma are the thoughts like "I am God", "I am all this infinite Universe", "I am True Goal of all religions and the Real Meaning of Love" etc. It is a very powerful experience.

While Four Jhanas are much more localized around oneself, esp. one's emotional state. Like you say in your question, The First Jhana can indeed be practiced with a help of a phrase, that helps one focus on the topic of meditation (in case of the first Jhana the topic is one's actual state of successfully having separated oneself from unwholesome dharmas). However, from Second Jhana onward, the target state of rapture/bliss/equanimity must be generated directly, with no help of discursive thinking.

To emphasize one important point: Four Jhanas are "mastered", not "reached". They are not states/levels you automatically find yourself in. In other words, you don't practice something towards Jhana level X and then "reach Jhana level X". You practice Xth Jhana itself. After having mastered First Jhana, you then practice Second Jhana and so on. The sign of having mastered the First Jhana is ability to successfully do the First Jhana at will at any time, that's it.


Why are some bodily fluids missing from the "Thirty Two Parts of the Body" teaching? "There are in this body head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, intestinal tract, stomach, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, nasal mucus, synovium (oil lubricating the joints), urine, and brain in the skull." source

This seems like a pretty comprehensive list, but semen and menses are noticeably missing; although if they were included, there would obviously have to be separate male and female versions of this contemplation.

Do we know why they are missing? Are other body parts missing? It seems unusual given how direct the Buddha's teachings normally are; so I imagine there is a reason. Thank you!

You could probably contemplate on it as blood. Women entered the Sangha somewhat later. So I would presume this meditation was taught to monks before that happened. You might have also noticed that seminal fluid is missing from the list.
Women having to contemplate on that might actually arouse their lust. Maybe it's the same case with men having to contemplate on women's period.


I do not know what is my Dhamma anymore; Can anyone help? In my previous question I discussed what is your Dhamma which some people interpreted as what is your religion or whether you are a Buddhist. Some people said one discovers Dhamma when one walks on the Noble Eightfold Path. Some people said Dhamma is how the Nature operates.

From religion point of view I am no longer a true believer of Hinduism. I neither a Buddhist because I have not adopted the Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha(although I believe in the Buddha). I am neither a Christian  or Muslim.

From Eightfold Path view : I am not aware whether I am following the Eightfold Path. If I believe in Eightfold Path then my Dhamma becomes to follow the Eightfold Path. But this Dhamma is not something natural. It is learned. Not everyone walks on this Dhamma naturally. According to this theory Dhamma is discovered. And the discovery is Eightfold Path. It is discovered through learning.According to this definition I have not yet discovered my Dhamma.

From natural order of things point of view: If Dhamma is natural order of things then why do we find people who do opposite of what Buddha discovered as natural dhamma? Wny naturally one believes in Self? Clearly if Dhamma means teachings of Buddha then Dhamma is not something innately present all the time.

In short , I have become confused about my Dhamma.
Can anyone help me realize my Dhamma?

Following the Dhamma towards the end of suffering, is not doing the natural thing. It's actually doing what's opposite to what's natural. It's going against the current. What is natural is to follow cravings.

From Itivuttaka 109:

  "Suppose, bhikkhus, a man was being borne along by the current of a
  river that seemed pleasant and agreeable. But upon seeing him, a
  keen-sighted man standing on the bank would call out to him: 'Hey,
  good man! Although you are being borne along by the current of a river
  that seems pleasant and agreeable, lower down there is a pool with
  turbulent waves and swirling eddies, with monsters and demons. On
  reaching that pool you will die or suffer close to death.' Then,
  bhikkhus, upon hearing the words of that person, that man would
  struggle against the current with hands and feet.

  "I have made use of this simile, bhikkhus, to illustrate the meaning.
  And this is the meaning here: 'The current of the river' is a synonym
  for craving. 'Seeming pleasant and agreeable' is a synonym for the six
  internal sense-bases. 'The pool lower down' is a synonym for the five
  lower fetters. 'Turbulent waves' is a synonym for anger and
  frustration. 'Swirling eddies' is a synonym for the five strands of
  sensual pleasure. 'Monsters and demons' is a synonym for
  womenfolk (i.e. sexual attraction).
  'Against the current' is a synonym for renunciation. 'Struggling with
  hands and feet' is a synonym for instigating energy. 'The keen-sighted
  man standing on the bank' is a synonym for the Tathagata, the Arahant,
  the Fully Enlightened One."

The Buddha recognized in the Ayacana Sutta that the masses who delight in attachment, excited by attachment and enjoy attachment, would not easily understand the Dhamma.

  "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to
  realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
  to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in
  attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a
  generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying
  attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard
  to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all
  fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
  craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the
  Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome
  for me, troublesome for me."

