How to determine Chithasikas in Naama? We know that there are combinations of Cetasikas that are used to identify different Cittas. I want to know how to determine Cetasikas in a naama who is having the udaya waya gana (or steps ahead like bhanga khana). If we consider one naama, there are multiple cetasikas in different amounts.If a person can see naama with their meditation power, how they ditermine what are the Cetasikas in one naama and what are the amounts were there.

As a example, lets suppose that the meditator had a "somanassa sahagatha Khana(Gana) sampayuthha asankarika" citta (This is having 17 naama). How to determine what are the cetasikas were at each of 17 naama, out of 52 cetasikas? We know there must be Aloba, Adosa and Amoha cetasikas in naamas at previously mentioned citta, but how to determine the amount or the power of these cetasikas?

I think it must be a really tough exercise and very tricky one to the meditator.

I would like to know the strategy in step by step. I need abidhamma expert's answer.

Although i am not an expert, but i like to mention some facts.
Chathasikas collectively determine as Chitta(Naama).
"Banga " is current situation of "Chitta -(Naama-roopa)".
The persion who can feel(see/live) now have experiance "Banga Gana" and-"UdayaWaya". rising and decaying of "NaamaRoopa".
If "life" is a flow then the Attributes of current moment as follows;
perception - "sangna". feeling - "Veedana".  Action - "Sankara". are some chethasikas belongs to Naama. There are also "roopa" and consiouness - "Vingnana" - in background.
There can be other Sankaras or chathsikas according the situation. (Depend on the roopa and Kamma-Vingnana). feeling and perception are also chathsikas belong to 52 chathasika (Model).

The strategy to understand above is:
Follow "Mahasathipattana Suttha"- (Ekayano Maggo).

For the help of clear understanding we take smiler example.
As a example, lets suppose that the meditator had a "kaya(physical BODY)". How to determine what are the elements were at each of 32 parts, out of 4 "Mahabootha"? We know there must be patavi apoo thego and vayo boothas in  roopa at previously mentioned kaya, but how to determine the amount or the power of these boothas?
Here BODY(kaya) is one.  (physio-physical level)
32 parts are small bodies.  (Bio-chemical level)
4 MahaBoothas are Lover level energy. (physical)
As Like this
Mana is collective chttha.
Chitta is collective chathasika.
How does the process work? The mind – consciousness – gives rise to our experience of reality. We experience the physical and mental reality around us according to our state of mind. So this conscious mind is said to give rise to the mental-physical reality we experience from one moment to the next. For instance, when we practice meditation, we experience the stomach, rising and falling. When we breathe, when the stomach rises, when the stomach falls, there is the physical and the mental aspects of the experience. The rising is physical and the knowing of the rising is mental. When we walk, there’s the foot moving, which is physical, and the mind knowing it, which is mental. When we feel pain, there’s the physical experience and there’s the mind that knows it and doesn’t like it and decides that it is unpleasant. And so on.
http://www.sirimangalo.org/text/lessons-in-practical-buddhism/practical-dependent-origination/


Metta towards a non-sentient entity or substance (e.g. rice)? Is there a Buddhist tradition or practice, which involves developing or showing metta towards a non-sentient entity ... for example, towards a jar of rice?

If not, why not?

Is it theoretically possible (according to Buddhist theory) that such a practice might have an effect, an effect not only on the mind of the practitioner but also on the object ... for example, might speaking kindly to a sealed jar of cooked rice cause it to rot more slowly (as suggested by Masuro Emoto's rice experiment)?

Masuro Emoto's rice experiment was to put cooked rice in three sealed jars: then say hateful words to one jar, loving words to another, and ignore the third. Allegedly the rice jar to which were said loving words does well (rots more slowly), and the ones you ignore and say bad words to will do less well (they rot or grow mouldy more quickly than the other one).

Edit :  the experiment didn't work  - i also added two slices of the same apple next to the rice  -  and even the "good" rice and apple got rotten a bit faster

Is there a Buddhist tradition or practice, which involves developing or showing metta towards a non-sentient entity ... for example, towards a jar of rice?

Not that I know of.

If not, why not?

This essay says,

  These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

Rice isn't a "living being", and one does not have "social contact" with rice.

