what is the meaning of the cryptic formula in the 4sp satipatthana formula? (for the Chinese parallel) Can anyone -- who knows chinese -- explain whether the interpretation of the cryptic formula in the Chinese agama parallel to MN 10 is the same as my interpretation?
My interpretation is that "seeing body as body" means "seeing the body according to reality as it actually is" -- rather than how the Theravada commentary interprets it, i.e. "body in body" as meaning "you contemplate body in isolation of the 3 other frames of 4sp".
Here is the chinese sarvastivada MA 98 || MN 10 (B. Analayo trans.)

“Now I, being the Tathāgata of the present, free from attachment and fully awakened, have attained unsurpassable and complete awakening by abandoning the five hindrances, which defile the mind and weaken wisdom, by dwelling with the mind well established in the four satipaṭṭhānas, and by cultivating the seven factors of awakening.
“What are the four? [They are]
the satipaṭṭhāna of contemplating the body as a body, in the same way [the satipaṭṭhāna] of contemplating feelings [as feelings],
[the satipaṭṭhāna of contemplating] mind [as mind], and
the satipaṭṭhāna of contemplating dharmas as dharmas.

https://suttacentral.net/ma98/lzh/taisho

「云何為四？觀身 如身念處，如是觀覺、心、法如法念處。云何觀 身如身念處？比丘者，行則知行，住則知住，坐 則知坐，臥則知臥，眠則知眠，寤則知寤，眠 寤 則知眠寤。如是比丘觀內身如身，觀外 身如身，立念在身，有知有見，有明有達， 是謂比丘觀身如身。復次，比丘觀身如身， 比丘者，正知出入，善觀分別，屈伸低昂，儀 容庠序，善著僧伽梨及諸衣鉢，行住坐臥，眠 寤語默皆正知之。如是比丘觀內身如身， 觀外身如身，立念在身，有知有見，有明有 達，是謂比丘觀身如身。

For reference, this is how I translate and interpret the Pali 4sp formula:

Meaning of the cryptic 4sp formula
He abides, continuously seeing the body as a body, [as it actually is, according to reality]...
He abides, continuously seeing the experienced-sensations as experienced-sensations, [as it actually is, according to reality]...
He abides, continuously seeing the mind as mind, [as it actually is, according to reality]...
He abides, continuously seeing the ☸Dhamma as ☸Dhamma, [as it actually is, according to reality]...

There's a fuller post explaining and justifying my interpretation is at
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-real-meaning-of-cryptic-formula-in.html

"seeing body as body" and "body in body" both means "seeing the body according to reality as it actually is". This is to see the body without any additional interpretations or view. Essentially seeing what is there as it is.

This does not mean "you contemplate body in isolation of the 3 other frames of 4sp". You can choose to if you want to as your main focus, but any of the 4sp one cannot do purely in an isolated manner as one influences the other. E.g. if you are doing kayanupassana this influence vedena. Following highlights how the 4 elements (part of kayanupassana) influence feelings.

  vedana can certainly be connected with three of the four mahabhuta (elements), which are collectively known as rupa. These three are pathavi (earth element), tejo (fire element) and vayo (air element). Apo (water element) is too subtle to touch, or is so subtle that one finds difficulty in feeling it. Now, to illustrate the connection between vedana and the three bhuta, when you have a cramp, which is the tightening of the muscles, it is pathavi; when you feel temperature of the body it is tejo; when you suffer from pain in the stomach, it may be something to do with vayo, for when the air in your stomach is stuck and finds no vent to get out, you have that experience of unpleasant feeling called pain. The connection of vedana with these mahabhuta makes it all the more manifest and helps one realize its true nature.

Source: Vipassana and Vedana as Understood by a Novice by U Tin Lwin


Is Pratītyasamutpāda just cause and effect? Considering the formulation of Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent arising)

  When this is, that is.
  From the arising of this comes the arising of
  that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes
  the cessation of that.

Is this essentially the same as the mundane understanding of cause and effect e.g. I hit a ball and the ball moves? If it isn't (as I strongly suspect) then what is it about the formulation that makes it more than this. In fact so much more than this, Pratītyasamutpāda being one of the central teachings of Buddhism.

One must be quite careful with this formula. In fact it never mentions causation and in general early Buddhist texts do not. Even if it purported to be a theory of causation, it tells us nothing at all about causation. It simply tells us that one thing arises in the presence of another and ceases in its absence.

Causality is a very tricky subject. As David Hume pointed out in the 1700s one never sees "causation" one only ever sees sequence. We assume that when one event follows another in close proximity in space and time. But the assumption is impossible to prove one way or another, and we a frequently wrong about it. Immanuel Kant argued that the idea of "causation" is something that we humans bring to the interpretation of sense experience, a preconceived notion that we use to make sense of experience. So "causation" is still not something we can observe, but something we assume must be present because we cannot conceive of the world any other way.

The formula of conditionality specifically refers to the arising of the items on the list of twelve nidānas. Although I think we can better understand it as applying to experience arising from the contact between sense-object, sense-faculty, and sense-cognition. One image for understanding it is that it's like relationship between the foundations, walls and roof of a house. The foundations must be in place for the walls to stand, but the foundations certainly don't cause the walls. And similarly for the walls and roof.

So the short answer is that imassmim sati idaṃ hoti formula is emphatically not intended as a theory of cause and effect. The early Buddhists were interested in the conditions that contributed to the arising of experience, which they also called "dukkha".

That said, later Buddhists tried to apply this idea conditionality to many things besides experience, creating huge unresolved philosophical problems. And at the same time it is often presented these days as a theory of causation - even by quite clever people who should know better. So modern Buddhists are often quite confused about what the imassmim sati idaṃ hoti relates to and attempts to describe.


Once nirvana is reached is there any connection to earth available? In Buddhism what information is there regarding the ability to communicate back to Earth from those who have transcended and reached Nirvana?

Is it possible or probable that those who attain Nirvana, die, and reach Parinibbana would/could try to help guide others?

The short answer is no.

When the Buddha attained Nirvana, he exclaimed (Dhammapada 153 - 154):

  Through many a birth in samsara have I wandered in vain, seeking the builder of this house (of life). Repeated birth is indeed
  suffering!

  O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My
  mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of
  craving.

Explanation:

  According to the commentary, these verses are the Buddha's "Song of
  Victory," his first utterance after his Enlightenment. The house is
  individualized existence in samsara, the house-builder craving, the
  rafters the passions and the ridge-pole ignorance.

So, thereafter, he would no longer be born again in any world or in any form again. Hence, there is no way that he can communicate with Earth directly. So, how does the Buddha reach people now?

From the Vakkali Sutta:

  "For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the
  Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see
  the Blessed One."

  "Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees
  Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing
  Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

This means that when one sees his teachings, one sees him.

And from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

  Then the Blessed One said to Ven. Ananda, "Now, if it occurs to any of
  you — 'The teaching has lost its authority; we are without a Teacher'
  — do not view it in that way. Whatever Dhamma & Vinaya I have pointed
  out & formulated for you, that will be your Teacher when I am gone.


Help with balance between meditation practice and lay life The more I meditate the more weird I become. I feel stressed out while being with groups of people. I don't know what to say and I find the conversational topics deeply boring, meaningless and useless.
As a consequence of this I tend to isolate myself, communicate via social media and meditate many hours daily in my apartment. I don't really like to be around people when I meditate intensely.
I feel this life is more and more useless and sometimes I want to become a monastic and live in a jungle or forest. I can't do that right now because of paying off my student loan. If I didn't have that loan I would have gone forth by now.
It seems like I can't find a balance between the life of a meditator and as a lay person. Meditation pulls me inwards and makes me not want to be around people but the lay person in me still wants lay life type of things. I'm deeply ambivalent and conflicted about this. I feel like I'm being pulled in opposite directions and it feels like the meditation practice is ruining my life.
Is it possible to find a balance and still live in this world as a meditator or do I have to give up either the meditation practice or the lay life?

Is it possible to find a balance?
Yes. In fact, it is necessary to find balance.
The path is more than immersion. In fact, the practice is three-fold and comprises: wisdom, ethics, and immersion:

MN44:11.2: “The three practice categories are not included in the noble eightfold path. Rather, the noble eightfold path is included in the three practice categories.

”Right view and right thought: these things are included in the category of wisdom.

Right speech, right action, and right livelihood: these things are
included in the category of ethics.

Right effort, right mindfulness,
and right immersion: these things are included in the category of
immersion.