We should not underestimate how "natural" it is for the masses to indulge in sensual pleasures. From the Magandiya Sutta:

  "Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.

Ananda Sutta (SN22.83) paraphrased here, tells that the self ("I am") is also very natural, as long as one clings to the five aggregates.

  If somebody should want to see his reflection or image, he could do so
  only through a cause, namely a mirror or a clear body of water. In the
  same way do the five aggregates reflect the image of "I am." As
  long as one depends on them and is supported by them, so long will an
  "I" be reflected. Only when one does not rely on them any longer, will
  the image of "I" disappear.

In the Mallikaa Sutta, we find that another most natural thing is that the most dear person to oneself is oneself. So, it's also quite natural to be self-centered.

However, in general, people tend to feel an underlying sense of dissatisfaction, because despite pursuing pleasures, it never lasts, and ageing, disease, decay and death cannot be avoided. This sense of dissatisfaction, which is sensing suffering, is what drives some people to consider the Dhamma, and pursue the path that is not natural, going against the current of the river of samsara, towards the end of suffering.

What is my dhamma? I guess by that, you mean, what is my destiny?

By default, your "natural" destiny is to go along with the current of craving and clinging, on the river of samsara, towards the destination of suffering. It's up to you to decide to go against the current, and change your destiny, towards the end of suffering, which is on the stable river bank of Nirvana, where the Buddha stood.

In other words, instead of asking "what is my destiny?", you would have to ask "how can I change my destiny?", "how can I change my fate?".

Your dhamma is to decide your own destiny, for you are your own refuge, according to Dhammapada 380.

  Dhp 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could
  the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery
  that is hard to gain.

  Dhp 165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By
  oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and
  impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another.

  Dhp 380. One is one's own protector, one is one's own refuge.
  Therefore, one should control oneself, even as a trader controls a
  noble steed.


What's the meaning of "Pāli" and its relevance in regard of the Buddha's Dhamma? Do you know about the etymology of the Pāḷi word “Pāḷi”, how it breaks up and from what root it is formed etc.? And can you recall any more or less lengthy scholarly or otherwise discussions to which you could kindly refer me to? I know it is a Dravidian loanword, but I remember having came across some papers or books trying to elaborating on it also from a standpoint of Pāḷi philology. It would be very grateful if possible give ways to find out more about the significance of the word and it's meaning.

In a comment Samana Johann linked to this answer -- Pāli Etymology Question -- which suggests (with references) that the etymology of the word is related to its role in preserving the Dhamma ... for example, “dam”, “dike”, “bridge”; or “to recite”; or  “protecting”.

According to British philologist and Professor Emeritus of Indian Studies at Cambridge University, Kenneth Roy Norman, Pali was mistakenly made to be the name of the language of the Canon. He explains how, below. He also links it to the Canon.

From "The Pāḷi Language and the Theravādin Tradition" (1983) by Kenneth Roy Norman:

  The dialect  of Middle Indo-Aryan which is found in the texts of the
  Theravadin  Buddhists and usually called "Pali" by European scholars
  is nowhere so called in the Theravadin canon. The word pāli is found
  in the chronicles and the  commentaries upon the canon, but there it
  has the meaning "canon" and is used in the sense of a canonical text
  or phrase as opposed to the commentary (aṭṭhakathā)  upon it. This
  usage is made  clear by the  fact that  the  word pāli sometimes
  alternates with tanti.

  It would seem that the name "Pali" is based upon a misunderstanding of
  the compound pāli-bhāsā "language of the canon", where the word
  pāli was taken to stand for the name of a particular bhāsā,
  as a result of which the word was applied to the language of both canon and
  commentaries. There is evidence that this misunderstanding occurred
  several centuries ago.

According to Bhikkhu Bodhi (from here - taken from "In the Buddha's Words" (2005), Wisdom Publications, page 10):

  Scholars regard this language (Pali) as a hybrid showing features of
  several Prakrit dialects used around the third century BCE, subjected
  to a partial process of Sanskritization. While the language is not
  identical to what Buddha himself would have spoken, it belongs to the
  same broad language family as those he might have used and originates
  from the same conceptual matrix. This language thus reflects the
  thought-world that the Buddha inherited from the wider Indian culture
  into which he was born, so that its words capture the subtle nuances
  of that thought-world.


What is the purpose of the Mahayana 'emptiness' doctrine? Another naive question...

Further to e.g. this answer, which may be an overview of what Mahayana teaches about emptiness, my question is why does Mahayana teach that?

I gather that the purpose of the anatta doctrine in the Pali canon is, at least partly if not wholly, to end suffering etc. -- e.g. MN 22:

  It would make sense to grasp at a doctrine of self that didn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
  Taṃ, bhikkhave, attavādupādānaṃ upādiyetha, yaṃsa attavādupādānaṃ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā.