Also I don't think that rice is capable of "suffering" (because it isn't sentient; it's inanimate), and so it's not a suitable object for "metta".

Is it theoretically possible (according to Buddhist theory) that such a practice might have an effect, an effect not only on the mind of the practitioner but also on the object

I don't think so. I think you're asking that the rice last longer before spoiling, that it be less impermanent; and I don't remember seeing doctrine which I could construe as saying that "wishing that something were less impermanent is enough make it so".

Conversely there's doctrine about doing rather than wishing: saying e.g. if you want a long life then you should do things which are conducive to long life (not just wish for it).

Perhaps being careful about preparing the rice you care for, and doing something such as cleaning the jar more carefully or sealing the jar more tightly, might show an experimental effect.


Is there a line of thought in Buddhism that is less centered on suffering? I am at the very beginning of my journey.
As I understand, suffering and the escape of it are central parts of Buddhism. (Though the notation "all life is suffering" seems to be a misinterpretation.)
Are there schools of Buddhism catering to those who see no major suffering in their lives, and hence do not feel any urge to end such?

The scripture MN 117 explains there are two sorts of Right View or two sorts of Buddha's teaching, namely: (i) supramundane/transcendent; and (ii) mundane/worldly.
The mundane/worldly teachings that focus on avoiding bad kamma, doing good kamma and 'rebirth' are less focused on suffering & the cessation of suffering.
These 'kamma & rebirth' teachings are for the ordinary people called 'puthujjana' who are spiritually blind and naturally unable to discern the unsatisfactoriness and meaninglessness of the world.
These mundane/worldly teachings are to prevent ordinary people inflicting self-harm upon themselves and others.
These mundane/worldly teachings not only include moral teachings but also teachings about generating loving-kindness towards all beings.


What did Dogen think a miracle was? Dogen, Shobogenzo #26

  Guishan is the thirty-seventh ancestor, a direct descendant of
  Shakyamuni Buddha. He was a dharma heir of Bhaizhang, Zen Master
  Dazhi, Today buddha ancestors in the ten directions, even those who do
  not call themselves descendants of Guishan, are all in fact his remote
  descendant.

  One day, while Guishan was lying down, Yangshan Huiji came to see him.
  Guishan turned to face the wall.

  Yangshan said, “I am your student. Please don’t be formal.”

  Guishan started to get up.

  Yangshan rose to leave.

  Guishan said, “Huiji.”

  Yangshan returned.

  Guishan said, “Let me tell you about my dream.”

  Yangshan leaned forward to listen.

  Guishan said simply, “Would you interpret my dream for me? I want to
  see how you do it.”

  In response Yangshan brought a basin of water and a towel. Guishan
  washed his face and sat up.

  Then Xiangyan came in.

  Guishan said, “Huiji and I have been sharing miracles. This is no
  small matter.”

  Xiangyan said, “I was next door I heard you.”

  Guishan said to him, “Why don’t you try now?”

  Xiangyan made a bowl of tea and brought it to him.

  Guishan praised them, saying, “You two students surpass even
  Shariputra and Maudgalyayana with your marvelous activity!”

I don't think Dogen believed in miracles. Am I right?

As Chogyam Trungpa explained in Shambhala: The Sacred Path of the Warrior (or was it in The Myth of Freedom and the Way of Meditation ?), the perfectly enlightened Bodhisattva always does exactly what's right at the moment. The perfectly enlightened Bodhisattva is always on time.

Because their mind is not running ahead nor falling behind, it is always exactly so. Being exactly so, it is without conflict, and is perfectly in sync with the needs of the moment. It is also 100% authentic without pretense, as simple or as complex as presently required.

This is what Dogen said Guishan praised as "miracles" and "no small matter".


Isnt the illusion better? of a self? Like the man in the matrix. Whats his name? Played by Keanu Reeves. Im wondering if its better to keep with the illusion? Non illusion is a lonely place> Isnt there something positive to it? Hope of a soul?

Loneliness is the memory of love. The memory of being selfless together, complete, without greed, hate or delusion. Chasing that memory into the Matrix, Neo-like, to escape dystopia can give you a simulation of love. But then you log out to loneliness. Did that work? No? How about do it again? No? How about a new perspective?