Although one may see the wisdom of the Noble Eightfold Path and practice immersion, one cannot omit ethics. Just like a three-legged stool missing a leg, so too would we topple over without the third practice, ethics. The middle part of the path is firmly rooted in ethics. And what are ethics? Ethics are what we practice when in the company of others.
MN8 has a good list of 44 ethical considerations that apply to all. Here are the first five:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’

MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’

MN8:12.5: ‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’

MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’

Being mindful of ethics when with others and will strengthen wisdom as well as immersion. Practice of ethics paves the way for the practice of immersion, which is later in the path. If any step on the path is difficult, look back at the steps that may have been skipped! All the steps on the Noble Eightfold Path matter. Right Immersion is the eight step. Seven steps precede and are quite important.


What is the, "Counterfeit Law" as referenced in Lotus Sutra In the Lotus Sutra, (Burton Watson translation) there is often mention of "the counterfeit law" being propigated for so-and-so number of small kalpas. I will give an exerpt below, but what exactly is this referring to? I don't know if this is helpful information, but it almost always is talked of in accordance to a prophesy.

  "That buddha's life span will be twenty-four small kalpas, his Correct Law will endure in the world for fourty small kalpas, and his Counterfeit Law for fourty small kalpas."

Here is the definition for  Correct Law (from the Soka Gakkai Nichiren Buddhism Library Glossary):

  Correct Law (Ch zhengfa, J shōhō or shōbō) An abbreviation for the period when the Correct Law prevails. According to Buddhist belief, after the death of a buddha, his teachings pass through three periods or phases of development. In the first, known as the period of the Correct Law, Buddhism is a living religion and those who practice it attain enlightenment through its teachings. The period of the Correct Law following the death of Shakyamuni Buddha is usually said to have been a thousand years in length, though some sources describe it as five hundred years long.

And here is the definition for Counterfeit Law:

  Counterfeit Law (Ch xiangfa, J zōhō or zōbō) Second period following the death of a buddha. During this period, Buddhism becomes increasingly formalized, people’s connection with it weakens, and progressively fewer of them are able to gain enlightenment through its teachings. Some sources describe the period of the Counterfeit Law following Shakyamuni’s death as a thousand years in length, others as five hundred years.


Does Vajrayana Buddhism incorporate the use of cannabis? I'm reading a Wikipedia article on Vajrayana Buddhism and it says: "In Tantric Buddhism, which originated in the Tibeto-Himalayan region, cannabis serves as an important part of a traditional ritual..."

It cites a journal that I don't have access to, so I can't look too much deeper into the source.

What's the historical background of this claim? Are there serious documents or Buddhist texts showing the use of cannabis or other drugs?

There's a copy of the referenced article here: The Religious and Medicinal
Uses of Cannabis
in China, India and Tibet by MIA TOUW.

The relevant quote from the article (which was copied into Wikipedia) is,

  In
  Tantric Buddhism, which flowered in the TibetoHimalayan region, cannabis is an important part of the
  meditative ritual which may or may not include sexual
  intercourse. It is taken to facilitate the meditation and
  heighten awareness of all aspects of the ceremony. The
  large dose, taken orally, is timed so as to ensure
  increasingly heightened awareness from the beginning of
  the ritual onwards, with the greatest "high"-delayed when
  taken orally by about an hour and a half- coinciding with
  the climax of the ceremony (Bharati 1965). Secular use, both medicinal and
  recreational, is equally widespread but, as Sharma (1977b)
  notes, cannabis is taken for granted in the Himalayas and
  therefore is not much discussed.

The "Bharati 1965" reference is

  Bharati, A. 1965. The Tantric Tradition. London: Rider & Co.

There's a Wikipedia article about the author of that reference -- Agehananda Bharati.

The book is available for bout $20 from Amazon -- The Tantric Tradition Mass Market Paperback – January 1, 1970


Is it possible to be Buddhist by nature, or only by indoctrination? Lately I've been wondering if I (or someone, any person) is religious, agnostic, etc., by nature.

Many evolutionary psychologists, eg. Justin L Barrett and Ara Norenzayan, do argue that religion is a natural phenomenon. The argument are quite complex. Barrett for example argues that our brain contains various modules or devices. For example the Agent Detection Device helps us distinguish agents that are capable of directed motion, from objects which simply follow the laws of physics.

Having detected an agent another module which Barrett calls Theory of Mind, describes the object in terms of it's desires, motivations, and goals in order to help anticipate how it might act.

However if we mistake a stick for a snake we don't lose much. If mistake a snake for a stick we may die. So better to err on the side of seeing agents. But this means we tend to see agents everywhere. Plus our Theory of Mind Device means that we tent of think of agents as being like us - as having a human-like mind.

Barrett adds another element - the Minimally Counter-intuitive concept. If something we think we see is complete counter-intuitive we won't believe it. If it is completely intuitive, we'll believe it, but hardly even notice that we do. But something that is mostly intuitive but counter-intuitive in small number of ways we not only tend believe it, but to find it interesting and memorable.

In addition many experiences, such as the classic out-of-body experiences, make it very easy for people to believe in mind separate from body. This is more or less the default position for most people. This idea is discussed by Thomas Metzinger, in his 2005 article 'Out-of-Body Experiences as the Origin of the Concept of a "Soul".' Mind & Matter Vol. 3(1), pp. 57–84; I have written a precise for my blog:

All combined we get invisible agents as partially counter-intuitive, but interesting and memorable propositions. For many people these take the form of spirits. Spirits are common throughout the Asian Buddhist world. and some become gods. Of course in Buddhism we have both, but tend to down-play this. Still it's possible to apply these ideas to more abstract concepts like karma as well.

Most of the work of these scholars is focussed on theistic religion. I'm beginning to apply their ideas to Buddhism to see if it can add to our understanding of it. See for example my recent essay on Barrett's work in relation to belief in karma and rebirth: Why Are Karma and Rebirth (Still) Plausible (for Many People)?

Karma is a very important invisible agent that ensures a just world by making sure that people get the rebirth they have earned. Many people of my acquaintance find the twin ideas of karma and rebirth entirely plausible and likely even.

So it seems there is a good argument for saying that most people are religious by nature, but that some are not. It's entirely possible that someone could come to the same conclusions as a Buddhist about the world. Indeed these evolutionary approaches seem to be saying that it is atheism and materialism that require a more detailed explanation. Not believing in the supernatural is almost unknown in traditional societies, and yet it is quite widespread in the West, especially outside of America.


Improving Sati-Sampajañña (situative wisdom) Although one can cultivate sati (recollection/mindfulness) through meditation & good conduct (silā), & one can learn wisdom via book knowledge as well as via direct seeing (for example rising & passing away of phenomena), how does one know (exactly) what to do/think about in every day life situations?

Improving Sati-Sampajañña is actually right samadhi. When you want to improve  "every day life situations", then you do Sati-Sampajañña. this is exactly the purpose of Sati-Sampajañña: sorting thoughts and perceptions-feelings in  the casual life, when you eat, drive a car and talk to people, before being physically secluded to do the jhanas...

Sati-Sampajañña is a bridge between sila and samadhi, especially for people who already are inclined to the sila that the buddha explains. for people who behave differently than whatever the buddha calls sila, they improve their sila by training for Sati-Sampajañña, or Satipațțhāna, ie watching their speech, their thoughts, their body movements, whatever daily life involves for a lay people...

Most people cannot hold naturally sila for more than a few days, and they can prolong that by forcing themselves, but they will fail eventually.
So they have to develop the next step to fortify the first step. The people who are already well behaved as the buddha defines it, ie at the very least the ''5 precepts'', they can go directly to Sati-Sampajañña and they will fortify Sati-Sampajañña by going further than Sati-Sampajañña, ie training for the jhanas, ie samadhi.

Sati-Sampajañña is really for everybody: bikkhus and lay people, noble ones or not.
Jhana is for people who "have gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building" for a few hours or days, which will mostly be bikkhus, precisely because lay people prefer to be busy with something else.

Then the next step is to get the fruit of sati, proper intention, proper examination, proper samadhi, ie panna, ie to terminate the mixture of ''meritorious activities with the beginning of  investigation into ''reality'' '' that is the noble path, ie  Sati-Sampajañña, right samadhi and sila, in order to become an arahant, or at the very least a sotapanna.
You do that with carrying sati over samadhi, which would be called ''sati samadhi'', but that word does not exist in the suttas. Right samadhi is actually this ''sati samadhi''.

Is is like doing a recipe [for a say  an omelette] : when you cook, you have a result in mind and  you have raw food that you transform in order get the result you want

sampajanna is the raw food = vitakka, vedanna, sanna
sati sampajanna is (the beginning of) what you do with the raw food.

with sati you manipulate the raw food towards the direction of panna. Sati is a direction, a view, a goal where you want to go (and in this case the direction towards nibanna, panna, right view and so on).

