A good source to learn the Pali language? I have asked this considering the importance of Pali in Buddhism.

I want to learn Pali.
 I want to learn it individually on my own.

Is there any relatively simple way?

Can anyone suggest me anything?

Any free learning sites will be appreciated.

(Bear in mind, I don't have mastery over the language but I've been swimming in it continuously for the last two years. The following advice is based on this experience.)

There is a whole list of books about learning Pāḷi. Some of them you can find here. I suggest applying the grammar that you learn from them, in Yuttadhammo's Digital Pali Reader (DPR) which will help you learn the vocabulary. DPR has an easy-to-use interface, dictionaries & various helpful tools including one of the grammar books mentioned in the first link.

These are the resources I use and I complement them with the available translations on ATI, SC & in secondary literature. I also confer this Sanskrit dictionary.

I hope this information will be useful. Good luck.


Is it in line with the pali cannon suttas to accept other scriptures? According to the suttas

Are human beings capable of discerning what dhamma is outside of the suttas?

Is it possible to know enough from the suttas and then make use of the Abhidhamma?

What about the mere possibility that a dhamma practitioner could make use of Jesus's teachings, Hindu teachings, Sufi teachings or sutras outside the the official Theravada context?

When is it appropriate to be more closed minded?

When is it appropriate to be more open minded?

Other teachers do not teach all four types of clinging;

  Clinging to sensuality
  Clinging to rites and rituals
  Clinging to views
  Clinging to a doctrine of self

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel390.html

Only Buddhadhamma is for the abandonment of all four. Other teachings in as far as they include abandonment of a type of clinging are to that extent wise.

Brahmajala sutta explains various wrong views and speculative doctrines about the world which are basis for other religions.

Also when hearing or reading teachings it should be compared to teachings known to be true, to see if they align and if they do they align they then ought to be accepted. I think this is in the great references sutta.

Making use of Abhidhamma depends on what you want with it. It's quite useful for improving expression and understanding of the Dhamma as it breaks down many teachings word for word, it will improve understanding of terms like jhana, factors of enlightenment etc. In this sense it is very useful imo.

  Are human beings capable of discerning what dhamma is outside of the suttas?

That's a mark of a Sotapanna in this sense; In the Sarakaani Sutta Buddha says that if trees could discern what is rightly spoken he would proclaim them a Sotapanna how much more so his son Sarakaani who took to drink https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.024.wlsh.html


Is it possible to "naturally" reach the first three jhanas Is it possible, having been taught meditation by a zen master, to naturally enter the 1st three jhanas. By that, I mean through mental effort which is not really meditation as we normally think of it (seated or walking, all effort being applied to that).

I ask because the 1st three jhanas seem, potentially, much more mundane than the rest, worldly. e.g. I feel pretty strong sensations of pleasure most of the time, as long as I'm not there and then planning to do something.

If that second paragraph seems super delusional, then how close is dhyana to a pleasure in which you can't identify why you feel good?

All dogs are animals but all animals are not dogs. Similarly, each of the 1st three rupa jhanas has pleasure as a factor however all feelings of pleasure are not jhana. Each jhana is characteristized by ekaggatā (one-pointedness; stillness; unmovingness) rather than by feelings of pleasure.
That said, jhana is not reached by 'effort'. It is reached by 'letting go', as quoted below:

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a noble disciple, making it his object to let go (vossagga),
attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.
SN 48.10

Therefore, when you say: "I feel pretty strong sensations of pleasure most of the time, as long as I'm not there and not planning to do something", this is the 'natural' path to jhana the Lord Buddha described in SN 48.10.
This is similar to the Zen masters, for example:

The Supreme Way is not difficult If only you do not pick and choose. Neither love nor hate, And you will clearly understand. Be off by a
hair, And you are as far from it as heaven from earth. If you want the
Way to appear, Be neither for nor against. For and against opposing
each other This is the mind's disease. Without recognizing the
mysterious principle It is useless to practice quietude. The Way is
perfect like great space, Without lack, without excess. Because of
grasping and rejecting, You cannot attain it.
Hsin Hsin Ming

Buddhadasa, Thai teacher, who fancied Zen, spoke a lot about natural concentration:

As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi
isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than
non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted
samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and
sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty
of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and
perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has
correct samadhi.  Heartwood from the Bo Tree

Also refer, here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.002.than.html
http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa10.htm


Is it possible to believe (incorrectly) that one is on the path? Can one work one's way through the whole path as it is described in the Mahayana literature, and then realize: Even though you were being sincere, and the "right" experiences in the literature describe your work, you were actually not on the Buddhist path at all, but merely on an intellectual path without genuine actualization; without "direct seeing".

Can this nevertheless be preparation for the true Mahayana path?

Isn't there a story in the commentaries about a monk who had very advanced intellectual understanding of the Buddhist path, and was even a very good teacher of others, and brought many of them to enlightenment, but was not himself enlightened. The story goes that eventually something happened to make that problem clear to him, then he did some stuff -- lived in a cave and meditated or something -- and finally was enlightened. Maybe someone can remember who the guy was; IIRC it's a pretty mainline Buddhist story.

The suggestion is that, yes, it's absolutely possible to seem to be very advanced on the path but to be far less so than one thinks. And the second suggestion I take from the story is that if the intention is good, then even if one isn't as advanced as one might think, one may still be better off than having ignored the path completely.


Do Buddhists believe in gods? As far as I know, many Buddhists believe in multiple gods. Doesn't this contradict the idea that the world is governed by the law of karma? Is praying to gods allowed?

Most Buddhists believe in some form of "higher" being; brahmas, devas, etc. It is not an orthodox Buddhist practice to pray to these deities, but people are people. Ordinary Buddhists from most, if not all, traditions, tend to succumb to the allure of prayer and supplication; most monasteries are now called "temples", monks are often called "priests", statues of Ganesha and other mythical gods are popular in these places. Some Sri Lankan monasteries actually have dedicated areas for deity worship.

How can they? Well, Buddhism doesn't demand complete adherence to Buddhist principles. I recently taught meditation at a Catholic college to priests and they seemed to gain benefit from it; one of them is planning on coming to do an intensive meditation course with me. So, the question of whether it is "allowed" doesn't really apply. Deity-worship is not recommended, since it promotes delusion and dependency, both of which are antithetical to Buddhism practice. Someone who clings to external support, real or imaginary, will not likely take full responsibility for their future, most likely becoming complacent and clinging to positive experiences as divine intervention (and therefore worth clinging to).

Does it contradict the theory of karma? Yes, and more importantly it goes against observations; praying to gods doesn't produce any observable change except in the mind of the believer. That in and of itself might be reason to promote prayer, since faith can have beneficial, uplifting effects on the mind, if it weren't misplaced and therefore promoting delusion and clinging as well.

So, it is allowed simply because we don't disallow things (except for monks who have strict rules - a monk who encourages theistic worship should be subject to reprimand, I think), but it is (or should be) discouraged because of its relationship to delusion and clinging.

Incidentally, to show how tolerant the Buddha was, in the Ratana Sutta he says:

  O beings, listen closely. May you all radiate loving-kindness to those human beings who, by day and night, bring offerings to you. Wherefore, protect them with diligence.

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.piya.html


Thousand fold world system In the Kosala Sutta (AN 10.29) it quotes the following:

  "As far, bhikkhus, as this thousandfold world system extends, Mahābrahmā there ranks as the foremost."

So basically as far as the sun and the mood illuminates the light a world system is there. 4 hells, human world , 6 humans and so forth. And thousand of this is called a thousandfold world system.

So according to the above quote, does this mean that there is only one Maha Brahma to all these thousand world systems?  Or are there 1000 Maha Brahmas in this thousand world system? Or is it just 1?

31 planes of existence coming together is one universe. In each universe there is a Maha Brahma in each Brahma plane.

  ... a thousand brahmā worlds. ...

According to the Abhidhamma there are infinite world systems. See: Abhidharmartha Pradipika By Amaradasa Rathnapala.

Also see: The Buddhist Concept of World by Bhikkhu T. Seelananda and also this answer.


When should I stop my brain from going on auto-pilot mode? Auto-pilot mode is there for a reason. It is to prevent us from re-inventing the wheel. This is solely my understanding.

My question is how do I decide when to go on auto pilot mode and when not to?

Is auto-pilot mode always bad?

Never ever go on "auto-pilot", might it because diffuseness seems to be most unproblematic. That's "animal practice" and absence of mindfulness and investigation, does not lead to discerment and bear a lot of dangers.

When doing, experiencing, what ever phenomena arises: know, investigate, judge it.

As for actions (body, word, thoughts):

  The Lost Wallet

  It's as if you leave home and lose your wallet. It fell out of your pocket onto the road away back there, but as long as you don't realize what happened you're at ease — at ease because you don't yet know what this ease is for. It's for the sake of dis-ease at a later time. When you eventually see that you've really lost your money: That's when you feel dis-ease — when it's right in your face.

  The same holds true with our bad and good actions. The Buddha taught us to acquaint ourselves with these things. If we aren't acquainted with these things, we'll have no sense of right or wrong, good or bad.

A maybe good and helpful talk on this matter, also in regard of the other current question by same questioner, by you:

  Seeds of Becoming , by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

  The author points out the place where we are able to lean to understand all issues which are moving this world. A Dhammatalk on Bhava (Becoming) and how we are able to transcendent birth, aging, sickness and death, exactly here and now.