  But do you see any such doctrine of self?
  Passatha no tumhe, bhikkhave, taṃ attavādupādānaṃ yaṃsa attavādupādānaṃ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā”ti?

  No, sir.
  No hetaṃ, bhante.

  Good, mendicants!
  Sādhu, bhikkhave.

  I also can’t see any such doctrine of self.
  Ahampi kho taṃ, bhikkhave, attavādupādānaṃ na samanupassāmi yaṃsa attavādupādānaṃ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā.

What is the benefit if any of the emptiness doctrine? Does it have a "soteriological" purpose?

How does that work, i.e. what is the mechanism by which the doctrine is beneficial?

Or is it meant to be simply true, an observation or description of fact, without benefit?

Short answer: because understanding that phenomena are not "solid", but are in fact an interpretation/imputation, removes craving and passions in regards to them, which prevents dukkha that arises from that.

Long answer:

Normally we think that world is like a fish tank - a 3D environment full of objects, some of which are food, some friends, some dangerous sharks etc. with ourselves being one of the fishes in the pool. Then we spend most of our lives chasing the food and attractive fish, avoiding sharks, and trying to occupy the best spot in aquarium.

We assume that the world actually exists as it appears to us. We take it for granted that objects are objects, that some of these objects are awesome and some are not, that we are in competition with the others, and that the objective of the game is to achieve happiness by arranging a perfect environment for ourselves, and then maintaining it as long as possible.

This entire dream is based on an idea of solidity of the external world, an idea that things are actually out there as they appear, awesome or bad independently of our mind, and that therefore obtaining them or avoiding them is the right thing to do, and that therefore failing at that is the right reason to be upset and to experience suffering.

However, attaining an insight into "how things really are" - which is to say in how things are not solid, and how the mind of illusory solidity develops (process known as D.O.) -- having a direct insight into all this pulls the rug from under the initial illusion of solidity and the entire complex of behavior that comes with it.

The traditional analogy is rope that seems like a snake. Once you see it's a rope, the fear of getting bitten is gone and has no basis for ever coming back.

The next question naturally is, what exactly are we talking about when we say things are not solid, and how does that help remove the craving and other kleshas.

When we say things are not solid, we are saying that each individual thing is in fact multiple independent phenomena that seem to be lumped together, but only when observed from a certain perspective. In fact, this perspective is the main force that gives things their illusory solidity. Or, put in other words, much of what things seem to be actually comes from ourselves, from our own interpretation. Remember the snake-rope.

Once we get a very clear first-hand insight into how we "project" (impute) our perspective onto things, and learn to loosen that up, we realize that much of the importance we assigned to things is in fact our own game of make-believe. We also realize how many conflicts and passions in the world originate from people taking their own perspectives/interpretations all too seriously and assuming things are the way they look to them, and that all other ways of seeing are wrong.

Just like individual phenomena, entire world as it appears in our subjective experience is a giant interpretation that we assemble by looking at things a certain way, and pulling together certain strings of ideas to form a (semi-)coherent picture. And then of course our idea of ourselves, our feeling of "me-ness", is similar construct, made up of a million separate strings we strive to maintain intact. Emptiness of self is studied at length in Pali Canon, under the name of Anatta.

What Buddhists call the circle of Samsara (the cycle of subsequent generations of people inheriting this ignorant way of perception and passing it on to their children) and the struggle that comes with it - entirely depends on ignoring the fact that reality is our interpretation and that our interpretation is based on our limited exposure, and that our exposure comes from the circumstances, and that our circumstances come from results of previous actions, and that previous actions came from taking the illusion of solidity at the face value.

But once we understand how it all works, we can be free from it to a large degree, at least we can certainly be free from the subjective dukkha, and oftentimes even free from getting ourselves into troublesome situations that involve conflict of ideas.

Why? Because when we see that things are our own projection/interpretation/imputation - we no longer are seriously attached to them, we are more flexible, we allow for other interpretations, we see things from multiple perspectives which is a more robust way of seeing things. It turns out that most of our cravings, conflicts, and passions - most of our trouble and suffering - came from the assumption that things are real and actually possess all those qualities and characteristics, and now that we know they are/do not, now we can be free from all that.


Starting studying again Let me explain. I have met, got enchanted and started to slowly study Buddhism on my own quite some years ago. But then time passed and life consumed me. I have never abandoned the beautiful and deep perspective on reality that doctrine taught me. But over time you get still and staggered; and life begin to rot your way if you don't keep it fed and healthy. Well, I am talking In my case. I feel that I'm losing my path and I deeply want to grow again in peace and understanding. In this world so void of physical masters and lonely, buddhist teachings have given me great relief and energy to fight on.