Sampajanna is the raw food and you can do several things with that, just like you can  do several things with an egg. For instance, the people who invented vipassana mediation, they play with sampajanna, ie with thoughts, feelings, perceptions, but they go in another direction than sati-sampajanna (even though they love to claim otherwise), because they refuse to judge and remove bad vitakka, sanna, vedana from what they experience, they lvoe the idea fo ''doing nothing'' and just watching perceptions, thoughts and so on, then they claim that this watching will get you to see anicca, then fear of dissolution, then some fruition, then sooner or later first path....

then you have samadhi, which is a a better food than sampajanna, and it must still be cooked, ie manipulated, treated, influenced to get panna.
You can do several thing with the jhanas, typically you can just ''abide in the here and now'' to generate merit, or you try to reach nibanna.

People today always wonder how to combine vipassana with the jhanas. They also wonder how much active thinking there is in the jhanas (because they read the vitakka and vicara in first jhana, but nobody know what they mean). For instance,

some people say that there is zero thinking in any jhana
some people claim that there is only active thinking  in 1st jhana, and zero thinking in other jhanas
some people say that there is active casual thinking in 1st jhana, zero active thinking in 2 and 3 jhana, but in 4th jhana, there is active thinking again, but this time, with uppekha and sati, and this thinking is  when you do vipassana
some people claim there is active thinking in any jhana

well the answer to ''how to do vipassana in the jhana'' is precisely ''right samadhi'', because the buddha says it is with right samadhi that ''seeing things as they are'' occurs, ie the samadhi which comes from right view, right intention, sati and this right view, sati, and so on carries over to samadhi:

when you watch a tv show for several days, or read a big book, or hear a music  which stays on your mind, you start saying the words that they use in the book or the tv show. Sometimes you an even start dreaming about the book or the show. or when you start living with new people, you start to use some of the words they use (and that you never ever used before). It is exactly this that is needed to convert samadhi into panna: you must carry the sati into samadhi.

With Sati-Sampajañña you saturate your ''mind'' (mano, citta, vinnana, whatever it is which memorizes and cognizes thougths) with sati, ie you think about and ponder the dhamma all the time, and this sati must carry over into samadhi, just like when you read a book for a long time, you start dreaming about it.
And whatever thinking you have in whatever jhana you dwell, the ''mind'' (typically in the jhana, it is the citta which is more important than mano or vinnana, because it is the citta which determines the next birth and the casual jhanas are all about merits and births) will have to be influenced by sati, right view, right intention which is this stuff:

  ‘The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s
  what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, quite
  secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities,
  enters and remains in the first absorption. They contemplate the
  phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and
  consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an
  abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling
  apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those
  things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is
  sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all
  attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation,
  extinguishment.’

and the result is:

  Abiding in that they attain the ending of
  defilements. If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, with the
  ending of the five lower fetters they’re reborn spontaneously, because
  of their passion and love for that meditation. They are extinguished
  there, and are not liable to return from that world.

like when you give an impulsion to a boat on a water to make the boat go forward ''alone'', sati from Sati-Sampajañña must give a momentum to samadhi. If there is thinking in the jhanas, then it is good news since it gives a new chance to influence the citta in samadhi, if the sati of Sati-Sampajañña is ''forgotten''; but if there is no active thinking, then all this influence relies on Sati-Sampajañña.

it is exactly the same thing with anapanasati: the raw food is listed as ''kāyasankhāraṃ'' and ''cittasankhāraṃ'' and you have to influence them with sati, right view, whatever wisdom and little tricks are memorized, in order to be sensitive to them and calm them until the citta is in samadhi, as per tetrad 3, instead of being distracted by rupa...

And anapanasati suffers from the same situation as the samadhi above : nobody knows what ''sankhāraṃ'' means and nobody knows what it means ''to be sensitive to the sankhāras'', in order to calm them [tetrad 3] and abandon them [tetrad 4], so you have to wait for a buddha to explain all that.


Where do Hell Guards fall? While searching some Buddhist inspired pictures of Naraka I often found hell guards torturing others... Question is where are they on the rebirth cycle. Are they ausras? And if they  are created to hurt people how can they ever find a good rebirth.

Yes, they are Asuras. They are not created. They are also hell beings who become stronger from time to time due to their past good Karma and assume a position of command. At other times, they suffer like the rest.

They are not hurting people(humans). They are hurting beings who are at the bottom of the scale of virtue. So the Karma they get is comparatively less. In any case, they don't get any opportunity to do good. So, unless a past good Karma resurfaces, they have to wait till the end of the world to escape from hells.


Has Sādhna ( Meditation practice) with closed eyes more benefits than with open? Nowadays, I've been practicing Vipassana (Sometimes anaapan) with open eyes since I instantly start feeling sensations almost everywhere in my body including flesh & organs when I draw my attention there. Actually, I haven't fixed proper time for Sādhna in my routine rather I try to practice it 24hrs by being aware constantly like during eating, walking, listening, sitting (During activity I try to witness activity with detachment) with equanimity.

But whenever I give time to meditation with closed eyes, I feel my surrounding very dynamic, beautiful & loving once I open my eyes after meditation.  So far, I have been taking this as my hallucinations along with ego is the reason I haven't cared to give dedicated time for meditation practice with closed eyes.

But now, I want to ask whether I'm missing something?

Should I allot dedicated time for meditation with closed eyes? Are there some benefits?
Is feeling surrounding dynamic & beautiful after meditation a hallucination?

To your question, ”Should I allot dedicated time for meditation with closed eyes? Are there some benefits?” I would advice you to do otherwise. Each person is different. In your case it is when you keep your eyes wide open that you are most effective. So put more emphasis on the things that work for you, and that you consider favorable. Now I will give you some pointers to help develop this type of ‘meditation’ to another level.

In interacting with the world, we see visuals (rupa) with eyes, hear sounds with ears, smell odors with nose, taste with the tongue, touch (pottabba) with body, and think about concepts (dhamma) with the mind. Be mindful when you experience these while you are in any of the four main postures of sitting, standing, walking, or lying down. Then you will observe that kamachanda and vyapada are the main culprits for making a mind stressful, and for causing “inside fires”. Try to forcibly remove any thoughts of extreme greed and hate as they come to the mind. Make a habit of it. Then with time you will begin of “cooling down” or experiencing niramisa sukha.

Also in time you will abstain from committing an immoral act at any time. In any posture – be it sitting, standing, walking, and laying flat, you will be vigilant on what you are about to do or speak. This is being “morally mindful” at all times. get into the habit of contemplating their consequences. When thoughts come to mind to say something or to do something while sitting, standing, walking, or lying down, you will to get into the habit of contemplating their consequences. Then with time you will see a change in yourself, a sense of tranquility, a “peace of mind”. When you are at this stage, it will be easier to get into samadhi, even if you are just doing the “breath meditation”.


Difference between yatha bhuta and vipassana Is there a difference between yatha bhuta and vipassana? Or are they just synonyms?

The two terms are not exactly synonymous although their context of usage is synonymous since both terms are associated with "seeing" ("passa") the same true reality.

'Yathā bhūta' means "true nature", as is found in AN 11.2, namely: 'yathā (true) bhūta (nature) jānāmi (know) passāmi (see)*'

"Vipassana" means "clear seeing" (namely, the Four Noble Truths, the true nature of suffering & peace; & the Three Characteristics, the true nature of conditioned things).


Is Mindfulness the same as having an Observer? If this was bone-obvious to everyone else, then silly me, but I just thought of it because I heard these two words separately long ago and connected them while answering another question...

Are "the Observer" and the process of being Mindful, in essence the same thing? Does one involve the other inherently?

I have used them differently and never connected them before, because I thought:

The Observer is a developed system within "me" (which is a collection of points of view of varying levels of awareness) and not everyone has an Observer or is aware of it all the time.
Mindfulness is something I do and is not the activity of another point of view within "me".

But, trying to be mindful when I have only one point of view is not very possible, and who would be mindful, other than the Observer?

Finally: is transcending the Observer (and the need for Mindfulness) the same as Nonduality? I think it is. (Don't worry about answering this question, it is just an idea.)

EDIT: My Healing Teacher said that I have to get people to "define their terms", so here are my definitions:
The Observer is the experience of being aware of myself. It feels like I am witnessing my own thoughts and actions.
Mindfulness is the process of being aware of what I am doing. (To me, this does not require an Observer, but that is what I am asking.)
"Being aware of myself" means... Well, that I know what I am doing right now. Different from the other two.
A Mind - is something that could do otherwise, it exercises choice on some level.
Awareness is the action of a sufficiently developed mind.
Consciousness is awareness of being a self.
A Self is something that knows it is a self, and that other selves know, etc.
(Don't even get me started on the idea of Mindfullness being a way to empty the mind!)