  ...what happens a lot of times when people travel on a road day after day they start blanking out, actually stop noticing things. It's **like a person gets into a state of concentration and then just doesn't want to develop any discernment, just likes the blanking out, or the stillness, and just holds onto that and gets oblivious to other things, like the person who drives the road from the Valley Center to Escondido every day, after a while you just don't notice anything. It's where a lot of people are, their brains just go into automatic pilot...*

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


Is our mind faster than light? Here is what I have been told by some Thai followers:

The sun's light takes 8 minutes to reach the Earth, but our mind can think of the sun or even of distant stars instantly. That is to say, our mind is faster than the speed of light. They claim science is a subset of Buddhism.

Is this true or false?

The key point here is that the concept of speed is dependent on space (speed = distance/time, distance = spatial position B - spatial position A), which in turn is a derived product of matter.

Mind, being immaterial (and moreover momentary), does not "move", per se. It arises based on one of the six senses and ceases in the next moment. It never takes up space, nor can it be said to "move" in ultimate reality.


Meditation and good deeds vs clarity of mind during death How important is meditation practice and doing good deeds in comparison to having a clear mind during death in order to reach nibbana or be at least reborn in a good realm?

For example, if one meditates daily almost his whole life and does good deeds but then dies in a car accident, overwhelmed by the fear and the shock of this event, what are the chances of a good rebirth for this person? In other words: Is the quality of rebirth determined only be the state of mind during death or is it also influenced by karma which one has accumulated during his life?

It also gets maybe a little tricky, since people with near-death experiences report having a flash of all events in their life in addition to getting information about the impact their deeds had on their own and other people's minds.

Ultimately, the moment of death consciousness is all that counts. That consciousness, however, is of course partially conditioned by all the good and bad deeds one has performed in the past, especially since one's life tends to flash before one's eyes just before that last moment, leading one to often cling to this or that memory or idea.

Technically, there are four potential types of karma that determine the nature of the last moment of one's life (Vism XIX.15):

garu-kamma (weighty karma) - if one has killed one's mother or father, for example. These types of karma outweigh any other possible result; one who has performed these at some time in this life cannot help but go to hell in their next existence.
bahula-kamma (frequent karma) - if one has performed a certain karma with great frequency, this will be the next candidate for adherence at the moment of death.
aasanna-kamma (dying karma) - if there is no particular karma that stands out as habitual, the most likely single karma to cause rebirth is karma performed at the moment of death, for example getting angry or upset, crying or clinging to something, or listening to the dhamma or meditating.
kattata-kamma (merely performed karma) - finally, the last karma to lead to rebirth is some karma that comes to mind at the moment of death, even at random.

Of course, besides the first of the four, one's state of mind at the moment of death can potentially nullify all karma and even lead one to not be reborn again. The point is that, regardless of what colours it, it is that last moment that leads to rebirth (or nibbana).

This is exemplified by the interesting story of Queen Mallika (Dhp-A 151), who was a devoted Buddhist who performed great acts of charity and morality, but died remembering a single act of deception towards her husband and therefore went to hell. After spending seven days in hell, she died again and was reborn in heaven due to her good deeds. Perhaps this also suggests that one's rebirth itself isn't as important as one's karma, since it will all generally work its way out in the end.


Buddhist view on past lives influencing the present I seem to be making rather unusual choices in my life for unknown reasons. Like on a mere hunch or for some reason I gain interest in a strange topic. And later it turns out that these choices were exactly what I needed to have done to prepare for things that eventually happened. Is this addressed in the dharma? I make no claims about psychic powers or anything like that - I just wonder if it is merely coincidence.

Your question is not about whether past life actions influence present life circumstances. For that, see this answer and this sutta.

Rather, you are asking if your past life thoughts, affect your present life thoughts (or thought choices).

In a single lifetime, the answer is yes according to Dvedhavitakka Sutta.

  "Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that
  becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing
  thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with
  renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with
  sensuality.

But does this cross into other lifetimes?

From the Nakhasikha Sutta, Samudda Sutta and Pokkharani Sutta:

  "In the same way, monks, for a disciple of the noble ones who is
  consummate in view, an individual who has broken through [to
  stream-entry], the suffering & stress that is totally ended &
  extinguished is far greater. That which remains in the state of having
  at most seven remaining lifetimes is next to nothing: it's not a
  hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth, when compared with
  the previous mass of suffering. That's how great the benefit is of
  breaking through to the Dhamma, monks. That's how great the benefit is
  of obtaining the Dhamma eye."

When one obtains the Dhamma eye, and attains stream-entry, he would only have at most, seven remaining lifetimes. The Dhamma eye is explained as the ability to see firsthand and experientially, the impermanence of the five aggregates and dependent origination.

This is obviously an example in the Pali Canon that at least some thoughts or knowledge could cross over into the next life. In this case, it is the strong and irrevocable inclination towards the Dhamma in future lives, due to the opening of the Dhamma eye.

Also see this question and this answer.

Some say that child prodigies bring with them the strong inclinations of the immediate previous life, but I think that cannot be found in the scripture, and the Buddha would not bother to answer this (parable of the poisoned arrow, parable of the simsapa leaves, etc.).


Is it sinful to masturbate in Bhutanese variety of Vajrayana? Is masturbation a sin in Vajrayana variety practiced in Bhutan as official state religion? When performed by non-monk, for example, adolescent boy, divorced man, as part of wider sexual practices used by partners, etc.

Masturbation is not a Dharma practice, even in Secret Mantra.


Why Buddhists generally uses OM? In wikipedia i read:

The Chandogya Upanishad is ... one of the oldest Upanishads of Hinduism.

[It] opens with the recommendation that "let a man meditate on Om". It calls the syllable Om as udgitha (उद्गीथ, song, chant), and asserts that the significance of the syllable is thus: the essence of all beings is earth, the essence of earth is water, the essence of water are the plants, the essence of plants is man, the essence of man is speech, the essence of speech is the Rig Veda, the essence of the Rig Veda is the Sama Veda, and the essence of Sama Veda is the udgitha (song, Om).

Its date is given as "8th to 6th century BCE" i.e. at least 100 years before Gautama.
Now "Om" is also used in Buddhism.
Is its use the same as in Hinduism? If you recite the OM, do you (or not) think it is connected to a Super Consciousness as described in the Vedanta?
Is it difficult to describe the philosophical basis, if the practice is somehow derived from concepts and knowledge from a text whose date is from before Gautama?

Since the Chandogya Upanishad was written a few hundred years before Gautama Buddha, there's no doubt that OM is older than the Buddha. It doesn't matter whether it's a hundred years older or a thousand years older.
As far as I know, OM does not appear anywhere in the Pali suttas or the other Early Buddhist Texts. Also, Gautama Buddha himself had never used or mentioned OM, to the best of my knowledge.
In the Theravada tradition, phrases of homage to the Buddha like "namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa" do not start with OM.
So, where is OM used in Buddhism?
It appears to be used mainly in Vajrayana or Tibetan Buddhism - the most famous one being "OM Mani Padme Hum". There are others like "OM Tare Tuttare Ture Soha".
So, where does "OM Mani Padme Hum" come from?
The wikipedia page on "Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra" states:

The Karandavyuha Sutra is a Mantrayāna sutra that was compiled at the
end of the 4th century or beginning of the 5th century CE. According
to the Kāraṇḍavyūha Sūtra, the sun and moon are said to be born from
Avalokiteśvara's eyes, Shiva from his brow, Brahma from his shoulders,
Narayana from his heart, Sarasvati from his teeth, the winds from his
mouth, the earth from his feet and the sky from his stomach.
The sutra introduces the Buddhist mantra, Om Manipadme Hum, which it
states can lead to liberation (moksha) and eventual Buddhahood. A.
Studholme sees this famous mantra as being a declarative aspiration,
possibly meaning 'I in the jewel-lotus', with the jewel-lotus being a
reference to birth in the lotus made of jewels in the Buddhist
Paradise, Sukhavati, of Buddha Amitabha. The mantra is the very heart
of Avalokitesvara (the supreme Buddha of Compassion) and can usher in
Awakening.

So, "OM Mani Padme Hum" appeared in Buddhism, through the Karandavyuha Sutra, which was compiled almost a thousand years after the passing of Gautama Buddha.
And, it's a mantra for the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, from whom emanates the sun, the moon, Shiva, Brahma, Narayana, Sarasvati, winds, earth and sky.
Now, let's just make it clear that the Early Buddhist Texts and Gautama Buddha himself have never mentioned Avalokiteśvara, OM, Shiva, Narayana or Sarasvati. This is to the best of my knowledge.
What does OM mean in Buddhism?
The 14th Dalai Lama gave a lecture on the meaning of: OM MANI PADME HUM. He said:

It is very good to recite the mantra OM MANI PADME HUM, but while you
are doing it, you should be thinking on its meaning, for the meaning
of the six syllables is great and vast. The first, OM, is composed of
three pure letters, A, U, and M. These symbolize the practitioner's
impure body, speech, and mind; they also symbolize the pure exalted
body, speech and mind of a Buddha.

The OP asked:

OP: Is its use the same as in Hinduism? If you recite the OM, do you (or not) think it is connected to a Super Consciousness as
described in the Vedanta?

So, the answer is that OM in Buddhism has nothing to do with Super Consciousness or Vedanta. Rather, this is what it means in (Vajrayana or Tibetan) Buddhism: "These symbolize the practitioner's impure body, speech, and mind; they also symbolize the pure exalted body, speech and mind of a Buddha."

OP: Is it difficult to describe the philosophical basis, if the practice is somehow derived from concepts and knowledge from a text
whose date is from before Gautama?

Mmm... not really. The Dalai Lama has explained the philosophical basis above.