So, to the point: may any of you please recommend me a good reading to start meeting and discovering teachings again? If I may add please, if you know of something not too heavy or obscure... Started reading the bodhisharyavatara, which is beautiful but get a bit dense as you follow, so I can't read much at a time and don't understand much neither.

Buddhism scriptures and texts are so huge in numbers that you kinda feel lost in it. I think I would resume it like this: a great reading, no matter the school or the time.

I deeply thank you for these place and for your time and help. Yours,

David

At least with the Pali suttas, start with the first three sermons:

https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/bodhi + https://suttacentral.net/sn45.8/en/bodhi
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.28/en/bodhi

Then basic moral teachings, such as:

https://suttacentral.net/mn61/en/horner
https://suttacentral.net/sn55.7/en/sujato
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html

In the Buddha's Words An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon by Bhikkhu Bodhi is a good compilation (although take care with Bhikkhu Bodhi's often sectarian footnotes).


What Pali and English words are translations of the Norwegian words for ‘reality’? The English word ‘reality’ (from the Latin res, "matter” or “thing") is very misleading and says the opposite of what “reality” actually is. The Latin 'res' is a very deceptive word, it makes you think about something static, finite.

It’s etymologically very interesting to look at reality from a Norwegian perspective. The Norwegian words are more dynamic and the reason might be that Norwegian is a highly ambiguous language.

We have two official versions of Norwegian, and so we have two words for 'reality'. One is 'røyndom'. 'Røyn' means something you can experience, something you can learn, but also something that takes a toll, something that gets you worn down. It's not static, but a dynamic concept, an expression of change. Its meaning is similar to the meaning of suffering.

The other, the most common word for reality, is 'virkelighet' (like the German 'wirklichkeit'). 'Virke' means functioning, so 'virkelighet' is "that which happens when it's 'working/functioning' ".

‘Virke' also means 'seem'. If you want to say in Norwegian "it seems to be that way, but it's not", you use the same word! (det virker som ...") I think it's interesting and an example of etymology clarifying philosophy.

What are the Pali and Sanskrit words for reality? Is "reality" an accurate translation? What English word – like the Norwegian ones – could be used instead to better represent what actually is the nature of reality?

"Yatha butha" and "Thathata" are pali terms for Reality.
By referring SuttaCentral website,

Definition for the pāli word Yathābhūtaṃ
yathābhūtaṃ adv. in truth; in reality; in its real essence.

As Butha,

Definition for the pāli word Bhucca
bhūta] only in cpd. yathā—bhuccaṁ (nt. adv.) as it is, that which
really is, really (=yathā bhūtaṁ) Th 2, 143 … 143. See under yathā.

As Thatha

Definition for the pāli word Tathatta
M i.468.—abl. tathattā in truth, really Sn 520 sq. (cp. M Vastu
iii.397). tathatta nt. the state of … Tathatta (nt.) [*tathātvaṁ] "the
state of being so," the truth, Nibbāna; only in foll. phrases: (a)

Most common terms used to clarify reality are "Anicha, Dukka, Anatha". "Sunya and Pathichasamuthpanna" also can be used.


Vipassana meditation comes naturally; Samatha meditation incredibly hard. Let me start off by saying that I can do Vipassana meditation for about 20 minutes at present. Accepting thoughts as they arise, noticing sensations without judging is relatively easy, compared to doing Samatha meditation. However, even though my body may feel relaxed and calm after doing Vipassana, my mind is still cloudy and obscured (I suffer from brain-fog and Depersonalization Disorder). Depersonalization Disorder is a sense that you don't really exist, almost as if you are outside your body, lost in a cloud. I feel calm, but my mind still feels foggy.

If I focus on the breath (Samatha), I find that I only manage to sit still for about 3-4 minutes before becoming physically agitated (to the point where my body will curl up in tension). I feel as if I need to go for a run; my mind kind of shouts at me, saying "Go, go go! Get up. Go do something". There is no anxiety, just physical and mental agitation.

My mind feels fine doing Vipassana, jumping from moment to moment, letting things be. But when I tell the mind to focus single-pointedly, all hell breaks lose.

Should I carry on with the breath, even though I can only do it minutes at a time, or should I do something entirely different?

I have also found this to be the case when practicing samatha meditation. Here is my understanding of why that is, and how to deal with it:

In vipassana meditation, you do not need to "tune" sensations out. In fact, noticing them is part and parcel of the practice itself. Restlessness and agitation are thus sensations to be noticed and analyzed, and their presence won't really pose a problem.

By contrast, samatha meditation is about concentration on one thing -- in the case of anapanasatti, the breath. One thus becomes far more sensitive to the hindrances that obscure the goal of single-pointed focus, and they actually become an obstacle. The agitation you describe is literally the fourth hindrance, which is described as an inability to calm the mind. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_hindrances#Restlessness-worry_.28uddhacca-kukkucca.29.