Unpeel the loneliness and look within, quietly, gently.

"In the middle of lonely is One"--Ven. Ajahn Brahm.


Are there any sutta references to the way S.N. Goenkaji teaches Vipassana? I have done 4 10-day vipassana retreats as taught by Goenkaji some 4-5 years back. As of now, from readings online and reading questions and answers on this BSE website I come to understand that vipassana does not mean 'body scanning' for sensations to eradicate samkharas but the word 'vipassana' means 'insight'.
But as Goenkaji teaches it in the retreats he means (if I interpreat him correctly) by vipassana as the 'body scan' technique that he teaches.
Are there any suttas which explain this technique or which tell that by body scan, insight or vipassana will arise?
Is the technique also taught by Buddha somewhere?

There are no suttas that describe the specific technique of Goenka.
However, a natural 'scanning' of the body (including awareness and dissolution of sankharas) will occur when Anapanasati or Kayagatasati are developed.


A person with almost zero sati vs A person with perfect sati What are the characteristics of a person with zero sati and a person with higher level of sati ?

How does this level of sati affects day to day life ?

What does it really mean to have sati ?

Zero sati is a sad situation:

  AN8.29:7.1: Furthermore, a Realized One has arisen in the world. And a person is reborn in a central country. But they’re witless, dull, stupid, and unable to distinguish what is well said from what is poorly said. This is the seventh lost opportunity …

Yet there is also wrong mindfulness, attending to the unskillful:

  AN10.119:12.1: ‘Wrong mindfulness has a bad result in both this life and the next.’

Right mindfulness is described here:

  SN45.8:9.1: And what is right mindfulness?  It’s when a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world. They meditate observing an aspect of feelings—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world. They meditate observing an aspect of the mind—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world. They meditate observing an aspect of principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.

A simple example of wrong mindfulness is texting while driving. Minding the text is wrong while driving. It kills people.

Another example is alcohol or drugs, which impair the attentiveness that is the foundation of mindfulness:

  AN5.174:8.1: Anyone who uses alcoholic drinks that cause negligence creates dangers and threats both in the present life and in lives to come, and experiences mental pain and sadness. Anyone who refrains from using alcoholic drinks that cause negligence creates no dangers and threats either in the present life or in lives to come, and doesn’t experience mental pain and sadness.


What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom? I keep on long wondered the difference between wisdom and knowledge. I do not understand why the Buddha refers only to the intellect without talking to intellectuals?

Knowledge is conceptual, it is information, opinions and views read from books or spoken by others, whereas wisdom is the truth within the experience. Experience can not be conceptualized,  for example....try to explain what water is, then go drink some water or stand in the rain, the conceptualization and the experience are completely different, this is the difference between knowledge and wisdom!!
I hope this has helped.
Metta.

"For things to reveal themselves to us, we need to be ready to abandon our views about them."

~ Thich Nhat Hanh


Does enlightenment mean achieving purity? Usually,  the word enlightenment is not directly understandable; a newcomer might understand incorrectly.

In the Visuddhimagga (Path to Purification, p. 6), Nibbana is illustrated as follows:

  "Herein,  purification should be understood as Nibbana, which being
  devoid of all stains, is utterly pure."

On page seven it is further explained as follows:

  "Formations are all impermanent: When he sees thus with understanding
  And turns away from what is ill, That is the path to purity"

Are enlightenment and Nibbana the same?  If so, does enlightenment mean achieving purity?

There are four stages of enlightenment (as described in the Anapanasati Sutta), Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami and Arahant; stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner and Arahant; respectively.

Stream enterer: A stream-enterer reaches arahantship within seven rebirths upon opening the eye of the Dharma.

...with the wasting away of [the first] three fetters, are stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening...

Once-returner: Both the stream-enterer and the once-returner have abandoned the first three fetters. The stream-enterer and once-returner are distinguished by the fact that the once-returner has weakened lust, hate, and delusion to a greater degree.

...with the wasting away of [the first] three fetters, and with the attenuation of passion, aversion, & delusion, are once-returners, who — on returning only once more to this world — will make an ending to stress...