Introductory/Beginner books on Buddhism, but for children There are a few posts on the site asking for good introduction/beginner books on Buddhism, but I can't seem to find any that a child could read and understand.

Although age range doesn't really matter to the answer that people might post, let's say someone between the age of 7 and 14, just to have some context.

I don't have a title for you but there are the Jataka Tales which would introduce some Buddhist ideas to entertain and there are english publications of these.

However if the child is over 7 years old it is possible that they would understand whatever you throw at them in regards to the Dhamma, there are mentions of very young Arahants from the time of the Buddha.

Other than that there are the Gathas (poems of the Elders) which come to mind if you are looking for something like that.


What are the suttas in which the Buddha describes suffering as "burning" I remember reading suttas in which the Buddha describes suffering, lust or other unwholesome mind states as burning. What are these suttas?

You may be thinking of the Fire Sermon (SN 35.28).

It says that the senses and so on are aflame ... aflame with lust, hatred, and delusion.

In more detail, it says the following are aflame:

Sense-organ, sense object, sense-consciousness, and sense-contact
Any feeling[s] arising from the senses ... including suffering (dukkha), but also sukha

... and aflame with:

The three poisons
Also birth, ageing, and death
And sorrow and so on


Why buddhists love staying in hills? What is reason of Buddhism mostly spread on hilltops of India then in plains of India? Moreover Dalai Lama lives on Hilltop; as he can live in plains. Is there any reason of choosing mountains for residence?

The Buddha mostly lived and taught in the Gangetic plains of India, and there's no record of him sojourning to the Himalayas like most Indian mystics.

However he is also said to have favored the Vulture peak near the city of Rajgir, so it's not like he exclusively preferred the plains either.

Most mystics like mountains for the solitude, in the Buddha's times it was possible to find it in the tropical Indian forests as well. In modern times, forest monks in Indochina keep the forest tradition alive.

The Buddha often chose meditative spots for the calm and tranquility, where meditation could proceed undisturbed, however he was also aware of spirits and other hinderances that could arise and rejected some otherwise calm places to meditate.


Is 'impermanence' skillful means? Is 'impermanence' skillful means?

Wikipedia's definition of "Skillful means" says:

  The implication [of skillful means] is that even if a technique, view, etc., is not ultimately "true" in the highest sense, it may still be an expedient practice to perform or view to hold; i.e., it may bring the practitioner closer to the true realization in a similar way.

And of Impermanance:

  The doctrine asserts that all of conditioned existence, without
  exception, is "transient, evanescent, inconstant". All temporal
  things, whether material or mental, are compounded objects in a
  continuous change of condition, subject to decline and destruction.

I think that, for some Mahayana schools, everything is skillful means. So is the doctrine of impermanence "skillful means" too?

I am looking for an answer which:

Says yes or no (and explains why)
References a sastra or sutra (if there is one) which claims or implies this answer
Preferably, also, explains what (if any) bearing that may have to understanding any other doctrine: such as anatta; voidness; or the buddha-nature.

Well in one sense impermanence is ultimately true. In the other sense though it's just a concept, an idea, used to make a point. The objective of the point is to preempt grasping for things as if they were permanent, and the purpose of non-grasping is prevention of suffering. But even prevention of suffering is merely one of many motives that leads a person to enlightenment, other motive for example being perfection or conceit. In this sense everything is just a skillful mean inasmuch as it pushes some people in the right direction.


Non-attachment as object of meditation Is there text (e.g. suttas, and/or articles by modern authors) which describes "non-attachment" as an object of meditation? Specifically, how is "non-attachment" an "object"?
I'm asking partly because of this answer which says:

In the correct practise of Anapanasati, the meditation object is non-attachment. The resultant awareness of breathing is merely a sign (nimitta) that the mind is correctly non-attached.

I previously found texts reference more palpable meditation "objects", e.g. Kasinas or breathing.
I once found something which seemed like it might be a meditation on non-attachment, towards the end of the Atthi Raga Sutta (SN 12.64):

Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"
"On the western wall, lord."
"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"
"On the ground, lord."
"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"
"On the water, lord."
"And if there is no water, where does it land?"
"It does not land, lord."
"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food... contact... intellectual intention... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase.

However, literally, that's presented more as if it's a simile than as an object or type of meditation.
In the context of "meditation on non-attachment", is awareness of breathing a symptom of attachment to (i.e. contact with) form and perception (or if not, why not)?
Have I misunderstood what's meant by "the meditation object is non-attachment" -- perhaps it means the "the meditation goal, ambition, or purpose is non-attachment", but not "the meditation focus or contact is non-attachment"?

I think all these descriptions -  meditation on non-attachment, meditation with no goal, "just sitting", Diamond Samadhi etc. all refer to the type of meditation where your goal is to learn to be at peace with whatever happens in your phenomenal field - without either suppressing it or getting carried away by it.

One metaphor I heard to describe this, is the touch-and-go practice of the airplane pilots. You let the free-floating thoughts/emotions emerge and take shape just enough to get a flavor of each, but not to take over your awareness completely. You don't get attached to either the thoughtless state, or to any individual thought (or emotion) hence meditation on non-attachment.


Where do hiri and ottappa (shame, and fear of wrongdoing) fit in? Where do hiri and ottappa (shame and fear of wrongdoing) fit it, in:

The Four Noble Truths (4nt)
The Noble Eightfold Path (8aam)
The 37 Bodhipakkhiyādhammā (37bp)
The Seven Factors of Awakening (7sb)

In AN 7.67 we see it working, protecting the fortress with outer road and moat (and the remaining 5 factors are 5 indriya, and Dhamma weapons):
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/06/an-767-frontier-fortress-sutta.html

In AN 7.65, it's a vital condition for sense restraint, which in turn is a vital condition for sila.

  Hirīottappasutta
  Conscience and Prudence

  “Hirottappe, bhikkhave, asati hirottappavipannassa hatūpaniso hoti indriyasaṃvaro;
  “monks, when there is no conscience and prudence, one who lacks conscience and prudence has destroyed a vital condition for sense restraint.

  indriyasaṃvare asati indriyasaṃvaravipannassa hatūpanisaṃ hoti sīlaṃ;
  When there is no sense restraint, one who lacks sense restraint has destroyed a vital condition for ethical conduct.

There are probably other entry points where it's linked in (to the 7sb, 8aam, 37bp, 4nt)?

Unlike the 4 brahmavihara formula, where each brahmavihara has the keyword "abyapajja", which is a direct link to Noble Eightfold Path -- i.e. Right Resolve -> abyapada-sankappo (non-ill-will resolve) -- I can't think of any such very direct explicit link (into 4nt and 8aam or 37bp) for hiri and ottappa.

Anyone know for sure?

(update to this question 6/25/2019)
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/06/new-uped-dictionary-entries-hiri.html

I haven't yet done an exhaustive search (looking at every single occurrence of hiri and ottappa in the suttas), but I have looked at enough passages now to establish an STED (standard EBT definition) that occurs in several key passages.

It looks like the strongest tie in with the 4nt, 8aam, 37bp, etc, would be under right effort and viriya, where hiri and ottappa have a strong explicit connection with the STED right effort formula of "papaka akusala dhamma" (evil unskillful Dharma[teachings & qualities]), and also the sutta where ottappa and ātāpi are shown working together (they both have tapa, austerity, strong heat of effort in that word), and we know atapi is a key word in the 4sp (satipatthana) formula that references right effort.

Also several suttas, especially AN 4.169, have modified forms of 5bal and 5ind (bala and indriya) to incorporate hiri & ottappa. So those seem like the strongest explicit EBT tie ins that I can find so far.

But I am keeping a comprehensive encyclopedia entry for hiri & ottappa in the link above, so please feel free to share sutta references (with sutta ref number in modern numbering system, no PTS page number) on this thread and I'll add to collection. Thanks to all who contributed.

Upasaga Frank K, intetested,

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

☝ Shame and fear of wrong-doing requires much care how you look (in the eyes of wise)

As for The Noble Eightfold Path (ariya-magga)

Hiri & ottappa (shame & fear of wrongdoing) is an aspect of right resolve, going after the desire of not harming, causing no conflicts and restrain, renouncing (sense desires, desire after becoming). Hiri & ottappa are working here toward development of the virtue section and having the purification of virtue as result, resulting then in further refining through right effort (again a pattern of hiri & ottapa), driving one into the heart of the conncentration section. As Nyom Rubben mentioned, they work for the perfection of Sila as prerequisite of right samadhi and panna.

In The Four Frames of Reference (satipaṭṭhāna) they work at all for in the area of ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.

The Four Right Exertions (sammappadhāna), they cover the hole drive for right effort.

Likewise in The Four Bases of Power (iddhipāda) on a refined level.

In The Five Faculties (indrīya), Sila and it's cause is found in The faculty of conviction (saddhindrīya) and faculty of persistence (viriyindrīya).

Likewise in The Five Strengths (bala) as The strength of conviction (saddhā-bala) and strength of persistence (viriya-bala)..

In The Seven Factors for Awakening (bojjhaṅga) they are included in Mindfulness as a factor for Awakening (sati-sambojjhaṅga), Analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening (dhamma-vicaya-sambojjhaṅga), Persistence as a factor for Awakening (viriya-sambojjhaṅga).

So hiri & opatta are factors supporting Conviction: Right Speech (Eightfold Path), Right Action (Eightfold Path), Right Livelihood (Eightfold Path), Desire (Bases of Power) and Persistence: Right Effort (Eightfold Path), Four Right Exertions, Persistence (Bases of Power) Persistence (Factors for Awakening).