On a deeper level, agitation / restlessness are manifestations of a mistaken belief that changing to some new state will end an unpleasant feeling. You thus experience the unpleasantness  of the sensation and react by attempting to change the situation.

How to deal with it:
Whenever I practice samatha meditation, I invariably experience what you've described above. To overcome it, I walk through a counting exercise I learned in Bhante Gunaranta's book "Beyond Mindfulness in Plain English". He recommends counting each in-out breath up to ten, then back down to one, then up to nine, then back down to one, then up to eight, etc. etc. until you reach one. Oh, and if you mess up, you need to re-establish your mindfulness, and start over :D

From personal experience, I've found that this method works very, very well. I am an inexperienced, impatient meditator, but this method -- when applied with mindfulness and self-honesty -- completely subdues the grosser manifestation of the hindrances for me.

Additional suggestions: Here is where your vipassana practice can and should bolster your samatha practice. Recognize the sensation objectively; recognize its impermanent nature, recognize that moving / shifting / getting up / etc won't truly eliminate the suffering within the experience, and recognize that there is not really a self behind the unpleasant experience -- it is merely an aggregation of perception resulting in you experiencing a hindrance to meditation. Through this process, you will calm the unpleasantness of the experience, and the hindrance will become subdued. Then you gently re-focus and proceed with the breath.


Is there anything I can read about the Buddhist tradition today? I've read the book Makers of Modern Korean Buddhism, and it was really interesting to read about the recent history of Buddhism, in Korea. And there's quite a few books on how Buddhism came to America etc.. And I have a few biographies of important monks. And I've read a bit about Bodhidharma, ch'an history in China, Tibetan dissemination, and the like.

But is there any other scholarship, like the book on Korea above, I can read about recent Buddhist history, rather than personalities, today?

The Broken Buddha isn't exactly a history -- more of a snapshot, a description, an account of the author's personal experiences -- his description of people he met and their attitudes and behaviours which he saw ... not about "personalities", in that the people he describes are unnamed or not famous.

Seven Years in Tibet is history (ending in 1950) -- but by a non-Buddhist, and more about the culture, society, geography and politics of Tibet at the time, than about Buddhism.


Dhatu-vibhanga sutta question? Why consciousness not discussed as internal and external in Dhathu-vibhanga sutta?

"And what is the space property? The space property may be either internal or external. What is the internal space property? Anything internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is called the internal space property. Now both the internal space property & the external space property are simply space property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the space property and makes the space property fade from the mind.
"There remains only consciousness: pure & bright. What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure. When sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of pleasure.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of pleasure that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure — ceases, is stilled.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. When sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain — ceases, is stilled.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

If you look at original Pali, what they translated as "consciousness" is actually "vijnana" - (discriminative) experience.

The point of the sutta is, as you meditatively investigate what seems to be your "I", you progressively exclude all physical elements as obviously not "I", until you are left with just experience itself. Then you investigate that experience and realize that it depends on the sensory input, which depends on attention.

When you don't pay attention to any sensory input, experience stops. What's left is called "equanimity" ("upekkha"), characterized as "luminous" or "radiant" ("pabhassara"). See Pabhassara Sutta for the canonical reference to "luminous mind".

Then Buddha explains that although this equanimity can be shaped into any other meditative state, including the formless jhanas, the meditator understands that any such state would be contrived and conditioned and therefore finite and prone to suffering.

This realization leads to letting go of desire to attain any state different from what is presently unfolding. The resulting state is pure suchness providing no basis for suffering to arise. The meditator realizes that this indeed is the culmination of the path, "the knowledge of the ending of suffering".

So, the "experience" is not analyzed as internal and external because we are talking about meditator's own experience as he tries to find who he is by separating from everything that is conditioned and unreliable. Experience (vijnana) itself is conditioned on sensory input and is therefore unreliable, not suitable to be called "I" or to be our basis for eternal happiness. Which leaves us with nothing to rely on, nothing to stand on - and this final realization being the only unshakable truth, acceptance of which gives unconditional freedom from any mismatch of expectations, - is the very Nirvana the Buddha is leading us to.


Food enchanted by spells (SN 7.8) The Aggikasutta (SN 7.8) below states that the Buddhas do not eat food enchanted by spells i.e. food that was chanted over for the Vedic fire sacrifice.

Does the Buddha reject ritually chanted over food? Why is this the case? Does this apply to Buddhists as well?

What is the meaning of "The Buddhas reject things enchanted with spells. Since nature is real, brahmin, that’s how they live"?