Non-returner: The non-returner, having overcome sensuality, does not return to the human world, or any unfortunate world lower than that, after death.

...with the wasting away of the five lower fetters, are due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, destined never again to return from that world...

Arahant: The fourth stage is that of Arahant, a fully awakened person. He has abandoned all ten fetters and, upon death will never be reborn in any plane or world, having wholly escaped saṃsāra.

...who are arahants, whose mental effluents are ended, who have reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, laid to waste the fetter of becoming, and who are released through right gnosis...

Individuals may experience nirvāna as an object of mental consciousness. Certain contemplations with nibbana as an object of samādhi lead to the level of non-returning. At that point of contemplation if the individual realizes that even that state is constructed and therefore impermanent, the fetters are destroyed, arahantship is attained, and nibbāna is realized.
With regard to nirvana, a distinction is made between a person's experience of nirvana during their life and after their death. These two aspects of nirvana are described as:

Nirvana during life (nirvana with remainder) - indicating the experience of someone who has experienced nirvana in their lifetime but still remains in their physical body.

Nirvana after death (nirvana without remainder) - indicating the experience of nirvana for someone after their death.


How to Attain Peace? Sometimes we feel nervous, afraid, or anxious while doing something. So, How can we attain peace in afraid mood or anxious mood?

By acknowledging your anxious mood as a truth (dhamma). Don't push it away, don't try to change anything, don't blame or criticize yourself. It is a truth and therefore has the 3 characteristics of reality, namely anicca (it has beginning, middle and end), dukkha (it obviously doesn't satisfy you), anatta (you cannot control it; it arises due to certain conditions/habits/situations). Why should it be different?
As for how to actually deal with fear/anxiety, you could listen to this talk from Ajahn Jayasaro. He describes how fear/anxiety works. It has both a physical and a mental aspect. Fear builds up using a feedback loop. If there is a fearful thought, a reaction in the body follows, you become worried about your bodily reaction with your mind, which then causes more tension in the body ... You can break that cycle by staying with the body and watching the feelings/sensations there (more detailed in the video).
Being at peace means to be at peace with whatever arises, not getting things or mind states that are peaceful and dependent on external causes. Peace means you're never at war with yourself :)


What is meant by the 8 stages of insight? I have heard that there are 8 attainments or stages of insight in the progression of Vipassana, can anyone explain? I'm familiar with the 8 stages of jhana but I believe this is in reference to vipassana specifically.

This is 7 purification and 16 stages of insight. See:

The Progress of Insight
Transcendental Dependent Arising
Relay Chariots
7 Stages of Purification & The Insight Knowledges
A Map of the Journey (Very readable book)
The Development of Insight
The Sixteen Stages of Insight

NB: Don't get too engrossed in the stages. Many of the naturally manifest them self. You cannot force the development or crave for it to come. Either way you are regressing.


What are Buddhist arguments against Vedic validity because of its authorlessness? There has been a rich history of debate between Vedantists and Buddhists.
One main method the Vedantist uses disprove every other sect which doesn't hold Vedas as true, is to first prove that Vedas are authorless, then say that authorless Vedas have to be 100% true because the defects of lies and incomplete knowledge cannot be there in authorless, and therefore that whatever in Vedas must be 100% true and any sect which goes against the Vedas must be false.
These are the two steps

Apourusheyatva (Authorlessness)
Swayam Pramanya (Default Validity)

I have heard that various Buddhist scholars like Dharmakirti etc have tried to refute the claim of authorlessness of Vedas and its validity.
Supposedly one such argument is there in first chapter of Pramanavarttika, which I couldn't find.

The first chapter discusses the structure and types of formal inference and the apoha (exclusion) theory of meaning. Dan Arnold writes that apoha is: "the idea that concepts are more precise or determinate (more contentful) just to the extent that they exclude more from their purview; the scope of cat is narrower than that of mammal just insofar as the former additionally excludes from its range all mammals in the world that are not cats."[4] In the latter half of this chapter, Dharmakīrti also mounts an attack on Brahmanism, the authority of the Vedas, Brahmins and their use of mantras, and the system of caste (see Eltschinger 2000).[5] He also discusses the role of scripture, which he sees as fallible and yet important for their discussion of “radically inaccessible things” (atyantaparokṣa) such as karma.[6] Dharmakirti critiques the Brahmins thus:
"The unquestioned authority of the Vedas;
the belief in a world-creator;
the quest for purification through ritual bathing;
the arrogant division into castes;
the practice of mortification to atone for sin—
these five are the marks of the crass stupidity of witless men."