As coming from Right resolve, effort, bases on right view,  hiri & opatta has right view as for-runner:

  There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."

One lacking in right view may think before or/and after deeds: to deny responsibility, to deny that harm was actually done, to deny the worth of the victim, to attack the accuser, and to claim that they were acting in the service of a higher cause.

And the Buddhas cut offs, maintained by right view are: (1) We are always responsible for our conscious choices. (2) We should always put ourselves in the other person's place. (3) All beings are worthy of respect. (4) We should regard those who point out our faults as if they were pointing out treasure. (5) There are no — repeat, no — higher purposes that excuse breaking the basic precepts of ethical behavior. (see Reconciliation, Right & Wrong, in regard of changing ways)

Usual sense-desire and desire for becoming (joy, happiness) are the "higher pruposes" why people lose shame and fear of wrongdoing.

(right) Hiri & Opatta are governed be the desire for becoming and to a state even beyind becoming, to leve behind low stands, states and enter that of the Noble Ones, governed by one or all three governing principles (right view):

  "There are these three governing principles. Which three? The self as a governing principle, the cosmos as a governing principle, and the Dhamma as a governing principle. ...Adhipateyya Sutta: Governing Principles

As there is shame and fear of wrong doing actually present in all beings and actions, but for the most shame in doing good and fear to lose face under fools, this talk may be usefull supply to leave associations with fools toward wise:

In the Eyes of the Wise: The Buddha’s Teachings on Honor & Shame

May no one be ever ashamed in doing merits and may no one fear to do wrong what fools regard as their refuge, to find real happiness for oneself with ease.

A possible extended answer, with further cross-links and given space for discussion and further investigation can be found here:

[Q&A] Where does hiri & ottappa (shame & fear of wrongdoing) fit in the Path?

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but for development of restrain from unskillful toward liberation and make meritorious deeds with and on it)


Ignoring Someone as Wrongful Speech I am in an odd situation. Someone I know, who was my friend, now seems to have developped feelings towards me. I wish to give her space, but we are in contact electronically and text. She is extremely distraught by this situation. I cannot help but feel angry when she messages me, for various reasons. I feel that sometimes, the best answer for me is to remain silent. But in doing so, she feels ignored, and suffers.

What is the best course of action in a situation like this? Is ignoring someone wrong speech in this case?

As a Buddhist, your boundaries & conduct in relationship should be clearly communicated. Just be honest with her.


What is worth desiring from the world? What is worth desiring from the world when everything is impermanent ?

I can't even desire Nirvana , because I never get it. Here it states that I can not say Nibbana as mine or me  or myself( I can not say I am in state of Nibbana and I can not say Nibbana as mine):

  “He directly knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having directly known Nibbāna
  as Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself as Nibbāna, he should not
  conceive himself in Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself apart from
  Nibbāna, he should not conceive Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he should not
  delight in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he must fully understand it,
  I say.

( I am asking this question to understand the depths of knowledge... I am trying not to take delight in asking such questions.Buddha says one should not even take delight in Nibbana.)

Let's forget for a moment about "I", and "wanting". Here are some:

Negative things:

Minimise or eliminate "suffering"
Minimise attachment, and craving, associated with suffering
Minimise defilements
Minimise fetters

Positive things:

Maximize wisdom
Maximise perfections
Maximise factors of enlightenment

Learn to practice the noble eightfold path.

Practice good deeds (and speech), and generosity, which are for example "a support for the mind".

I think that, when a monk is dying, another monk may be advised to remind him of his "attainments" -- perhaps it's such "attainments", and "good deeds", that are not (or that are less) impermanent.

As for "I can't even desire Nirvana , because I never get it" -- that seems like a contradiction, you know.

Imagine "I" is like a drop of water, and "Nibbana" is like an ocean. Then "I desire Nibbana" or "I can't desire Nibbana" is like saying, "I wish this drop of water would be as big as the ocean, as permanent as the ocean, but still be the same individual drop of water."

Then people around you are like, "Dude! Let it go! Put the drop in the ocean, already!" (or, depending on the school of Buddhism, maybe, "That drop of water is already like the ocean").

I think a reason why Buddhism teaches anatta is because it's the characteristics of "I" that are associated with suffering -- craving to have things is associated with suffering; seeing and being attached to (and wanting to be attached to) an impermanent "self" that's going to die is associated with suffering; and so on.

One advice, which I remember from long ago, is to treat your sense of self (or your body) like a wound -- you take care of it, you try to treat it so as to minimize suffering, but you don't love it, you don't become attached to it.  And you don't say "I can't want to be healthy because then this wound (my sense of self) would disappear."

Also there's some middle way, for example this sutta or this sutta imply that some wanting is "right".


Distinction between Dharmaguptaka and Mahayana what's the distinction between Dharmaguptaka and Mahayana? I know that the former is an ordination lineage with specific vinaya as distinct from Theravada ordination, but I don't understand where Mahayana may encompass Dharmaguptaka, or where Dharmaguptaka may encompass Mahayana, or neither.

I would be interested in a Venn-diagram type of answer, and similarly for the same question asked of Mulasarvastivada and Vajrayana.

In the same way, is Theravada both an ordination lineage and a sect?

Is the question valid?

The Dharmaguptaka school was one of the old 18 to 20 early schools of Buddhism that arose before the arrival of Mahayana Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism is really just a blanket term we use to refer to groups that started following various new sutras that were written after this period which have an emphasis on Bodhisattva practice and various other new doctrines.

When this Mahayana movement started out, it wasn't yet a defined school and didn't have any organization, and its followers were just members of the other early sects who chose to follow these texts. For example, it was common for a period of time for a Saravastivadin monastery to have Mahayana and non-Mahayana monks living and practicing together. Because they followed the same Vinaya, it didn't really matter. Eventually in India however, Mahayana Buddhism developed into distinct schools such as Madhyamika, Yogacara, etc... and all that remained of most of these schools were their canonical texts (which were still upheld as canonical by the Mahayana schools) and their ordination lineages.

In brief, for a time, some Dharmaguptakas were Mahayana, and some Mahayana were Dharmaguptaka. Some Sarvastivada were Mahayana, and some Mahayana were Sarvastivada, and the same pattern repeats for almost all of the sects. Eventually though, the only non-Mahayana school to live on as a body of teachings rather than just an ordination lineage and a textual transmission was the Theravada school, and all the non-Theravada lineages were simply absorbed into Mahayana Buddhism.


Is there an antibuddha? Is there a figure in Buddhism corresponding to the Christian notion of such? And what would that mean, practically?

One to one comparison with Satan is not possible, but there's an angel called Mara who dislikes the existence of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. He tries to stop beings from attaining enlightenment.


Panic arising in meditation I am a relatively new (about four months) meditator.

My meditation technique is closing my eyes and focusing on the sensation of the breath as it passes in and out of my throat. Today I was meditating for 30 minutes and, as often happens, I saw swirling lights in the darkness of my closed eyes.

As I became more deeply focused on the breath-sensation, the lights went away and there was darkness, but the odd thing was that the darkness extended - it seemed as though I was looking down an endless, dark hallway rather than just looking at my eyelids.

As I noted this, I started to see a purple, vibrating orb appear. I remember thinking to myself that maybe I was about to have some kind of mystical experience. I became a little excited about this, but all of a sudden the excitement morphed into an incredible fear. My breath began to come in gasps and was shaky, and my heart was pounding. I eventually managed to calm down, but wow that was strange.

So my question is - has this happened to anyone else, and is there a reasonable explanation? I have always had issues with anxiety, so I wonder if that is related to this experience.

I have heard that meditation can be harmful - is this a sign that I should refrain from meditating?

Thanks for taking the time to read.
Ian

welcome!

Generally, from Buddhism standpoint, meditation is not practiced for the sake of mystical experiences. In vipassana exercises, whatever sensation is felt, it's supposed to be observed, we are not supposed to be overwhelmed by it. In general, arbitrary sensations and imaginations are not to be stimulated. And as importantly, awareness should be constant: when one embarks in sensations and imaginations, awareness is lost.

If awareness is lost, whatever imagination inside your mind becomes powerful, your forget that you're safe, sitting comfortably, and believe you are in danger, when nothing will really happen.

I remember reading an account of a meditator who described having visions during meditation, and later on, seeing his visions were true. He brought this to his teacher who told him to not be distracted by such small thing. That's a valuable attitude to have during meditation. At least if one is aiming for the higher goals.

In general also, if the meditator is not calm (if he is excited, in fear, tired, etc), meditation is impaired:

  But with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration. So I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it. Why is that? So my mind should not be strained.

  -- Dvedhāvitakka Sutta [Bodhi trans.], MN 19

So, to answer your questions:

This is relatively common, specially when our minds follow patterns that easily lead to strong sensations. A remedy for this is having a very good understanding of the practice (for example, understanding very well the five hindrances)
A lot of things can be harmful if not done properly. Though meditation doesn't seem to require knowing much, it can be very hard to do it without study.

From here, I suggest having a good understanding of primordial sources for this practice: the Satippathana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta where the Buddha explains their techniques. I also strongly suggest looking for books that cover detailed explanation for these. Finally, there are a lot of questions regarding meditation here, I suggest looking up for those as well.


How are expectations seen in Buddhism? If one has expectations of others, how is this perceived in Buddhism?

For example, if one expects others to show respect, not hurt others, help others, make effort to understand others, etc, how is this perceived?

If these expectations are not met or remain unfulfilled, does one simply class these are ignorance, lack of maturity, etc?