Has this made it any clearer what I am asking? Please try to use words such as these for an answer, supplementing with the appropriate Buddhist terms.

ADDITION: here are some links which I hope can help people understand what I am asking:

This RYUC one is a bit of a muddle, but the Observer corresponds with what I am asking about, and also is similar to what I call a Neo state. The Witness is more like how I would describe nonduality.
This one about Energy Healing says that "In Buddhism, developing the witness/observer is a foundational piece of their teachings." Ha!
In this one, they use the words observer and witness interchangeably.

The Observer is the experience of being aware of myself. It feels like I am witnessing my own thoughts and actions.

In Buddhism, "myself" as an entity would be a mind-object: a concept, something one conceived / imagined, which receives attention -- a 'self' is taught to not be in the range of actual experiences such as a touch, a smell or primitive mental phenomena (such as a mental image, or mental sound) that can be contacted.

In Buddhism, one is "aware" of the detailed micro experiences (that, among other things, give rise to a concept of self). In buddhism, this "detailed awareness", or "attention" to a specific "primitive experience" is called consciousness (vinanna), which is formulated in buddhism as six-fold: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness1.

Then, it's said that if there's  eye organ and visual forms,  eye-consciousness arise. The coming of the three is contact. For example in my visual field now there are bed sheets, wall frames and a TV. But while I write this, I'm not conscious of any of these forms, only of this visual character I'm typing right now.

For example, I just realized there was a lamp in the ceiling with lights on in my visual field, even though it has been reachable all the time. Until that moment, there was no contact (my consciousness was not directed) to this particular visual object.

The same occurs with mind as a sense: there are mind objects (e.g. thoughts) a "mind organ", and a mind-consciousness arise; the coming of the three is contact (e.g. when one gives attention to a particular thought). With contact, pleasant, unpleasant (or neither one) occur -- and so on.

  Mindfulness is the process of being aware of what I am doing. (To me, this does not require an Observer, but that is what I am asking.)

I think this is close to what  mindfulness (sati) is in buddhism. It has different/related meanings depending on context but without going into details, I would summaryze as Thanissaro Bhikku put it: "What does it mean to be mindful of the breath? Something very simple: to keep the breath in mind."

  "Being aware of myself" means... Well, that I know what I am doing right now. Different from the other two.

I'm not sure how your "being aware of what I am doing" is different than your "know what I am doing".

  A Mind - is something that could do otherwise, it exercises choice on some level.

In buddhism, I think this could be mano, sankhara, or even possibly cetana.

  Awareness is the action of a sufficiently developed mind.

I don't quite understand what you mean on this one.

  Consciousness is awareness of being a self.

I would not say one is aware of a self (or 'myself', see first point) -- e.g. as if 'self' was an experienced object grasped by any of the 6 sense faculties. But one does elaborate a (by buddhism, incorrect) understanding of being or having 'a self'.

Now, to the question...

  Is Mindfulness the same as having an Observer?

In Buddhism (and if you understand mindfulness to be sati), no.

For a detailed investigation on the meanings of mindfulness I suggest  Tse-fu Kuan's Mindfulness in Early Buddhism

1: The point, I think, is not to say that there is such a thing as consciousness and it can be perfectly divided in six part (an ontological statement). Rather, it is that understanding the mind in this way is useful / helps with training and understanding of dhamma, and consequently, with final liberation.


Do monks not have responsibility towards parents and family? In this age, getting enlightened is not sought after by many as in Buddhas era. So I assume it must be harder for parents to accept such a decision. But monks who decide to ordain also have responsibility towards parents. How does that fit into ethics of Buddhas teachings?

I understand giving Dhamma to parents is one of the greatest gift one can give to a parent. Can it not be done by living with them and still maintaining lay practice (like the potter who was an anagami and looked after his parents) Why ordain?

NB: this is asked with due respect and do not wish to condone monks or people who desire to ordain. As Buddha would not have been a Buddha if he did not step out. I just want to understand ordaining in today's day and age.

Responsibility in Theravada Buddhism falls into two categories - practical and absolute. In an absolute sense, we only have two responsibilities:

“bhante, imasmiṃ sāsane kati dhurānī”ti?
"Bhante, in this religion, how many duties are there?"
“ganthadhuraṃ, vipassanādhuranti dveyeva dhurāni bhikkhū”ti.
"The duty of study and the duty of insight. These are the only two duties, bhikkhu."
-- Dhp-A 1

In a practical sense, a lay person has duties towards six groups of people:

"And how, young householder, does a noble disciple cover the six quarters?
"The following should be looked upon as the six quarters. The parents should be looked upon as the East, teachers as the South, wife and children as the West, friends and associates as the North, servants and employees as the Nadir, ascetics and brahmans as the Zenith.
-- DN 31 (Narada, trans)

These are considered practical responsibilities, because obvious practical problems arise when a lay person fails to fulfil them.
Generally speaking, a monk need concern him or herself with practical responsibilities towards fellow monastics (including teachers and preceptors) and lay disciples.
That being said, a monk may at times find him or herself in a position of needing to fulfil practical responsibilities to one's parents; if they are sick, destitute, etc. To this end, there are disciplinary exceptions across the board for taking care of one's parents, including in regards to giving medical treatment and food, visiting during the rains retreat, etc.
This would seem to suggest an obviously practical encouragement for monks to care for their parents as appropriate / necessary.


Strange experience after meditation- Is this normal? I have once meditated on the Maha Mangala Sutta and I slipped into deep concentration. I opened my eyes and felt my carotid pulsating and I didn't even have to touch it. It felt like it was throbbing and it didn't go away for the rest of the evening. Also, since then, every time pirith is playing, and I choose to listen in, it is always that particular sutra. When I am not even listening to the words of the pirith, I always know that that one sutra is playing and I decide to listen in on the words. What could be a reason why I am experiencing this?

Thank you.

In meditation when you stop creating new Sankara. The affect of this is old Sankara comes up and start passing away. This manifests as different sensation and experiences.

When Pirith is playing if you are very mindful the same can be happening.

This is a good thing as you are getting rid of your old condition and Karma.


Is there poetry in Pali, and where can I read it, in translation and in original? Is there poetry in Pali, and where can I read it, in translation and in original? If so, who are the most important Pali poets, and is anyone still writing in it?

If you googled for Pali poetry, the first result is this page. There are at least 35 Pali poems on that page.
Andrew Olendzki extracted these Pali poems from the Pali Canon and translated them, as he explained here:

Here you will find many poems
that I have translated from the
Pali over the years. .....
These poems all come from various parts of the Pali Canon: Theragatha,
Therigatha, Dhammapada, Udana, Itivuttaka, Samyutta Nikaya, etc. They
are listed here from the newest to oldest, and I will add new
translations from time to time to the top of the list.

Side note:
With details found in this answer, you will find that the original meaning of the word "pāli" itself is "canon", originating from the commentaries upon the Pali Canon. People from centuries ago couldn't even remember the original name of this dialect or language, so they mistakenly called it "Pāli", thinking the term "pāli-bhāsā" (which actually means language of the canon) actually referred to a name - Pali language. The term "bhāsā" means language. By the way, there is no upper case or lower case in Pali.
So you will find that Pali is used only in the Pali Canon, commentaries upon the canon and also later writings related to the canon like the Visuddhimagga. So, it's very unlikely that you will find non-Buddhist poems in Pali. Pali is not a common literary language unlike Classical Sanskrit.


How to disambiguate between various meditation practices? From what I understand, different schools of Buddhism teach different subsets of meditation techniques, or different variations of the same techniques. However, many meditation resources don't specify which technique is meant to achieve what goal, nor the source of the particular technique. There seems to be overlap and combination of techniques, e.g. observing and counting the breath in Zazen, vs. simply observing in Anapana. Some insist that you must sit a certain way, others say to just "sit comfortably." Some you must practice for two hours, morning and evening, others say 20 minutes is sufficient. Furthermore, some sources say that their meditation techniques are not compatible with others, e.g. S.N. Goenka says if you practice Vipassana, you must not practice any other technique (but, even more confusingly, he also teaches Anapana and Metta)

Could you help me understand the difference between these various techniques (how it's performed, what its goal is, advantages/disadvantages), their relationship to each other, and their origins?

Are there any important ones I'm missing from this list?