So -- what were Buddhist arguments against Vedic validity because of its authorlessness?
I'm interested in logical syllogism of Dharmakirti and the like -- in response to the authorlessness of Vedas.

Edit -- My question is specific: Vedantists have given a syllogistic argument to prove that the Vedas are authorless, and many eminent scholars of Buddhism like Dharmakirti etc have tried to refute those syllogistic arguments by logic ... what are those arguments? Please don't answer this question in a general or a philosophical way.

This excerpt from DN 13 may answer your question sufficiently.

“Well, of the brahmins who are proficient in the three Vedas,
Vāseṭṭha, is there even a single one who has seen Brahmā with their
own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, has even a single one of their teachers seen Brahmā with their
own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, has even a single one of their teachers’ teachers seen Brahmā
with their own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, has anyone back to the seventh generation of teachers seen
Brahmā with their own eyes?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“Well, what of the ancient hermits of the brahmins, namely Aṭṭhaka,
Vāmaka, Vāmadeva, Vessāmitta, Yamadaggi, Aṅgīrasa, Bhāradvāja,
Vāseṭṭha, Kassapa, and Bhagu? They were the authors and propagators of
the hymns. Their hymnal was sung and propagated and compiled in
ancient times; and these days, brahmins continue to sing and chant it,
chanting what was chanted and teaching what was taught. Did they say:
‘We know and see where Brahmā is or what way he lies’?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“So it seems that none of the brahmins have seen Brahmā with their own
eyes, and not even the ancient hermits claimed to know where he is.
Yet the brahmins proficient in the three Vedas say: ‘We teach the path
to the company of that which we neither know nor see. This is the only
straight path, the direct route that leads someone who practices it to
the company of Brahmā.’
What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? This being so, doesn’t their statement
turn out to have no demonstrable basis?”
“Clearly that’s the case, Master Gotama.”
“Good, Vāseṭṭha. For it is impossible that they should teach the path
to that which they neither know nor see.
Suppose there was a queue of blind men, each holding the one in front:
the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last
one does not see. In the same way, it seems to me that the brahmins’
statement turns out to be comparable to a queue of blind men: the
first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one
does not see. Their statement turns out to be a joke—mere words, void
and hollow.
What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Do the brahmins proficient in the three
Vedas see the sun and moon just as other folk do? And do they pray to
them and beseech them, following their course from where they rise to
where they set with joined palms held in worship?”
“Yes, Master Gotama.”
“What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? Though this is so, are the brahmins
proficient in the three Vedas able to teach the path to the company of
the sun and moon, saying: ‘This is the only straight path, the direct
route that leads someone who practices it to the company of the sun
and moon’?”
“No, Master Gotama.”
“So it seems that even though the brahmins proficient in the three
Vedas see the sun and moon, they are not able to teach the path to the
company of the sun and moon.
But it seems that even though they have not seen Brahmā with their own
eyes, they still claim to teach the path to the company of that which
they neither know nor see.
What do you think, Vāseṭṭha? This being so, doesn’t their statement
turn out to have no demonstrable basis?”
“Clearly that’s the case, Master Gotama.”
“Good, Vāseṭṭha. For it is impossible that they should teach the path
to that which they neither know nor see.


Mental note of thoughts during the day During daily activities it is ok to do a mental note when thoughts arise saying "thinking thinking" just in like the sitting meditation? I try to label every physical and mental phenomena during the day and nothing strange with that but with thinking it seems that sometimes I block it straight away when arise so I was just wondering if is too much and if I should stop noting.