This may sound surprising to you... but as I understand, in Buddhism the expectations like you described would be seen as your attachments and your ignorance.

Indeed, if you were infinitely wise, you would see this person as they are, and would not be mistaken by the appearance. The fact that your original opinion turned out to be wrong means you are not infinitely wise! :)

Two, once the expectations have been unfulfilled and you become disenchanted, to continue to be upset and to regret that things are not the way you thought they were, is a case of attachment. Meaning, you had one experience of the world, and now situation has changed - hence another experience, but you continue to hold to the past picture.

So in this way, these expectations are your ignorance and your attachment.


Training with both Zen and Rimé I am very fond of the Prasangika Madhyamaka following Candrakirtis interpretation of Nagarjuna. This is what I read and study most. But I am also attracted to Zen.

Does anyone have any thoughts, moral or otherwise the, on pros and cons if I want to train with teachers at both a Zen center and a Tibetan Rimé center?

The traditional view on this is negative. One explanation I heard, is that a particular teaching is like a raft made of simplifications and approximations - which has all kinds of holes and inconsistencies, is leaking enough already, and has no value on its own outside of getting you to the other side. Now, when you study multiple traditions, you're effectively building two slightly different rafts at the same time - in your head - which leads to a combinatorial explosion of contradictions. More leaking. You may never get to your destination. Am I making myself absolutely clear? :)

This is different from the Tri-yana approach practiced by modern Karma-Kagyu school (and pioneered by Rime's founder Jamgon Kongtrul the Great). In Tri-yana, you first practice self-discipline at "hinayana" level of simplistic but well-defined black-and-white concepts and rules, then graduate to "mahayana" level of going beyond dualities as you work with others, until you mature to the "vajrayana" level where you practice spontaneity, confidence and intuition. Each level is effectively almost a different school, but practiced in succession - not at the same time.

Now, in this particular case, the two traditions are Madhyamaka and Zen. Both come from Nagarjuna/Prajnaparamita movement, so both essentially speak about the same thing (Emptiness). The key difference is in the approach.

In Madyamaka you study and study and study the theory, until you know it all in and out, and then meditate, meditate, meditate for years - until one day hopefully it clicks and the theory connects with experience. Essentially, Madhyamaka is walking back and forth on the hither shore while talking about the other shore - until one day you get used to the idea of the other shore enough that you make the step. If you already live in the wilderness and kinda despise its vulgarity, while secretly wishing to get more civilized, this may be your path.

While Zen is jumping into the water and swimming blindly, desperately, having no idea what you're doing, with Master metaphorically beating you on the head with the stick of prajnaparamita repeatedly as you try to turn back to this shore, until your pain instinct pushes you in the only direction away from pain - and you find your Master waiting for you smiling and hugging on the other shore. Then in post-realization you catch up on the theory as a communication tool. If your world is in its decadence phase and getting hit on the head is your idea of fun then Zen may be it for you.

So the two traditions are pretty much at odds with each other. The better you are at Madyamaka, the more your Zen Master will beat you - but your frustration will not mature in gidan as you will seek comfort in the certainty of Madyamaka, while at the same time finding it absolutely useless for your Zen plunges into the uncontrived emptiness. I may be wrong, but this is what my logical mind tells me.

Or it may actually work better this way, provided you have equal faith in both teachings and equal connection with both the live teachers - and never directly cross-question one's teachings with the other but skilfully relate and synthesize them in your head. But in practice most likely you will either spill one's wisdom to the other and draw their anger at you, or end up dropping one and going with the other.

A more traditional way would be to study Madhyamaka for several years and then make a clean cut to Zen. Do as I say, not as I've done. Gosh, am I getting old?


Buddhist path X Romantic Relationships and Sons First of all I will apologize because it will be hard to put that as a clear and simple question.

Once a person decides to enter the Buddhist path, it becomes clear that one should avoid engaging in romantic relationships as impermanence will definitly create suffering for this person (either by changing or ending the relationship), also a relationship can reduce time for meditation and dhamma study. We can understand why monks are not married.

Using the same logic a person should avoid having a child, as it will create strong attachments and dramaticaly reduce the time for other activities.

That said, we still find lots of Buddhists that decide to have this "normal life", marriage, sons, career, etc... even though they practice the Buddha's teachings, meditate and understand anicca and emptiness. They believe in Samsara, rebirth and Nibbana, but they still make choices that will probably keep their minds tied to this plane. It must be a very hard moment in life, to decide what to do when there is a "conflict" like this.

I'm facing such challenges in my life, because soon I will have to decide about marriage, sons etc. I will create strong bonds and attachments, anyone that passed thought the same thing could help?

You are mixing up the monk's life with lay life. Lay people are only expected to follow the five precepts on regular days and the eight precepts on Poya days. So they can still get married and have children. You can still attain enlightenment while being a lay person. Visaka was a Sothapanna. But she married and had many children. A monk's life is more congenial to the practice. But the choice is up to you. Buddha never said that all should become monks. Not everyone has the mental fortitude to leave the lay life.


Is it a sin to vacuum cobwebs & ants while cleaning? I vacuum away cobwebs, ants & any other small insects I find while cleaning the house. My intention is to clean the house but I still feel bad about those insects.  And most of the time I don't clean the vacuum cleaner bag on the same day & even if I do so some insects are already dead. I'm unable to use brooms or anything to clean the cobwebs due to medical conditions. Is it a sin to do so?

Buddhism doesn’t deal with sins, it deals with consequences of our actions (karma).

Your example seems like a trade off between feeling bad for the insects on one hand, and having a dirty home on the other. The former, being merciful towards other living beings (karuna) is considered a virtue in Buddhism as it can save us from feeling bad.

Sometimes life is about choosing the option giving us the least bad consequences for everyone involved, out of all the options. The effort to balance our actions (upekkha) is considered yet another virtue in Buddhism as it unifies others wellbeing with our own, saving us from destructive self-sacrifice on one hand and selfishness on the other.


Can lay people be involved in the weapons business? There is a short sentence in the suttas where the Buddha said lay people should not involve themselves in the weapons business, but it seems this is not as serious as the five precepts.

The question is, how much is considered weapons business? For example, is getting involving in the armor business considered weapon business? What about selling weapons designs, technologies, intellectual property, etc., but not selling weapons themselves?

What if someone is only skilled in weapons/war and cannot make a living off of other professions?

First of all, the passage you mention (AN 5.177):

  "Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

  "These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."

  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html

The tika provides a bit of clarity on this:

  satthavaṇijjā ti āvudhabhaṇḍaṃ katvā vā kāretvā vā kataṃ vā paṭilabhitvā tassa vikkayo.

  "Business in weapons" means, having made instruments used as weapons, or having had them made, or having obtained them already made, the selling of those [instruments].

So, again it appears to be limited to the activities of a merchant. On the other hand, the entire sutta only describes the activities of a merchant (vanijja), so it doesn't actually make allowance for other ways of making money off of weapons manufacture and/or war. It is my guess that this is to be used as a guide on which to judge the morality of more indirect forms of martial employment (similar to manufacturing poison, etc.).

I don't think one should simply draw the line at commerce and say that any other war-based employment is okay. Instead we should ask what is wrong with selling weapons and apply the same principle to other similar activities.

One interesting exemption seems to be related to transportation and care of weapons. The commentary to Dhp 124 tells a story of a woman who cleaned and prepared weapons for her husband to catch and kill animals. She was a sotapanna and the Buddha said she was blameless:

  The monks began to discuss the matter, saying, “So Kukkuṭamitta has a wife, and when she was a mere girl she obtained the Fruit of Conversion; yet she married this hunter and by him had seven sons. Furthermore, during all this time, whenever her husband said to her, ‘Bring me my bow, bring me my arrows, bring me my hunting-knife, bring me my net,’ she obeyed him and gave him what he asked for. And her husband, taking what she had given him, went and took life. Is it possible that those who have obtained the Fruit of Conversion take life?” Just then the Teacher approached and asked, “Monks, what is it that you are sitting here now talking about?” When they told him, he said, “Monks, of course those that have obtained the Fruit of Conversion do not take life. Kukkuṭamitta’s wife did what she did because she was actuated by the thought, ‘I will obey the commands of my husband.’ It never occurred to her to think, ‘He will take what I give him and go hence and take life.’ If a man’s hand be free from wounds, even though he take poison into his hand, yet the poison will not harm him. Precisely so, a man who harbors no thoughts of wrong and who commits no evil, may take down bows and other similar objects and present them to another, and yet be guiltless of sin.” So saying, he joined the connection, and preaching the Law, pronounced the following Stanza,

  124. If in his hand there be no wound,
  A man may carry poison in his hand.
  Poison cannot harm him who is free from wounds.
  No evil befalls him who does no evil.

I think it's easy to see how this is different from actually helping to create weapons, but it does show that, as always, the mind is most important.

As to your final question, this is never a very good defence; it's like a butcher saying he has to kill because he has no other way to make money. While that might mitigate the evil, it doesn't make it categorically different from any other act of murder.

There is another story in the Jataka (JatA 31) that exemplifies the Buddhist view on this sort of situation. When Magha was reborn as Sakka, king of the angels of the thirty-three, three of his wives were also born in heaven due to their meritorious deeds. His fourth wife was born as a crane, and Sakka admonished her to keep the five precepts, as follows:

  But Highborn, having performed no act of merit, was reborn as a crane
  in a grotto in the forest.