I asked another similar question before here. That sutta seems to be about offering food after receiving a teaching as not being allowed, because that's remuneration. However, this question is different because the Buddha did not give any teaching before being offered the milk rice. Instead, the milk rice seems to have been chanted over, in the fire sacrifice ritual. Furthermore, the Buddha asks the brahmin to serve some other food, not the one chanted over with verses.

  At one time the Buddha was staying near Rājagaha, in the Bamboo Grove,
  the squirrels’ feeding ground. Now at that time ghee and milk-rice had
  been set out for the brahmin Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshipper, who
  thought: “I will serve the sacred flame! I will perform the fire
  sacrifice!”

  Then the Buddha robed up in the morning and, taking his bowl and robe,
  entered Rājagaha for alms. Wandering for alms to be consumed on site
  in Rājagaha, he approached Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshiper’s house and
  stood to one side. Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshipper saw him standing for
  alms and addressed him in verse:

    “One who’s accomplished in the three knowledges, of good lineage and
    ample learning, accomplished in knowledge and conduct may enjoy this
    milk-rice.”

    “Even one who mutters many invocations is no brahmin by birth if
    they’re filthy and corrupt within, with a following gained by fraud.

    But one who knows their past lives, and sees heaven and places of
    loss, and has attained the ending of rebirth, that sage has perfect
    insight.

    Because of these three knowledges a brahmin is a master of the three
    knowledges. Accomplished in knowledge and conduct, they may enjoy this
    milk-rice.”

  “Eat, Master Gotama! you are truly a brahmin.”

    “Food enchanted by a spell isn’t fit for me to eat. That’s not the way
    of those who see, brahmin. The Buddhas reject things enchanted with
    spells. Since nature is real, brahmin, that’s how they live.

    Serve with other food and drink the consummate one, the great seer,
    with defilements ended and remorse stilled. For he is the field for
    the seeker of merit.”

  When he had spoken, the brahmin Bhāradvāja the Fire-Worshipper said to
  the Buddha: “Excellent, Master Gotama! …” … And Venerable Bhāradvāja
  the Fire-Worshipper became one of the perfected.

With the Pali version:

  “Food enchanted by a spell isn’t fit for me to eat.
  “Gāthābhigītaṃ me abhojaneyyaṃ

  That’s not the way of those who see, brahmin.
  Sampassataṃ brāhmaṇa nesa dhammo

  The Buddhas reject things enchanted with spells.
  Gāthābhigītaṃ panudanti buddhā

  Since nature is real, brahmin, that’s how they live.
  Dhamme sati brāhmaṇa vuttiresā

  Serve with other food and drink
  Aññena ca kevalinaṃ mahesiṃ

See pages 96-97 of Piya Tan's essay:

  The Saṁyutta Commentary paraphrases the significance of the two verses, thus (as the Buddha’s
  arrière pensée):

    Though I have stood for such a long time waiting for alms, you would not give even a spoonful;
    but now that I have revealed all the Buddha-qualities to you as though spreading out sesamum
    seeds on a mat, you wish to give. This food has been gained, as it were, by singing a song
    (gāyanena gāyitvā). Therefore, as it has been ‘chanted over with verses’ (gāthā’bhigīta) it is not
    fit to be eaten by me. Since there is the Dharma (dhamme sati), out of respect for the Dharma,
    established in the Dharma, the Buddhas sustain their life. This is their rule of conduct, this is their
    way of livelihood (esā vutti aya ājīvo). Such food should be discarded and only what is properly
    gained should be eaten.” (SA 1:232; see Miln 228-232)

  The Critical Pali Dictionary defines abhigīta as “spoken over with mantras,” suggesting that the Buddha
  rejects the offering by the brahmin because he has chanted over it with the sacrificial hymns. However,
  Bodhi thinks that “it is doubtful that the Buddha would reject food for such a reason. Further, according
  to [SED], gāthā is not used with reference to the verses of the Vedas, and thus here the word likely refers
  to the Buddha’s own verses” (S:B 446 n446).
  To suggest that the Buddha rejected the brahmin’s offering simply because it has been chanted over
  with Vedic mantras would suggest that the Buddha is superstitious! The real reason has to do with right
  livelihood (sammā,ājīva).

His translation is a bit different from Ven. Sujato's, i.e.:

  Gāthā’bhigītaṁ me abhojaneyyaṁ
  The gatha-sung should not be partaken by me,

  sampassataṁ brāhmaṇa n’esa dhammo
  O brahmin, this is not the way of those who see.

  gāthā’bhigītaṁ panudanti buddhā
  Buddhas reject what is gained by the singing of verses,

  dhamme sati brāhmaṇa vuttir esā.
  When there’s Dharma, brahmin, this is the rule.

I re-read the "food" chapters of these Vinaya summaries ...