Mindfulness meditation
Zazen
Vipassana / insight meditation
Anapana
Metta / loving-kindness meditation
Tantric meditation
Walking meditation
Mind clearing (not sure the right name for this - instead of picking an object of meditation like the breath, the goal is to achieve a state of complete thoughtlessness)
Samatha
Transcendental meditation

(I think some of these might be special cases of others, but it's not clear to me)

I agree with Dhammadhatu in that the different meditations seem confusing when you don't know what it is all about.

When you know the underlying principle, you know how these different meditations actually approach same thing from slightly different angle, and you see how they try to explain something that is hard to explain in words, and emphasize what they think are the most important points of that.

And I'm telling you right here and now, what this principle is. It is about dukkha, origination of dukkha, cessation of dukkha, and path leading gradually to cessation of dukkha. I know this sounds so standard and abstract as to almost make no sense, but I swear this is what it is about.

In our life with our every choice and every action we either generate more dukkha (either right now, or increase its odd in our future) or we ... well ... we simply don't create it, or at least reduce the odds of it happening.

This is what all types of Buddhist meditation about, all of them, without exception. They all are various ways to just... Well... They are all exercises at not creating dukkha. Some are more direct and some roundabout. Some more straightforward and some more implicit. But they are all about same thing, essentially. Not creating dukkha.

And how is dukkha created? Whenever in your mind there's craving for things to be other than they are, or in other words there's conflict between "is" and "should", or in other words there's discord - then there is dukkha. And correspondingly when there is no craving, no conflict, no discord - there's no dukkha. And then there's coarse craving, coarse conflict, coarse discord, coarse dukkha -- and various degrees of more subtle craving, subtle conflict, subtle discord.

So meditation is about somehow solving this problem. Removing craving, conflict, discord. Naturally, there are different ways to approach this. Some do it gradually. Some try to do all at once. Some use more force, some are more gentle.

Usually, there is understanding that craving for things to be other than they are, conflict between "is" and "should", and discord - are implicit in our frame of reference, in our evaluation, in our perspective. So most meditations involve some sort of technique that conditions (or unconditions) one's perspective, in order to change the basis for evaluation. Other techniques try to remove all evaluation altogether. In any way, it's all about dukkha and cessation of dukkha.

If you think about it, not all methods are appropriate for all situations. If dukkha is generated by more coarse conflict, then cruder methods work better. If dukkha is generated by subtle inner discord, then very tricky techniques are required. Since most practitioners make progress starting from coarser and then to more subtle, it makes sense that different techniques are appropriate depending on where you are on your individual ladder.

However, many meditation methods are not aware of where they fall. They are often taught in isolation of the broader context, so people don't know what they are doing and why. This is a problem.

If you understand the big picture, you can just sit down and practice. You don't need lenghthy explanations. You don't need to study all these different methods. You can just sit and watch your mind, and try to figure out the problem of dukkha all by yourself. It actually works better that way.

Just sit down and watch:  here is dukkha, this is how it feels, this is how it looks, this thing, this thought, this mindstate has an element of dukkha, and I can see it very clearly.

Then sit and try to see, this is how this dukkha originates, this is the craving for things to be different than they are that it comes from. This is the conflict between "is" and "should" that it comes from. This is discord that it comes from.

Then sit and try to do it. Here's when I let go of this craving for things to be different than they are, this dukkha no longer originates. Here's, when I reconcile the conflict between "is" and "should", here's when I remove inner discord, the dukkha ceases to arise.

Then this particular dukkha is gone, but something is still bothering us, and so we go on to the next iteration. This bothering is a piece of dukkha. I can see it very clearly.

And so on, all the way to Nirvana. It's kind of simple when you get what it is all about.

All meditations in your list, essentially do the same thing, except they don't explain it step by step like I did, instead they just say, "here is exactly how to stop dukkha: watch your breath, and if anything, including dukkha, comes up, come back to breath" (Anapana) or they would say "just label everything that comes up, without judging" (Vipassana) or they will say "just sit. there's no need to change anything, just sit" (Zazen), or they would say "sit and believe that you are a Buddhist deity, and learn to really feel it" (tantric), or they will say "sit and try to love everyone and everything (metta)", or they will say "sit and do nothing until you get lost in thought, then read mantra and come back to doing nothing" (transcendental), or they will say "walk and pay attention to every tiny detail of your walking muscles" and so on and so forth. But now you get it - all of these are just their tricks to stop making dukkha. When you know what it is about, you don't have to blindly follow any of that. You can sit down and practice your own real Buddhist meditation, in accordance with Noble Truths.


increased body temperature during meditation Is it common during samatha for the body temperature to rise enough to cause  some isolated forms of sweating? Specifically around the head, like where a hat would set and sometimes across the upper chest and shoulders?

It doesn't happen every time but at least several times a week. The room temperature is well regulated and in no way warm. I also noticed that there may be a correlation to some insomnia on the same nights that the sweating occurs during the meditation.

There's all kinds of wackiness that can occur during meditation.  Some of it is mental, some of it is somatic, and still other phenomenon are a blend of the two.  None of these things are any reason for concern and it's best not to pay them much mind.  Some of these experiences will come and go while others are will appear quite regularly almost becoming like your own personal brand of meditation.  To be honest, elevated body temperature is actually pretty tame compared some of the other stuff that can happen.  Just wait until your skull twists into a spiral, your hands inflate to the size of beach balls, and you suddenly find yourself sitting at the lunch table on the 117 day of fifth grade!


How can we make sense of the Universe from the Buddhist perspective? I know this is the kind of the question Buddha discouraged to ponder upon with the example of the poisonous arrow.

But after 25 centuries, after what Newton and Einstien and Astronomers and Scientists have bought in light for us, the enormous size of our Universe. It is billions and billions of kilometers across, our earth is a small planet circling an average star which circles an ordinary galaxy on its periphery.

Out in the outer space, there are billions of such galaxies and as far as we know its lifeless, or devoid of intelligent life, like us. And then there is empty space, huge empty space. The nothingness or emptiness of the universe.

And then there is us. A miracle, what sets this question is the paradox of our complexity (biological) against the background of the emptiness of outer space. And here we have reached the conclusion of the first noble truth of Dukkha!!!

Looking at the star-filled night sky, as a Buddhist, how do I make sense of all this?

There may be other intelligent lifeforms out there, as there are billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars surrounded by planets. As physicist, futurist and science communicator Michio Kaku says, ants are not aware of human beings standing near them and looking at them. Similarly, there may be beings far more intelligent than us looking at us right now, but we may not be aware of them.

How does a Buddhist make sense of the billions of galaxies and stars and planets out there?

As we know, none of the planets, stars, galaxies will last forever. Everything dies out eventually, including our whole universe. Apparently, we could be living in a multiverse where there are many universes. An entire universe itself could experience birth and death, what more things inside them. Who knows? There could even be a multiverse of multiverses. But one thing for sure - everything changes and nothing lasts forever.

That's how a Buddhist should make sense of our glorious universe - everything changes and nothing lasts forever. "Sabbe sankhara anicca" - everything that is conditioned and compounded is impermanent.

The Buddhist should also remember one of the Buddha's last words from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

  vayadhammā saṅkhārā, appamādena sampādetha.
  All conditioned things are subject to decay, strive on with heedfulness!


Can brain injured people progress in meditation? I don't mean disrespect to anyone else with this question, I'm asking on my own behalf as someone with neurological & psychological problems caused by a brain injury at a young age. I know all brain injuries etc are different too, and I guess this question also relates to neurodivergent people.
My injury affects my memory, ability to concentrate, intrusive thoughts, emotional stability, ability to hear, and also makes it much more difficult to hold good posture for any length of time (15 mins is the best I can do after practicing for years)- having (or not having) these things are required to meditate properly, right?
Can someone with normal intelligence, but whose brain is injured, practice meditation effectively? Or will I hit a "glass ceiling" where my missing function limits my ability to progress? I've seen some benefits from meditation in the long term, but I worry that only someone with a healthy brain can meditate "properly".
Did Buddha say anything about practicing while disabled?
metta

Thank you for this question.
First of all - meditation is not depend on intelligence - actually there's a verse in the Dhammapada (sorry, I forgot which one, will add it when I find it) which tells about 2 brothers, one of low intelligence and one of high intelligence. The brother with low intelligence progresses faster in meditation practice due to not having too many thoughts and reflections. Intellectual thinking has nothing to do with meditation and won't get you anywhere.
It's about passive, impartial observation of the mind and it's habitual tendencies and reactions (Vipassana meditation). That will lead to understanding and insights, namely into the Three Marks of Existence which is the gateway to Liberation.
What kind of meditation are you practicing now? Do you have a teacher? I highly recommend finding a teacher that can guide you one-on-one either in person or via the internet. Please see Ruben's post for info on the Buddhist monk Ven. Yuttadhammo.
Now regarding the brain injury and the challenges you face - that's not really a problem as long as you can practice a little. You mention 15 minutes - that's great! Maybe start with 5 minutes and try to keep your posture. Posture is not that important you just shouldn't be slouching too much or sitting too straight. Somewhere in between. The Buddha said that even a moment of mindfulness is better than 100 years of mindlessness. What that means is that it's not important how long you meditate - what's important is the quality of the mind. One can meditate for 2 hours but only be mindful for 30 minutes of that time. That's not useful. So try to think of it as quality over quantity.
Again, I highly recommend finding a teacher to guide on the path.
Lastly, don't be too hard on yourself. You have a good Karma by being able to be born as a human being (very rare) and to meet with the Dhamma in this life and being able to practice. Right now you are laying the foundation blocks for future lives. Enlightenment is something that takes many lifetimes for the majority of people. So don't bother with results or how long you can sit for. Just do what you can now and be happy with it.
Also you can be mindful in daily life when going about your day. The formal practice (cushion practice) is meant to bridge mindfulness into your daily life. It's not useful if you are only mindful on the cushion but unmindful in daily life. Try to be mindful when doing the dishes, taking a shower, brushing your teeth etc. That's where the real practice lies.
Hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any questions.