  "There's no sign of Highborn," said Sakka to himself; "I wonder where
  she has been reborn." And as he considered the matter, he discovered
  her whereabouts. So he paid her a visit, and bringing her back with
  him to heaven shewed her the delightful city of the Devas, the Hall of
  Goodness, Thoughtful's Creeper-Grove, and the Tank called Joy. "These
  three," said Sakka, "have been reborn as my handmaidens by reason of
  the good works they did; but you, having done no good work, have been
  reborn in the brute creation. Henceforth keep the Commandments." And
  having exhorted her thus, and confirmed her in the Five Commandments,
  he took her back and let her go free. And thenceforth she did keep the
  Commandments.

  A short time afterwards, being curious to know whether she really was
  able to keep the Commandments, Sakka went and lay down before her in
  the shape of a fish. Thinking the fish was dead, the crane seized it
  by the head. The fish wagged its tail. "Why, I do believe it's alive,"
  said the crane, and let the fish go. "Very good, very good," said
  Sakka; "you will be able to keep the Commandments." And so saying he
  went away.

  Dying as a crane, Highborn was reborn into the family of a potter in
  Benares. Wondering where she had got to, and at last discovering her
  whereabouts, Sakka, disguised as an old man, filled a cart with
  cucumbers of solid gold and sat in the middle of the village, crying,
  "Buy my cucumbers! buy my cucumbers!" Folk came to him and asked for
  them. "I only part with them to such as keep the Commandments," said
  he, "do you keep them?" "We don't know what you mean by your
  'Commandments'; sell us the cucumbers." "No; I don't want money for my
  cucumbers. I give them away,--but only to those that keep the
  Commandments." "Who is this wag?" said the folk as they turned away.
  Hearing of this, Highborn thought to herself that the cucumbers must
  have been brought for her, and accordingly went and asked for some.
  "Do you keep the Commandments, madam?" said he. "Yes, I do," was the
  reply. "It was for you alone that I brought these here," said he, and
  leaving cucumbers, cart and all at her door he departed.

  Continuing all her life long to keep the Commandments, Highborn after
  her death was reborn the daughter of the Asura king Vepacittiya, and
  for her goodness was rewarded with the gift of great beauty. When she
  grew up, her father mustered the Asuras together to give his daughter
  her pick of them for a husband. And Sakka, who had searched and found
  out her whereabouts, donned the shape of an Asura, and came down,
  saying to himself, "If Highborn chooses a husband really after her own
  heart, I shall be he."

  Highborn was arrayed and brought forth to the place of assembly, where
  she was bidden to select a husband after her own heart. Looking round
  and observing Sakka, she was moved by her love for him in a bygone
  existence to choose him for her husband. Sakka carried her off to the
  city of the devas and made her the chief of twenty-five millions of
  dancing-girls. And when his term of life ended, he passed away to fare
  according to his deserts.

A true follower of the Buddha would not kill to save their own life.


What to do that wise would not disappear again? My person, just seeing that you are certain gifted to be, possible not so aware, gifted to have another Noble one around here thought it would be good to be asked an importand question:

What needs to be done, what should a community take care of, in the case someone more skilled in liberating means would approach?

How does one "bind" such a blessed gift?

[Note: this is not given for stackes, exchange and trades in the world, but to get bind toward liberation. Should be deleted if place does not have interest in releasing it's visitors.]

There is a good book about community building; Community Building on the Web : Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities – by Amy Jo Kim.

The most knowledgeable people are those who are able to answer almost any questions. They are extremely valuable but are also quite likely to retire from a community in part because they don't need the community to learn and their lack of peers is proportional to their expertise.

If one is looking to keep the knowledgeable people around one should protect them. They do need to be protected from harassment and it is the job of the moderators. The moderators have to work with them and this can be difficult.

Other than that they can also just lose interest in teaching or become otherwise disinterested.

Related Sutta stories;

There is a story about monks quarreling and the Tathagata leaving the community because the monks did not settle their quarrel.

There is another story about The Buddha not teaching in an "impure" assembly which results in a monk being removed by force from the assembly.

Another is when Ven. Sariputta stops teaching because a monk harasses him by openly disagreeing in front of other monks and nobody defends Ven. Sariputta. Later Buddha admonishes the monk for harassing Ven. Sariputta and admonishes the community of monks for not defending the Elder.


Did the Buddha say "There is no path to happiness.. "? According to the teachings of lord Buddha, what can we say about this quote? Is it fake?

  "There is no path to happiness. Happiness is the path"

Apparently it wasn't the Buddha - it was  A. J. Muste.

  The American Dictionary of Quotations ascribes “There is no way to
  peace. Peace is the way” to a piece by Muste in the New York Times
  dated 16 November, 1967, although he definitely used the phrase well
  before that time.

Ref Fake Buddha Quotes

The more relevant Buddha quote is perhaps the fourth noble truth

  There is a way leading to the end of suffering, the eight-fold path,
  which is to be practiced.

The path to the end of suffering - which isn't quite the same as happiness to be fair.


Pali Canon support for living on the edge between all dualities? I am still a novice and searching for specific canon support for Shakyamuni's view on "walking the median path" between dualities. My goal is to dispel this pervasive view that Buddhism is a rigid, cold existence. I think this is my best starting point but haven't read these portions of the dhammapada yet or my memory is just getting bad in my old age.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist':
  That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata
  teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite
  condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
  condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
  condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition
  come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
  condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
  feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
  craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From
  clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering." SN 12.15


Does everything happen for a reason? If something unexpected (and incredibly unlikely) happens, should we take it as something deeper or just a fact of life?

Something highly unlikely and very positive happened at a very bad and negative point in my life, this event arguably showed a very different future to the one I imagined.

Don't know how to read into it, or how my actions should be after the event, should I embrace the change?

My teacher taught me that I must choose how I interpret such events in whichever way that produces the most wholesome mindstates.

So if thinking that this event was a sign from the hidden nature of things and held special significance makes you stronger, go for it with no hesitation. This is called, utilizing the power of faith.

In Varjrayana we learn to see hidden connections between things, hidden patterns and relationships. So having a sense of intuition for special events in one's life is important in our practice. In the absence of egoistic desires, and the baselessness of Emptiness, how else can we pick the course of action? So we choose to interpret things in a certain way, and act based on that. It's more an art than a science but there is a system to it.


How do you contemplate delight you get due to action that leads to detachment? Let us follow the unbeaten track, the dukkha in right action.

You see a man in need,  you feel compassion, wishing him well you help him with his worldly need, then you feel delighted of your action.

Then you meditate the delight in your mind which arises due to the virtuous act you did, you contemplate it with the three mark of existence saying this delight is impermanent, it is born of external phenomena of a being in need of compassion, a being suffering and this feeling will end soon. If I hold this as mine and myself when it ends I will suffer, and this is dukkha.

Now let’s look at an action that is born of detachment.

You feel that you are attached to money, hoarding more than you need. You said to yourself, I have to let go of my attachment and to do so I will give all the excess I have and live in simplicity.
You go out and give the money to those who need and put an end to your greed and hoarding. You feel delighted with your act, not that you helped someone, but because of your detachment… how do you contemplate this delight? Do you check it as above and hold it aloof not to grow big or do you nurture it to grow?

how do you contemplate this delight?

From MN1, we know that...

  MN1/en/bodhi ...delight is the root of suffering...

Therefore, rather than contemplating and nurturing delight, it may prove more fruitful to contemplate emptiness:

  MN8:3.6: A mendicant gives up and lets go of these views by truly seeing with right wisdom where they arise, where they settle in, and where they operate as: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

MN8 is a wonderful sutta that explores the relationship between practice and action that you have brought up in your question. Notice that what is contemplated is NOT delight:

  MN8:12.30: ‘Others will be stingy, but here we will be without stinginess.’


Does imagination also create kamma? What is the difference between imagination and intent?
Does imagination also create kamma?
Can someone help me explain this in simpler terms?

Mental activity is, too, a type of activity.
This includes thinking, imagination, mulling over ideas, cultivating certain mind states and suppressing others.
Repeated thinking on some topic (including imagination) habituates the mind to that theme. Habituation affects the mind's tendencies and dispositions.
Metta meditation works by changing the mind's habits. Imagination is a simple brother of meditation, so it works similarly just at a more crude level.
Karma is not something magical, it only seems magical when you don't understand how it works. It works simply by creating latent causes that change the odds of certain things happening or not happening.
Mental activity such as imagination is yet another source of such latent causes.


Theravada and Nagarjuna I appreciate that various aspects of Nagarjuna's teachings are rejected by Theravadans but I'm wondering where the line is drawn. For some of his teachings I can see room for scepticism, but what about his central argument? Four questions...

In his Fundamental Verses Nagarjuna demonstrates the absurdity of positive or extreme metaphysical positions.

Do Theravadans accept this proof as valid and sound?

Do they accept its result, which is the logical absurdity of extreme views?

If they do accept this logical result, do they also accept the falsity of such views?

If they do not accept N's argument, on what grounds do they not do so?

EDIT: Perhaps I should have asked just this. Is it possible to endorse the logical result of Nagarjuna's argument in Fundamental Wisdom and remain a Theravadan?