The Bhikkhus' Rules --
A Guide for Laypeople
The Patimokkha Rules
The Khandhaka Rules

... and didn't see anything there about ex-sacrificial food not being allowable as alms food.


Are accepted social norms and the law of the land moral sexual conduct according to Buddhism? I read the following on the internet:

In my opinion, Buddha looks at sex from four angles.

Hindrance to attain Nibbana or even one-pointedness
Generally accepted social norms.
Kindness towards powerless. (children, poor people, women in Buddhas time)
Law of the land.

If the above is not violated, laypeople are allowed to have sex as
they wish.

Are accepted social norms and the law of the land moral sexual conduct according to Buddhism?

I was taught by my Buddhist teacher, that sexual conduct falls under the law of cause and effect, aka karma.  And that every action we do creates a future result.  If we would like to have a pleasant future in samsara then we undertake activities that will provide a pleasant result.  The laws of the land and accepted social norms often times "accept" behavior that will result in unpleasant karmic consequences.  (For instance, white lies are "accepted" by social norms, but would not constitute "right speech" and would lead to undesirable consequences.)
I can't back up this idea with a reference, but logic would say that the laws of the land and accepted social norms may not be "right sexual conduct" according to Buddhist thought.


Is mano or mind function of brain? Then what we perceive is mere creation of brain If brain cease to function all phenomenon also cease to function as well.
Body including brain is so vulnerable to break up and Buddha emphasized that no one should cling to this body and its function to avoid all sufferings.
Evolution is truth and all religions are mere fantasy which originated from ignorance to the scientific findings.
Everything which is brought about should perish in no time. That's the essence of Buddha's teaching(Dhamma).

The question "is mano or mind a function of brain" is irrelevant.

There is a sense organ with the function of knowing what are called 'mental objects', namely, feelings, perception, thoughts, emotions, mental images, etc. These mental objects, unlike many physical phenomena, can last for merely a moment. This sense organ is called 'mano'.

The sense organ also develops 'intelligence'; based on its experience of these mental objects, particularly in how these mental objects accord with or produce another mental phenomena called 'happiness' & 'suffering'. Thus, from the accumulated experience of this "mano" arises "mental intentions" that produce actions (as described in Dhammapada verses 1 & 2).

Buddhism has its own view on the Indian term "nama-rupa". "Nama-rupa" in Buddhism means "mind-body" (as defined in SN 12.2). This term is used as a compound to highlight the inseparableness of mind & body. Not only are 'mind' & 'body' inseparable; but also the consciousness (sense cognition) is inseparable from this 'nama-rupa' (per SN 12.67).

While "mano" probably functions dependent upon the brain, its role is "mental" rather than "physical". What is "physical" is explained in MN 62; in the paragraphs about 'earth, water, fire & wind property'.

SN 12.61 may help here understand the difference the 'mental' ('nama') & 'physical' ('rupa'):

  It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind (citta),' 'intellect (mano)' or 'consciousness (vinnana)' by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
  swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
  it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
  Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
  called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
  arises as one thing and ceases as another.

  SN 12.61


Hard to understand becoming in paticca samupadda It is said that dependent on becoming birth arises.

How can I understand becoming? What is becoming? Can you give me a simile by which I can understand it?

For example it is very easy to understand that dependent on birth, death arises because these two concepts are like the two faces of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.
How to see becoming to make it clear?

In Theravada Buddhism, there are two kinds of bhava:

kamma-bhava - the becoming that is kamma
upapatti-bhava - the becoming that is coming-to-be

The former is what is directly understood to be referred to in the teaching on dependent origination. It refers to the wholesome or unwholesome mental formation that constitutes volitional activity. It is the result of clinging, since clinging leads directly to acting on one's intense desire.
The second type of becoming is a by-product of kamma-bhava and is actually more or less synonymous with rebirth.

As it is said, "Bhava paccaya jāti," rebirth occurs in the human and deva worlds or in the lower worlds because of good or evil kamma-process. So rebirth stems from kammas which result from clinging (upādāna) and craving that is rooted in the contact between the six sense-objects and the corresponding sense-organs (āyatana).
In other words, there arise viññāna, nāmarūpa, salhāyatana, phassa and vedanā in the present life as the avijjā saṅkhāra, etc in a previous existence and now on top of that, taṇhā and upādāna give rise to new rebirth. The situation is like that of a man who has committed a crime while he is in prison for a previous conviction, or that of a man who has incurred new debt before he has fully settled his old debt.
Such new kammas accumulate by the thousands in a single lifetime. Under certain conditions one of these kammas becomes a death-bed vision and leads to rebirth while other kammas will create rebirth at other times in the life-cycle. If there are residual kammas from the previous lives that possess great force, they take precedence over present kamma, appear as death-bed visions and create rebirth in the lower or higher worlds. The post-mortem destiny of the person in such cases is determined by the nature of kamma.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Paticcasamuppada

As a simile, upadana is like the heat of rubbing two sticks together, bhava is like the igniting of the spark, and jati is like the flame and smoke that arise based on the ignition.