Every mental content, or state you experience, is linked to sensations in your body. (After all, one the of the 5 aggregates is sensation.) You should examine the sensation. You should try to understand that the sensations you experience are what you like or dislike (with any thought, memories, ideas - when you remember something you do not like, you get a bad feeling in your body) and react to, try to grasp or get rid of. This is what keeps you in a conditioned existence. So to start with, you should always try to notice the sensations when thoughts come and go. Sharpen your mind to understand 3 marks of existence within sensation. The 3 marks of existence in your corporeal body. How perceptions are formed and their nature. How the recognising part of your mind works. These things grow progressively subtle. The start should be the impact of any mental state or content upon the sensations of the body, and if not all 3 marks of existence, at least their impermanence.


Is insecticide treated mosquito nets against 1st precept? As part of my charity action I was going to donate to Against Malaria Foundation. But after reading that 100% of the money is going to buy long-lasting insecticidal nets for the prevention of malaria, I am not so sure if that conflicts with my buddhist practice.

For those who don't know, insecticidal nets are mosquitoes nets that are sprayed with insecticide, which is said to be twice as effective as unsprayed nets.

Against Malaria Foundation website:

https://www.againstmalaria.com/

Wikipedia on Against Malaria Foundation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Malaria_Foundation

  The Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) is a United Kingdom-based charity that provides long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs) to populations at high risk of malaria, primarily in Africa. As of July 2016, the foundation has raised $86.6 million and distributed or committed to fund 19.3 million LLINs since its founding in 2004.

Wikipedia on insecticide-treated nets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_net#Insecticide_treated_nets

  Mosquito nets treated with insecticides—known as insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) or bednets—were developed in the 1980s for malaria prevention. ITNs are estimated to be twice as effective as untreated nets, and offer greater than 70% protection compared with no net. These nets are dip-treated using a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide such as deltamethrin or permethrin which will double the protection over a non-treated net by killing and repelling mosquitoes.

Yes, it is against the first precept since it kills. What you can do is, instead of giving money, buy normal nets and mosquito repellent lotion and donate.


Unconscious Nature of Craving I understand craving involves a strong preoccupation component. I noticed that somehow, when I either use a dating site or anything similar, I often check whether I received a message or if anything happened. However, I noticed even when I'm not checking the site, there seems to be less virtuous activity, almost as if the preoccupation was unconscious.

Can this be explained by the nature of craving? Does craving tend to occupy space in the mind, even if not consciously aware?

I'm also wondering whether, if craving takes up mental space, it is because the mind takes time to create a craving and because the conscious element is just the surface.

Thank you

Can this be explained by the nature of craving? Does craving tend to occupy space in the mind, even if not consciously aware?

From AN6.63 we understand that:

  Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.

If one goes to dating sites looking to acquire, one is practicing greed as "I want this person. I don't want that person." We treat people as things to shop for. We acquire and discard. We become acquired and discarded. We treat each other like plastic bottles of water. Drink and discard.

If one goes to dating sites looking to find good spiritual companions who are generous, kind and ethical, then one may find more friends and perhaps some additional closeness may develop.

Search for good spiritual companions. Dating apps might or might not be the best way to do that. Good spiritual companions often are found doing things that help others. Find a way to help others and you will find good spiritual companions.

The Noble Eight-Fold path starts with Right View. Think about your view as you use that dating app. Is it right?

  The world’s pretty things aren’t sensual pleasures.
  Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.
  The world’s pretty things stay just as they are,
  but a wise one removes desire for them.
  ...

  The practice that leads to the cessation of suffering is simply this noble eightfold path, that is:
  right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.


Beings with no Physical appearance? I have heard about the beings called Brahma who do not have a Physical appearance.But they have different names. How does the identity factor come into this scenario.

Is there some Suttas or texts explaining their lives?

Brahma in the rupa-loka have physical appearances. Brahma Sahampati resides in this in a rupa-loka.

In arupa-loka you have no physical form and only one sense faculty which is the mind hence you might not know who else is around you in which case you may not need a name. But also it might be possible for you know though psychic abilities in which can you can still identify others around you in which case you might need to use names. A name is just a label on a person (or animal) to identify or distinguish it from others. This is just my conjecture.