You are referring to a full book comprising of 27 chapters, with at least ten different translations. That makes it hard to know what the "positive or extreme metaphysical positions" are for someone unfamiliar with his writings, so the question may be difficult to answer without specific references.
Anyway, with all due respect for Nagarjuna, from a fundamentalist approach here are some suggestions for demarcation criterias from the nikayas.
AN 4.77:

Mendicants, these four things are unthinkable. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated. What four?
The scope of the Buddhas …
The scope of one in absorption …
The results of deeds …
Speculation about the world …
These are the four unthinkable things. They should not be thought about, and anyone who tries to think about them will go mad or get frustrated.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.77/en/sujato
MN 63:

These positions that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One — 'The cosmos is eternal,' 'The cosmos is not eternal,' 'The cosmos is finite,' 'The cosmos is infinite,' 'The soul & the body are the same,' 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' 'After death a Tathagata exists,' 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist' — I don't approve, I don't accept that the Blessed One has not declared them to me. I'll go ask the Blessed One about this matter. If he declares to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' that 'The cosmos is not eternal,' that 'The cosmos is finite,' that 'The cosmos is infinite,' that 'The soul & the body are the same,' that 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' that 'After death a Tathagata exists,' that 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' that 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will live the holy life under him. If he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will renounce the training and return to the lower life.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
MN 2:

'Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? Who was I in the past? How was I in the past? In the past, who had been I and who was I [in the subsequent existence]? Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the future? Who will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? In the future, having been who, who will I be?'
Also as regards the present, uncertainty arises in him thus: 'Do I exist? Do I not exist? Who am I? How am I? From where has this soul come? Where will this soul go?'
In a person who thus considers improperly there arises one of the six [wrong] views. The view 'I have self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I have no self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive self through self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive non-self through self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, the view 'I perceive self through non-self' arises in him really and firmly. Or, he has the view thus: 'That self of mine speaks, knows and experiences the results of wholesome and unwholesome actions. That self of mine is permanent, stable, durable, incorruptible and will be eternal like all things permanent.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.bpit.html


Happiness, rebirth, and the death of an arahant I am new to Buddhism and have a question I am hoping someone can answer.

My understanding is that realizing enlightenment is universally desirable. In other words, it is considered “better” to realize enlightenment than to not (i.e. if a genie ever offered to magically grant someone the realization of enlightenment, no one should say “no”).

When it comes to what happens to arahant after death, my understanding is that Buddha did not give a very concrete answer. I've read a couple of answers such as, "it falls under the category of things that are not known" or "the answer will not end suffering so it is irrelevant” or “arahant are extinguished like a flame”, etc. He did seem to concretely say, however, that arahant are definitely “freed” from the cycle of death and rebirth. And when it comes to what happens to non-arahant after death, he seemed to have a very concrete answer with no hesitation: they/we die and are reborn in an endless cycle of dukkha (suffering).

My understanding is that both happiness and sadness are dukkha (suffering/impermanence). But isn’t happiness generally considered a pleasant feeling? And aren’t some non-arahant more happy than they are sad in life? I’m not saying I’m one of those people, but don’t those people exist? So for them, perhaps an endless cycle of death and rebirth isn’t that bad? Life can be net-positive in happiness for some, can’t it? For those people, does it make sense to exit out of this endless cycle of mostly-pleasant life and instead enter....nothingness? The unknown? Become an extinguished flame?

I have read that arahant experience “happiness” in an unfathomable way, far beyond the happiness of the laymen. Even if that is true, that “happiness” is only guaranteed for the rest of their current life is it not? After that, even the Buddha is not sure what will happen except that they will for sure not be reborn to experience that happiness again in the next life because they will have been freed from the cycle.

If it was just laid out as, “following the eight-fold path will end your suffering in this life” then that would be simple. But then there’s also that added bonus of “if you realize enlightenment, the illusion of ‘you’ will forever be nothing.” But what if I’m not suffering all that much? What if I have a pretty peaceful, happy life? Does it make sense for me to say “yes” to that genie?

Thank you in advance.

Your question seems very sensible. Some thoughts...

I think you're wrong to suggest that the Buddha was 'not sure what will happen...'. There are some things that may be known but not explained. He advises us not to worry about metaphysical problems and just take the medicine, but this does not mean these problems are not understood or the facts not known.

If you are having a pleasant time, as you say, then you may not feel you are suffering and you may question the need for the medicine and have little motivation to take it. The Buddha was in this position early on but saw the suffering of others and recognised his own future death and suffering. His medicine is not just a cure for suffering now but forever, and while you may feel free of suffering right now this situation is not going to last. (Sorry about that).

Thus it is said that the Gods have such a cushy time they may lose their motivation to push on to full attainment, but in the end even they must give up the pleasant life and sink back into the mundane, making it more helpful to be a human being with the motivation to go all the way.

I doubt your pleasant situation will hold you back since it won't last for long. What you call happiness is not what the arahant means by the word. His or her happiness is unshakable and not dependent on conditions. When you are happy in a way you know nobody and nothing can diminish or destroy then you're properly happy. Usually our happiness can be destroyed instantly by a death in the family, an illness or even just a missed meal. Happiness is real happiness when it is permanent, at which point the word 'happiness' may become slightly misleading as a description.

It's a slippery and subtle doctrine and these issue take some time to sort out, and they cannot be properly sorted out without some 'empirical' evidence to inform the process.

Needless to say this is just some thoughts, not advice from a guru.


Escape the suffering? if believe we can escape the suffering of this world and the limits of our material existence by observing and practicing a set of practices. for Christian, we know that the way of “escape” is only through faith in Jesus Christ as they are spiritually reborn with God’s life through the Holy Spirit? what about Buddhist?

The answer to What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? includes,

  We accept the Four Noble Truths taught by the Buddha, namely, Dukkha, the fact that our existence in this world is in predicament, is impermanent, imperfect, unsatisfactory, full of conflict; Samudaya, the fact that this state of affairs is due to our egoistic selfishness based on the false idea of self; Nirodha, the fact that there is definitely the possibility of deliverance, liberation, freedom from this predicament by the total eradication of the egoistic selfishness; and Magga, the fact that this liberation can be achieved through the Middle Path which is eight- fold, leading to the perfection of ethical conduct (sila), mental discipline (samadhi) and wisdom (pañña).

One answer to your question is that the 'way' to escape suffering is the "Fourth Noble Truth", which is the "Noble Eightfold Path", which is also known as the Threefold Training.

Another answer might the "taking refuge" in the Triple Gem:

  We all take refuge in the Triple Jewel: the Buddha, our Teacher; the Dhamma, his teaching; and the Sangha, the Community of holy ones. In other words, we take refuge in the Teacher, the Teaching and the Taught.

Maybe the above are slightly Theravada-centric answers. The answer I accepted to this question, How to explain what Buddhism is?, reveals a range of other/different Buddhist schools/understandings also.

Someone like the Dalai Lama seems to preach compassion and a kind of selflessness, maybe thinking of all people as the same, as a way to escape suffering.

And something like the answer to this question, What is meant by Namu Amida Butsu and also Nam-myoho-renge-kyo? begins to explain another school of Buddhism. If you're familiar with the idea that, as you wrote in the OP, "escape is only through faith in Jesus Christ", this answer too depends on a kind of "faith" or realization.

The above is a theoretical or a referenced answer.

An answer more from personal experience (this site wants answers based on references and/or personal experience) is that there is some escape from suffering (when suffering arises) from having learned (i.e. read or hear, study, try to understand, make sense of, internalize, and apply) dhamma.

Consequently if a conceit like "I am experiencing suffering" arises, then some dhamma (or awareness of dhamma arises and) might provide some kind of mental, habitual antidote.

Examples of what I'm talking about are summarized as/by relatively short phrases. The phrases are short enough that they can be "held in mind" i.e. I can remember a phrase as a unit. I haven't tried to remember a whole paragraph at once, but I find that a short phrase is helpful as mental furniture.

I won't try to explain every phrase in this answer (that would be wordy) but the following are some of those phrases or important summaries that I found helpful:

Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves (SN 56.31)

  Therefore your duty is the contemplation,

    'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.'

  Your duty is the contemplation,

    'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: On the No-self Characteristic (SN 22.59):

  Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever (of the five khandhas) ... all that ... must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus:

    'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose? (AN 11.1)

  Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward.

Brahmana Sutta: To Unnabha the Brahman (SN 51.15):

  Whatever ... he first had ..., on attaining ... that ... is allayed. This is a path with an end

People also recommend good company (friends, teachers) and good communities as helpful; for example:

Upaddha Sutta: Half (of the Holy Life) (SN 45.2)

  Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

But also:

  It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth

See also, for example, this comment.

It's not easy in an answer to answer from the whole of Buddhism; so the above is biased on my personal experience. See also for example this topic (Tibetan) and/or maybe this topic (Zen).


*"... not the physical lama, ... but your own nature of mind ... That's the real lama ..."* Is that actually a concept in vajrayana? In a recent comment in a blog I've read the following remark:

"(...) Not the physical lama, not anything or anyone outside of yourself, but your own nature of mind, the true nature of reality. That’s the real lama; that’s the essential point in the vajrayana ‘system of practice’, and that has nothing to do with a bully on a throne teaching you. His or her role is only to help you to recognise that true nature, (…)
(...) His or her role is only to help you to recognise that true nature, once you have that recognition, you no longer need the physical lama.(...)”

I asked in that blog for a source of this (in case it is more than a personal idea, of course) but it seems I could not find the attention of the writer so far.  So I ask in this forum:

Q: is this a statement which I can find in some scripture? Or, something from which it follows more or less immediately? Or is it merely the expression of an individual's conclusion?