Will Karma 'balance out' in most cases by the end of a lifetime? So, let me start with the disclaimer that I am not a Buddhist and I am just asking this to further my understanding.

Either way, the thing I was wondering about, does Buddhism hold that in most cases karma will balance out within a single lifetime? Or will it only balance out 'in due time' which could be after many many rebirths?

Reason I am asking is because for Buddhists I 'know' (no actual friends) they always seem to live in the expectation that it will soon balance. To me that entitled behaviour is always incredibly off putting, but that's not the point, I am just purely curious whether the expectation (not the entitlement) actually makes sense at least from a theoretical Buddhist believe point of view.

Clearly there are already different answers to this. In fact the different answers are indicative of the problems of Buddhist karma. I've published two articles which touch on this question:

Did King Ajātasattu Confess to the Buddha, and did the Buddha Forgive Him? Journal of Buddhist Ethics. Vol. 15, 2008.
Escaping the Inescapable: Changes in Buddhist Karma. Journal of Buddhist Ethics Vol. 21. 2014.

The main point of the 2014 article is that the theory of karma changes over time. I trace one particular major change from the earliest records into the later records (and add some more speculative thoughts on the origins of karma theory).
Early Buddhists believed that karma must ripen no matter what. There is no escape from the consequences of one's actions. On the whole one's actions ripen as rebirth (punabhava). A few of them might ripen in this life as vedanā or sensations, and a few in subsequent lives (as rebirth or sensations), but most of them go to conditioning the next life. At least one Pāḷi sutta, Karajakāyasuttaṃ (AN 10.219; v.299-301), claims that in causing rebirth all unripened karma comes to fruition and we start each life with a clean slate. Though typically early Buddhists allow for karma to come to fruition after many lifetimes.
The only light in this picture is that through religious practices one can make oneself less vulnerable to the ripening of karma in this life (whether it was caused in this or a previous life).
However this changes. We begin to see more possibilities in the Theravāda Abhidhamma which invents a new kind of karma - upapīḷakakamma "counteracting karma - which can counteract or suppress the ripening of karma. Buddhaghosa, the great 5th Century father of Theravāda orthodoxy, is clearly still in the "Karma must ripen" camp.
For Mahāyāna Buddhists there are a whole range of religious practices one can do, including confession and dhāraṇī chanting, that can mitigate the effects of karma ripening, or even eliminate karma completely. Many of these are listed in the Śikṣasamucaya, a sūtra compilation by Śantideva (ca 7th or 8th century)
The difference is epitomised in the story of King Ajātasattu (2008) as found in the Samaññaphala Sutta. Having killed his father Ajātasattu experiences some uneasiness and goes to see the Buddha. After telling the Buddha what he has done and promising to be good from then on, the king leaves. In the Pāḷi version of the story the Buddha turns to the monks and says "Well, he's done for". Having killed his father even meeting the Buddha is not enough to save him. And indeed the commentaries say he went to Hell when he died. In the later retellings of this same story (ca. 4th-6th centuries) in Sanskrit and Chinese however, the king is miraculously saved by his meeting with the Buddha. The whole attitude to karma and how and when it ripens has changed. Karma is no longer inevitable.
The early Tantras, particularly the Sarvatathāgata-tattvasaṃgraha, take this to its apotheosis by introducing the 100 Syllable Vajrasattva Mantra (see also my Western Buddhist Review article on this mantra). This mantra, when chanted, is supposed to clear away any unripened karma, even of the most serious kind. Chanting it purifies all karma. Chanting it 100,000 times is a common prerequisite to receiving a Tantric initiation. Although it is interesting to note that at least one Tibetan group seems to be teaching the old story of inescapable karma.
Clearly there is no single "Buddhist" view on this question. Karma undergoes many changes over time and a number of mutually exclusive karma theories survive in the present. That said, I have yet to find any documented Buddhist teaching which suggests that karma will "balance out" in a single lifetime. The whole point of karma is that it is the mechanism that drives rebirth. And while many modernist Buddhists are dismissive of karma and rebirth, history shows that it was almost always a priority for historical Buddhists - I have informally written about a number of doctrinal changes in which the supposedly fundamental theory of dependent arising is modified to make for a better karma theory.
We also see that modernist Buddhists are apt to delude themselves about traditional Buddhist teaching. Buddhist ideas often suffer from ad hoc changes to bring it into line with psychology or modern views on rights for example. Rather than reject concepts which conflict with our values, we tacitly (perhaps even unconsciously) alter them to fit and then claim that this is what the Buddha intended.