Why Buddha rejected Upanishad and Veda? For what reason did Buddha rejected Upanishad and Vedas?

Because nibbāna of Upanishad and Vedas is sassata-diṭṭhi (eternalism) in brahmmajālasutta. But nibbāna of buddhism is enlightened by ariya at the finish line (enlightenment) of the middle way, that is in the midst of whole extreme teaching around the universe, such as eternalism,  annihilationism, egoism, altruism,  theistic determinism, determinism that only past-life's karmma is cause of present life (i can't find the correct word of this view), accidentalism, nihilism, Marxism, democrazy, communism, science, capitalism, etc.
What is the middle way?
The middle way is ariya-magga (The Noble Eightfold Path), the best balanced teaching which must leads to the complete and perfect whole suffering cessation (anupādisesa-nibbānadhātu). The middle way must have these whole properties as their results, not just some properties:

Dhammacakkappavattanasutta:
By avoiding these two extremes, O bhikkhus, the Tathāgata has gained
the knowledge of the middle path which leads to insight, which leads
to wisdom, which conduces to calm, to knowledge, to the Sambodhi, to
Nirvāna.
....
‘This, O bhikkhus, is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering: (it ceases with) the complete cessation of this thirst -- a
cessation which consists in the absence of every passion -- with the
abandoning of this thirst, with the doing-away with it, with the
deliverance from it, with the destruction of desire.
...
‘And this knowledge and insight arose in my mind: "The emancipation of my mind cannot be lost; this is my last birth; hence I shall not be born again!"’
ādittasutta (ādittapariyāyasutta):
“Monks, the learned, noble disciple seeing it thus turns from the eye and forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact and whatever feelings,
pleasant unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of
eye-contact, he turns from that too  re  He turns from the mind,
deas, mind-consciousness, mind-contact and whatever feelings, pleasant
unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of mind-contact, he
turns from that too. Turning loses interest. Losing interest is
released. Released knowledge arises to him, I am released, birth is
destroyed, the holy life is lived to the end, duties are done, I have
nothing more to wish.”
The Blessed One said thus and those monks delighted in the words of the Blessed One.
When this exposition was done about a thousand monks released their minds from desires without anything remaining.
mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta:
"These are the single gold paths to the purification of beings, to the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, to the disappearance of pain & distress, to the attainment of the right method, & to the realization of Unbinding — Summary are the foundations of mindfulness.

Tipitaka studing that heritage from Arahanta, tipitaka reciting, and tipitaka memorizing his tipitaka knowledge, these 3 things make the buddhist practitioner understands tipitaka.


What is the text in which the Buddha gets a migraine? In the Great Minds of the Eastern Intellectual Tradition lecture series Grant Hardy mentions that there is a Buddhist sutra or text when the Buddha gets a migraine (it's probably not described as a migraine I should imagine). It's apparently an example of the fruits Buddha's previous karma arising even after he was enlightened. Does anyone know the text that this happens in?

This is explained in Why the Buddha Suffered (The Connection with Previous Deeds / Apadāna 39.10).


Is it helpful, how is it possible, to deal with anger by 'accepting' it with equanimity? I'm new to Buddhism and I had just started to put some of the teachings into practice. But I'm having great difficulty dealing with my anger. I have always been rather intense in my emotions. I get angered quite easily. I've done some reading and I'm still stuck. I need some help on the way forward.

From the readings I've done, I was told to practice forbearance, which is something I'm actually quite used to doing. But the things is, instead of expressing it, the anger is seething inside of me, and I would be passive aggressive, which is also wrong. From doing this, I would get a headache and waste a great portion of the day.

Then, I've read that I should practice metta towards my anger, accepting it with equanimity. So, this morning when I was angry, I tried but failed. I would tell myself that being angry is normal, but the anger still remained in me for a long time.

So, actually, I'm rather confused with this acceptance of anger. How does it help in any way?

Thanks all.

In Buddhism, there are many methods to deal with anger.
The method of accepting anger is a method of 'non-conflict'. By fully acknowledging & accepting anger in an open way, you can develop some objectivity towards & independence from the anger (in that it will not control your behaviour) and, importantly, give anger the space to subside.
The method I personally prefer & the method most used by the Buddha before his enlightenment was to wisely reflect (think about) the harm & dangers of anger; in how anger can harm yourself & harm others.
If you are often habitually & uncontrollably angry:
(1) You feel bad about yourself (afterwards).
(2) You become tense & can harm the health of your body & mind.
(3) People may dislike, fear or avoid you.
(4) Important relationships can be harmed, broken & lost.
(5) You can lose your job (employment) & develop a bad reputation.
The scriptures state:

As I abided...a thought of ill will (anger) arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of anger has arisen in me. This leads to my own
affliction (harm), to others’ affliction and to the affliction of
both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties (vexation) and leads
away from peace.‘ When I considered thus…it subsided in me. Whenever a
thought of anger arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away
with it.
Just as in the last month of the rainy season, in the autumn, when the crops thicken, a cowherd would guard his cows by constantly
tapping and poking them on this side and that with a stick to check
and curb them. Why is that? Because he sees that he could be flogged,
imprisoned, fined or blamed if he let them stray into the crops. So
too I saw in unwholesome states danger, degradation and defilement...
Two Kinds of Thought

If you use the wise reflection method, it is important to focus on the anger rather than on 'yourself'. You must think: "This anger is harmful" (rather than "I am harmful").
The Buddha did not teach the 'self' or 'I' is the ultimate cause of problems & suffering. The Buddha taught 'ignorance' or 'not-knowing' is the ultimate cause of problems.
Therefore, we think/reflect: "Anger is bad & harmful" (and not "I am bad & harmful").


If someone have experienced supernatural abilities through meditation, than why don't he shows it to world? If somebody goes beyond fourth jhanas and has received super knowledge and also powers, than why don't he shows it to world and shares his knowledge and experience to world or say scientist and science community so that the general humans will believe in dharma and religion?

The objective of Dhamma is the work yourself out of stress and misery which is to follow the Noble 8 Fold Path. These kinds of practices diverts from this focus. If someone start practicing being attached by such display then most likely their goal will not be tied with the Buddhist goal.

Perhaps for this reason monks are not supposed to display such abilities. Even for lay, through there is not rule, it is not advisable as you are diverting the attention and focus from the true purpose of the practice. Also then meditation practitioners will be no different from magicians and illusionist, like David Copperfield. People will go to them to learn magic tricks and not to learn the dhamma with a view to Nirvana. People go to see David Copperfield for entertainment and not spiritual guidance! Also when displaying these abilities one might develop pride which would lead to one's downfall.

Displaying these abilities may attract a following and belief, but for the wrong reason.


Ordination procedure in Theravada Buddhism - What are grievous crimes? I read in this answer that if one wants to become a Bhikkhu then "He must never have committed any grievous crimes".

What could examples of grievous crimes be?
What if crimes where committed many years ago. Does that have any value in the ordination procedure or does it automatically result in one not being able to become ordained in this life?

Thank you for your time.

Page 99 of this account of The
Buddhist
Monastic
Code list 11 types who should not be ordained as bhikkhus,

  a pandaka (essentially, a eunuch or a person born neuter—see Sanghadisesa
  2),
  a “non-human” being, (this includes nagas, petas, devas, and yakkhas),
  a hermaphrodite,
  a person who poses as a bhikkhu without having been ordained,
  a bhikkhu who has ordained in another religion without first giving up his
  status as a bhikkhu,
  a person who has murdered his father,
  a person who has murdered his mother,
  a person who has murdered an arahant,
  a person who has sexually molested a bhikkhuni,
  a person who has maliciously injured a Buddha to the point of causing him to
  bleed, and
  a person who has dishonestly caused a schism in the Sangha, knowing or
  suspecting that his position was contrary to the Dhamma-Vinaya.