Motivation: I've nearly no knowledge of tibetan buddhism (I like the reading in the pali-canon, in some older zen-literature and feel strongly connected with the way of Thich Nhat Hanh), and am getting in contact with it currently only initiated by my following of some blogs which concern themselves with the recent revelations of misuse and misconduct by teachers (and their inner circles). The above statement surprises me in recollection of all what I've heard and read of guru-orientated buddhism and makes me curious, whether this is really a basic or at least derivable conception.
(Ahh, nearly forgot: just for reference  comment-in-blog)

In Tibetan Buddhism there are many different lineages, broadly grouped into several categories known as schools or traditions. The exact details of the Dharma passed down from teacher to student in large degree depends on a particular lineage. In a more abstract sense, an overall teaching style is determined by the school. And then finally there are elements common to all of Tibetan Buddhism.

Then, within each school & lineage, there are different levels of presentation, targeted at students of different maturity levels.

There is a commonly held understanding among Tibetan Buddhism teachers and senior students, that the basic levels of Dharma are more focused on the outer forms of practice and simplistic concepts of teaching, to help complete beginners and outsiders get a "Micky-Mouse"-level introduction, before they can start delving into the real thing.

In my understanding the cult of the guru (formally known as the "guru-yoga") and the endless emphasis on compassion both belong at this basic level, along with some rather highly religious elements, and then, as the students mature, they are gradually introduced (or, rather, are allowed to discover for themselves) the progressively more direct teachings, with gradually less emphasis on the outer forms and gradually more focus on the inner personal practices of groundlessness, wakefulness, sobriety and composure.

Specifically, this idea that "your own mind is guru" is very well-known at the higher levels of teaching in Kagyu and Nyingma lineages (Mahamudra and Dzogchen respectively).

For example, here is a verse passed down Shangpa Kagyu lineage since ~12th century:

  ...
  Yes, gurus do point out how things are,
  But the guru who is natural being is within.
  Mind that is my guru, here is how you are:

  ...
  I can’t see, hear, taste, smell or touch you:
  You are not a thing, yet you are the source of all experience.
  Try as I may, there’s nothing I can point to and say, “That’s you!”
  But when I sit and don’t look for you, you are present in everything.

  ...
  Because you aren’t anywhere, you arise as anything anywhere.
  Yet you don’t belong to any one place.
  So, while you are not anything I can point to,
  You are my guru!

  ...
  Oh, mind that is my teacher,
  I meet you by recognizing what I am.
  I pray to you by letting go of doubt and hesitation.
  I revere you by letting go and settling naturally.

  ...
  I serve you by resting continuously in how things are.
  I provide you with food by resting without strain in empty clarity.
  I provide you with drink by knowing attention and distraction make no difference.
  I clothe you by knowing appearance and sound as enchantments.

  ...
  I have studied with many capable gurus:
  Each guru has given me his or her own advice.
  All advice comes down to one point – mind!
  So, mind that is my guru,
  I look at you, listen to you, and seek your instruction again and again.

  ...
  By doing so, I know directly that mind is the guru.
  Because this knowing arises internally,
  When I see writings that contradict or conflict with my experience:
  I consider the meaning, not the words.


Who propounded "All doesn't exist" in the Buddha's time? SN 12.15 says,

  'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle

We know that by the Buddha's time, the early Upanishads propounded some sort of "everything is existence" or "everything is the Self" doctrine.

But who propounded the latter doctrine ("Everything doesn't exist") in the Buddha's time? Certainly not Carvakas or Lokayatas, who were simply materialists. So who exactly was propounding this during the Buddha's time?

Perhaps it's a bit too frank, I think the OP asked an invalid question. A doctrine of everything doesn't exist cannot be uttered. It's like, a dead man cannot say "I'm dead", or you tell someone in the face "I'm not here". Making up such question is just an indication the questioner trapped by the trick of the mind - we called intellectual capacity.
This is the same trick for making up the phrase like the "groundless ground", the "egg-less egg", or the "valueless value"... the list can go on and on. You are simply making up another seemingly wisdom-infused phrase "non-existing existence". The Buddha has vivid and fun examples to dismiss, said, these people are talking about and debating on the "horns of a rabbit" and "hair of the tortoise". These things are mere constructs, the mind's game (戲論).
Let me make it more prominent: how can a question be made if all doesn't exist? What is to be discussed about since everything doesn't exist?
In ancient India, at Buddha's time, the study of Hetu-vidya and Catuṣkoṭi are prerequisites of establishing any doctrine. With all doesn't exist the whole proposition simply cannot be established, no learnt master would propound it.

Note:
I have great doubt on the OP's quoted Pali Sutta SN 12.15, the accuracy of the translated wording "everything exists" + "everything doesn't exist". Perhaps due to this misleading wording the OP asked the unnecessary question.
The corresponding Agama read as this (excerpt):

...尊者陀迦旃延...：「...云何正見？...」
佛告陀迦旃延：「世間有二種依，若有、若無，為取所觸；取所觸故，或依有、或依無。若無此取者，心境繫著使不取、不住、不計我苦生而生，苦滅而滅，於彼不疑、不惑，不由於他而自知，是名正見，是名如來所施設正見。所以者何？世間集如實正知見，若世間無者不有，世間滅如實正知見，若世間有者無有，是名離於二邊說於中道，所謂此有故彼有，此起故彼起，謂緣無明行...滅。」
佛說此經已，尊者陀迦旃延聞佛所說，不起諸漏，心得解脫，成阿羅漢。
======
...Ven. Kātyāyana, "...what is right-view?..."
The Buddha told Kātyāyana, "There are two fixations in
the world, if exist or if non-exist, due to attachment on contact. For
attaching on contact, either fixate on exist, or fixate on non-exist.
If one doesn't have any attachment, tames the mind made it not attach,
not dwell, not involve the self. Suffering arisen as it arises,
suffering ceased as it ceases. In it don't doubt, don't faze. Not
depending on other but known it yourself, that is
called right-view. This is called the right-view taught by the
Tathagata. Why is that so? The aggregating of the world is known and
seen as it is; if the world non-existed it is not existing now.
The cessation of the world is known and seen as it is, if the world
really existed it is not ceased existing now. This is called
avoiding the two sides teaching the middle way. It is what called,
this exists therefore that exists, this arises therefore that arises,
called saṃskāra (activities) caused by ignorance... cessation."
... ...
... ..
... .
(the quoted italic text is corresponding to the OP quote.)

The Agama is much clear, concise and precise. Reading SN 12.15 ties a big knot in the head got lost in the bushes.


Sutta with firefly simile What is the sutta that uses the following metaphor?

  Firefly(Samsaric being) jumps into candlelight seeking a
  pleasure(Tanha), not knowing(Avijja) that the candlelight will burn
  the firefly to death(Samsaric Dukkha).

Ud 6.9  - Adhipataka Sutta: Like Moths to the Flame
translated from the Pali by Andrew Olendzki

  “The insects are drawn irresistibly in the dark night to the shining
  lamps, but in their zeal to approach the light they go too far and
  only meet their doom. Humans likewise are drawn to the pleasures of
  the senses, to what is seen and heard, not realizing the dangers
  involved. When we get too close — when we hold on with too much
  attachment — we get burned by suffering. The senses can still be
  enjoyed, as the moth can stay circling the flame, but only when one
  holds the proper distance. This quality of "stepping back" or
  "standing off" from obsession with the senses is something that is
  cultivated with the practice of mindfulness meditation.”


Does sankhara disappear in Samantha meditation or insight meditation? If the doer disappears, all the  external objects disappear, what remains is the knower. Knower is known and knows.  Knower is consciousness,inner aspect.

Knower,outer aspect,objects.

Sankhara appears for Knower

If sankhara disappears pure consciousness will arise.

Which kind of a meditation  sankhara disappears?

One moment Shankaras are noticed is during vipassana meditation through a detailed body-observation as you go across the areas where feelings are more rude or notorious.

In order to make disappear the shankara, the acceptance of the feelings which arise during a concrete body area observation is needed. Understand the feelings, then accept them.

This acceptance, releases  the shankara from the whole metaphysic body of the meditator, not just the physical one, releasing the emotional concept underlaying the apparition of the shankara.

Technically upon shankara dissapears, there will not be possible that the same concept generates a new shankara as it is learnt as inner experience. This allows the character to completely release misery and thus obtain a true paññā in the path of illumination.


What did the Buddha teach about aliens? What are the teachings of the Buddha about aliens or other planets that have lives?

Is this the only place that can have life or human beings?

Is it possible to be born a Buddha in some other universe or planet?

The Buddha talked about the "world Systems" and other humans in them. This is a fascinating topic for myself as someone interested in astronomy. Here are some links speaking about world systems and related topics.

The Dhamma is sort of like the laws of mathematics and physics that govern this universe, universal to all sentient beings, everywhere. This is why we spread our metta out into the universe. I usually go one step further and spread metta out to the multi-verse.

What Buddhists Believe
Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera: Other World Systems

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/300.htm

The Buddhist Concept of World
Bhikkhu T. Seelananda

http://bhavanasociety.org/resource/the_buddhist_concept_of_world/

The Buddha once explaining the world system said, ” Monks, as far as sun and moon revolve and illuminate all directions by their radiance, so far does the thousand-fold world system extend. And in that thousand-fold world system, there are thousand moons, a thousand suns, inhabited planets…. This thousand-fold world system is called culanikā-loka-dhātu or Minor World-System, which is the smallest unit in the universe (But all these change takes place, transformation takes place. When seeing this the instructed noble disciple is disenchanted, dispassion..)

I also find this sutta fascinating in which the Buddha appears to be speaking about a black hole..

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.046.than.html
Andhakara Sutta: Darkness

"There is, monks, an inter-cosmic[1] void, an unrestrained darkness, a pitch-black darkness, where even the light of the sun & moon — so mighty, so powerful — doesn't reach."