Pages 44 through 98 describe just four parajika rules, where if a bhikkhu breaks (or has broken) one of these rules then they are automatically no longer a bhikkhu and cannot ordain again in this life:

Sexual intercourse
Stealing
Killing
Falsely claiming a superior human state


Abhava versus Vibhava Is there a difference between abhava and vibhava? Or are those words synonyms?

When they are not synonyms, what is their exact meaning.

Let's assume that bhava means "existence".

I think that the a prefix means "not" (it appears in a lot of Buddhist words, like anatta and so on).

I think that the vi prefix might mean "the reverse of" (see e.g. the dictionary definition quoted here).

So my guess is that abhava means "non-existence", whereas vibhava means "destruction".

The phrase vibhavataṇhā is used in the definition of the second noble truth in SN 56.11, so you can read various translations of vibhava in the various translations of that sutta, for example:

  craving for extermination (of what is not liked)
  craving for non-being
  craving for non-existence (self-annihilation)
  craving for non-becoming
  craving for non-existence [for extinction].

The first translation of SN 56.11 that I read translated bhavataṇhā and vibhavataṇhā as "the craving to live and even the craving to die", so that's the way I remember it.

In summary, maybe they mean the same thing (i.e. "non-existence"); but if they aren't synonyms, then one simply means "non-existence" and the other implies a "transition from existence to non-existence" for example "annihilation, destruction, extinction, death".


A man asks Buddha about god's existence Video: Does God Exist? - Sadhguru

This is a story I picked up from the above video (watch from 4.25):

A man confused about the existence of god asks Buddha if god exists. Buddha gives a straightforward "NO".
After a while another man asked the same question and the Buddha, surprisingly, said "YES".

First of all I do not know whether this is a true story. If (or assuming that) it is true, I want to know what made Buddha give contradicting answers?

I have never read or heard of this story before. The Buddha did not teach Buddhists to seek or worship 'god' (Brahma). Further, the scriptures report the Buddha said to Brahmans that no Brahman teacher has ever seen god (Brahma) & also taught Brahmans that the way or path to Brahma is to radiate love in all directions (refer to Tevijja Sutta on the internet). For the Buddha, 'god' or 'the gods' are states of mind. In the Mulapariyaya Sutta, different gods are equated with mental states of meditation. In the Brahma-Nimantanika Sutta & Culatahnasankhaya Sutta, the Buddha visits 'gods', who are obviously human beings with super-normal spiritual attainments.


How do I deal with Buddhist teaching's complexity? I'm feeling very overwhelmed by the sheer amount of different things to remember and practice. Firstly the four foundations of mindfulness Im not sure when one is meant to practice each one. Do you do them all together or at different times of the day etc?  Not sure where to begin. Then there is all the other stuff like the eightfold path and the five aggregates as well as metta practice. And this is only for starters!

I'm starting to stress out about it all.  Its kind of too much to take in and so I can't focus on anything really. I feel the same way in life. Too much going on and my attention is pulled in all different directions so that I never get anything done.

When I meditate I focus my attention on the rising and falling of the abdomen as instructed. I don't notice much at all except that my mind has become lost in thought. Sometimes I suppose I notice a pain in the knee etc and then I might notice that its unpleasant in which case I am being mindful of vedana but I'm wondering am I supposed to do specific meditations for the various different things?

"Im feeling very overwhelmed by the sheer amount of different things to remember and practice"
"*****"

No need to, that is why it is called gradual training. You take only one step at a time. In regard to four foundations of mindfulness you just practice the in and out breath until you master it.Then make an attempt to observe the five precepts. Then everything else will put in to place automatically.


What is useless/meaningless speech? An elaborated answer on meaningless speech as in ten unwholesome acts is expected

In addition found in Sevitabbâsevitabba Sutta there are 32 types of chatter which is called animal chatter which falls under the category of idle / frivolous chatter:

Rajakatha – Talk about kings
Corakatha – Talk about robbers
Mahamatta katha – Talk about ministers of state
Senakatha – Talk about armies
Bhayakatha – Talk about dangers
Yuddhakatha – Talk about battles
Annakatha – Talk about food
Panakatha – Talk about drinks
Vatthakatha – Talk about clothing
Sayanakatha – Talk about dwellings
Malakatha – Talk about garlands
Gandhakatha – Talk about perfumes
Natikatha – Talk about relations
Yanakatha – Talk about vehicles
Gamakatha – Talk about villages
Nigamakatha -Talk about market towns
Nagarakatha – Talk about towns
Janapadakatha – Talk about districts
Itthikatha – Talk about women/men
Surakatha – Talk about heroes
Visakhakatha – Talk about streets
Kumbhatthanakatha – Talk about watering places
Pubbapeta-katha – Talk about relatives who have passed away
Nanattakatha – Tittle-tattle
Lokakkhayika katha – talk about the origin of the world
Samuddakkhayikakatha – Talk about the origin of the ocean
Itibhavabhava katha – Talk about Eternity belief
Itibhavabhava katha – Talk about annihilation belief
Itibhavabhava katha – Talk about worldly gain
Itibhavabhava katha – Talk about worldly loss
Itibhavabhava katha – Talk about self-indulgence
Itibhavabhava katha – Talk about self-mortification

Sourced from: Tiracchana-Katha Unskilful Talk which is an adaptation from Venerable Ledi Sayadaw’s Magganga-Dipani: The Manual of The Constituents of the Noble Path.
Instead of memorizing specific type of talk you can discern what it idle chatter through the fundamentals, i.e.,:

is not beneficial,
not relevant to the fundamentals of the holy life,
does not leads to revulsion,
does not leads to dispassion,
does not leads to cessation,
does not leads to peace,
does not leads to direct knowledge,
does not leads to enlightenment,
does not leads to Nibbana

Adopted from: Tiracchana-Katha Unskilful Talk
... or in general context ...

he speaks at the wrong time,
what is false,
what is not connected with the goal [unbeneficial],
what is not the teaching [Dharma]1,
what is not the discipline [Vinaya];
he speaks words not worth treasuring,
baseless,
undefined [rambling],
not connected with the goal

... or more succinctly, chatter in which, unwholesome states increase and
wholesome states decrease.
See: Sevitabbâsevitabba Sutta and answer by @ChrisW
Also talk you should engage in:

Talk about wanting little,
about contentment,
seclusion,
solitude,
energetic striving,
virtue,
concentration,
insight,
release,
release by knowing and seeing

In addition the Buddha mentions you should talk about the 4 Noble Truths as this lead to:

is beneficial,
relevant to the fundamentals of the holy life,
leads to revulsion,
leads to dispassion,
leads to cessation,
leads to peace,
leads to direct knowledge,
leads to enlightenment,
leads to Nibbana

Adopted from: Tiracchana-Katha Unskilful Talk
... or in general context ...

he speaks at the right time,
what is true,
what is connected with the goal [beneficial],
what is the teaching1,
what is the discipline;
he speaks words worth treasuring,
well-founded,
well-defined [not rambling],
connected with the goal

... or more succinctly, chatter in which, unwholesome states decrease and wholesome states increase.
See: Sevitabbâsevitabba Sutta and answer by @ChrisW

Several suttas contain this list but all of them list only 27. However, as usual, the Commentators obsessed with splitting hairs have stretched it to 32 by splitting the last one into 6.
The name "Detis Katha" is also theirs. The Suttas called the original ones "Tirracchana katha" which literally means ‘animal talk’.
Incidentally this list is not for us to learn and remember. These topics are for avoiding. Several suttas say that we should instead be discussing only the Noble Truth.

Source: Dethis Katha (32 types of unskillful talks) by user Gayan
Furthermore the blog Tiracchana-Katha Unskilful Talk has comprehensive treatment of this topic.

1
Regarding skillful and unskillful chattering regarding the Dhamma there is 8:

This Dhamma is for reducing desire, not for increasing desire.
This Dhamma is for increasing contentment, not for increasing
discontentment.
This Dhamma is for cultivating seclusion, not for becoming sociable.
This Dhamma is for becoming energetic, not for becoming lazy.
This Dhamma is for developing mindfulness, not developing
unmindfulness.
This Dhamma is for developing composure, not for making
restlessness.
This Dhamma is for increasing wisdom, not for decreasing wisdom.
This Dhamma is for delighting in freedom from impediments, not
for delighting in impediment.

Sourced from: Eight Great Noble Thoughts and Papanca [proliferation] and Nippapanca [non-proliferation]


Are Buddhists happier than average? Has anyone ever tried to measure happiness of Buddhist practitioners and compare it in a scientific or analytically way to other religious groups or the population as a whole? If there are studies what were the results and are the measurements reliable or meaningful in any way?

I appreciate that the notion of happiness is an incredibly slippy notion but people do crop up from time to time who talk about happiness as a (sort of) scientific study and try to compare different locations and so forth e.g. this study indicates that Panama is the happiest country on earth. I'm not claiming that this is a great or accurate study but it's just an example of this kind of thing. Also perhaps a better word might be well-being rather than happiness but I'm not sure that does much to tighten the definition.

Bhutan is a Buddhist country famous for its Gross National Happiness metric. So far, poverty is a drag on that metric: Bhutan Happiness Index: Buddhist Country Fails On Its 'Gross National Happiness'

Other economists have thought about happiness and how Buddhism might figure in to it, ref. Happiness and economics: a
Buddhist perspective (too much material to summarize quickly).


How can you see suffering in the breath? In his book Breath by Breath, Larry Rosenberg says that being mindful of the breath, as in the Anapanasati Sutta, is a complete practice and can lead to complete liberation. Following on from that I would think it should be possible to experience all three marks of existence in the breath.

From my own practice I can feel both the impermanence and no-self aspects of the breath. They seem fairly evident even with access or just momentary levels of concentration. However I don't see the other mark of conditioned existence i.e. suffering. How can one see suffering in the breath? How does this come about? Are there any traditional or contemporary writings on the subject?

Many thanks for any all help

The three characteristics are very deep and profound subjects, and often our understanding of them is very superficial. For example, people often think that they understand impermanence because they understand it to mean that all conditioned things will eventually end, when in fact impermanence means much more than that.

In order to see the three characteristics through anapanasati it is nessisary to make sure that one is practicing it in a way that is specifically developing insight, and to do this it is necessary to meditate just on the bare experiences of breathing rather than on the breath itself. For example, one could use the feelings of air moving against the inside of the nose and the subtle feelings of heat and cold, or on the throat, or the expansion and contraction of the body during breathing.

After one is able to meditate like this then one will be able to start to see the three characteristics in a deeper way than before. One will be able to see how all experience is made up of parts that arise and cease, and gradually a person will be able to understand impermanence through direct perception in meditation instead of the conceptual way that most people are used to, and as this direct understanding of impermanence ripens the meditator will be able to directly perceive the characteristics of dukkha and nonself.


Spiritual & 'Worldly' Pleasures If the mind experiences more and more happiness, calmness and all the other positive emotions due to virtue and meditation, does the mind then by itself slowly (!) withdraw from sensual pleasures?

Answers with sutta reference are preferred

The joy and happiness of spiritual development is considered to be far more superior than sensual pleasure, which is fleeting and bound up with suffering, as explained in MN 14. Also see SN 36.31 for further info.

Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that[4] — he can be tempted by sensuality. But when he has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and he has attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, he cannot be tempted by sensuality.


Is the word 'real' synonymous with 'exists' in Buddhist doctrine? Are these two words synonymous? Is everything that exists, real? Is everything real, an existent? What is a proper relationship between the words "real" and "exists" in the context of Buddhist doctrine? What is a proper definition of "real" and of "exists" in the context of Buddhist doctrine?
Are dreams real? Do they exist? Are illusions real? Do they exist? Are chairs real? Do they exist? Are persons real? Do they exist? Is the son of a barren woman real? Do they exist? Is there anything that is real, but does not exist?
What do we really mean when we say something is real? Pun intended.

In the conventional truth, mirages exist and are real as a mirage but not real as water. Dreams exist and are real as dream but not as a play in a theater.
So there is nothing which can be said conventionally existing but unreal because it is real in that way it is called to exist.
Conventionally existent Buddhas alleviate the conventionally existing suffering of conventionally existent sentient beings.
The suffering sentient beings are conventionally existent and are also conventionally real.
Conventionally existent Buddhas however don't alleviate the conventionally unreal and nonexistent suffering of the son of a barren woman.
I think this answer by @Tenzin Dorje to a related question may be relevant too.


Can I wear pendant that's symbol of peace? A year ago I bought one and I just got it is NDC (Nuclear Disarmament Campaign). I don't mind but I wanted feeling peace through everything what I need to having it. And soon I'm gonna practicing vipassana meditation.
Can I wear pendant that I have ?

That is in harmony with nonviolent Buddhism however on a vipassana retreat there is noble silence, and anything worn that said anything would be as distracting as spoken words.


How do you balance your desire for liberation with your wordly desires? I'm in a strange situation right now (weird for me, at least).
These past few days have been intense days of reflection on the Dhamma, which generated two effects at the same time in my overall life:

1) I feel like I'm seeing things clearer than ever before. Anicca, Anatta and Dukkha are no more just simple intellectual statements, but they are the filter of most of my experiences.
This is not a declaration of attainments nor anything alike, but rather an oportunity to share how true is the Dhamma and how much freedom can it bring to our lives.
I feel more at peace than ever before, and people around seem to be benefiting from these changes (or so it seems from the outside).
But...

2) I feel more isolated than ever before, which is not a bad thing in itself. It is rather a kind of peaceful loneliness, but loneliness nonetheless.
I feel like quite a few people could understand these feelings, and that I have few people around me to get advice from.
And so it seems be noticed by some close friends and acquantances. Some of them seem to think that I'm becoming something like a robot. I don't think that's the case. Maybe "equanimous" is the word I'd use to describe such state.
One of my friends asked me if I talk to her just out of compassion instead of out of real feelings of friendship.
That question really freaked me out, especially because it seems to be pointing to some truth, but I cannot put my finger on it; I don't know if there's a real difference between those two motivations.

One part of me wants to keep going along this Path, because all of the peace it has brought to me.
The other part is not so sure if it's ready to lose its bonds, relationships and wordly goals and ties, feelings which can be ascribed to still being in love with Samsara, and still having ignorant tendencies.

I feel in a kind of crossroad right now.

Have you experienced something like this?
Is it possible to balance these two goals?

I'd really appreaciate any piece of advice, whether from personal experience or from suttas.

Thanks in advance for your patience and understanding!

One of my friends asked me if I talk to her just out of compassion instead of out of real feelings of friendship. That question really freaked me out, especially because it seems to be pointing to some truth

Indeed. Insightful or intuitive question by the lady

  One part of me wants to keep going along this Path, because all of the peace it has brought to me. The other part is not so sure if is
  ready to lose its bonds, relationships and wordly goals and ties,
  feelings which can be ascribed to still being in love with Samsara,
  and still having ignorant tendencies.

Worldly friends generally will not abandon you when you live a more isolated life. They like to reassure themselves you are not crazy when you occasionally turn up to one of their social events & act reasonably normally. This said, yes, a genuine Dhamma life in ordinary society is very isolated. It can be more isolated than living in a monastery (because in the monastery there may be some like-minded persons).


Did the Buddha visit modern day Assam? During his time, did the Buddha visit the northeast state of India known today as Assam? If so, did he give any discourses there?

Thanks

The furthest east that the Buddha traveled was to Kajaṅgalā (noted in AN 10:28). This area is known today as Kankjol, and is located near the border of India and Bangladesh. So there's no record of any visit to Northeast India, but anything is possible!


How is the faculty of persistence developed? I see a lot of texts hailing this quality, but I have not seen any practical advice on how to actually cultivate the quality.

In a similar vein, how do you banish laziness?

For example, I have plenty of downtime, which is basically me being lazy and wasting time. I'd like to be productive the majority of my time, but I don't know how.

Thank you

You phrased that as a personal/practical question, but here's a theoretical or terminological answer.

"Persistence" is listed as one of the Five Strengths but also one the Seven Factors of Enlightenment.

In the latter article, in the table named "Balancing enlightenment factors & hindrances", it's grouped with other factors ...

Joy or rapture (pīti)
Investigation (dhamma vicaya)
Energy (viriya)

... as a counter-balance to ...

to be used when experiencing sloth & torpor (thīna-middha) to regain mindfulness.

There are texts which describe "sloth-torpor" -- it is is one of the Five hindrances (Wikipedia), or for example The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest lists some dozens of ways to overcome it.

It's also counted among the ten or six "perfections" ('pāramitā' or 'pāramī') so people will mention it if they talk about the several/various perfections.

It's also associated with 'Right Effort' (so it may be understood in context of the Noble Eightfold Path).