Aggañña Sutta and Kosala Sutta 1 deals with this subject matter but there is no reference to names. Also see: Gods and the Universe in Buddhist Perspective: Essays on Buddhist Cosmology and related subjects by Francis Story


meditation on the heartbeat Usually we use an anchor in meditation, the breathing being the most common. Sometimes when I focus on that I feel my heartbeat taking my attention, so I thought about using that as an anchor, does anyone know if there is a meditation technique that uses the heartbeat?

PS: I'm aware this does not apply to all types of meditation

You can use it if it serves you the purpose of one-pointedness attention.
But you should remember the benefits of using the breath as your point of attention.
The breath is both a concious and unconcious function and because of that it serves as a bridge bwtween them.
Also in Tibetan Buddhism conciouness is said to "ride" in the winds (prana) of the body so by focusing in the breath you are also focusing in your mind.
Once you have achieved mindfulness thru the attention to your heart beat, it is better to switch to your breath.


Want a simple explanation that sense restraint is an important aspect of ethical conduct, for a loved one who is not into Dhamma Could you try to formulate an answer to the above question, in line with the Pali Canon, using simple colloquial language, for someone who doesn't yet know Buddhist terminology?

I'm asking because I want to try to explain this to a loved one

For a run-of-the-mill sort of person, life would take the path of least resistance and indulgence in sense pleasures is what is long sought. It is the path of least resistance, the downward path or ‘Anusothagami’ while the traveler of this road less traveled is climbing in the opposite direction to the flow or ‘Patisothagami’. How can one get such a person to see this otherness?

Right view means understanding the four noble truths.

Right intention follows as a consequence of right view.

There are three intentions (renunciation, non-aversion or loving-kindness, and non-injury or compassion).

  And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve. (SN 45.8)

Right view gives motivation to renounce attachment (clinging to pleasure, fame, and so on ... these are usually seen as desirable but with right view you see that they lead to dukkha ... with right view you naturally choose to renounce them).

I'm not sure whether that's an important aspect of ethical conduct, though ... according to many definitions of "ethical", it's the intentions of loving-kindness and compassion, not the intention of renunciation, that motivates ethical conduct.

Still, I suspect they develop together (the factors of the eightfold path are inter-related).

It may be possible to think of examples of where someone has hurt or ignored another, either because they're busy greedily chasing a sense-pleasure or because they're suffering the consequences of misplaced attachment -- for that reason even if "ethical" is taken to mean "good to others", renunciation (to avoid attachment and suffering) is "an important aspect" (which, for example, may make it easier to follow the precepts).


Buddha teaching regarding eating Some one please tell me the story of Buddha said to some one how one should eat as if they are eating their own child having lost in a desert

It's in Puttanmansa Sutta.

  "And how is physical food to be regarded? Suppose a couple, husband &
  wife, taking meager provisions, were to travel through a desert. With
  them would be their only baby son, dear & appealing. Then the meager
  provisions of the couple going through the desert would be used up &
  depleted while there was still a stretch of the desert yet to be
  crossed. The thought would occur to them, 'Our meager provisions are
  used up & depleted while there is still a stretch of this desert yet
  to be crossed. What if we were to kill this only baby son of ours,
  dear & appealing, and make dried meat & jerky. That way — chewing on
  the flesh of our son — at least the two of us would make it through
  this desert. Otherwise, all three of us would perish.' So they would
  kill their only baby son, loved & endearing, and make dried meat &
  jerky. Chewing on the flesh of their son, they would make it through
  the desert. While eating the flesh of their only son, they would beat
  their breasts, [crying,] 'Where have you gone, our only baby son?
  Where have you gone, our only baby son?' Now what do you think, monks:
  Would that couple eat that food playfully or for intoxication, or for
  putting on bulk, or for beautification?"
  "No, lord."

  "Wouldn't they eat that food simply for the sake of making it through
  that desert?"

  "Yes, lord."

  "In the same way, I tell you, is the nutriment of physical food to be
  regarded. When physical food is comprehended, passion for the five
  strings of sensuality is comprehended. When passion for the five
  strings of sensuality is comprehended, there is no fetter bound by
  which a disciple of the noble ones would come back again to this
  world.
    SN 12.63


How would a Buddhist advise on this subset of problems of motivation? Some call Buddhism psychology, so maybe it can help -- me.

This sense that doing something -- let's take a difficult but generic example, learning sanskrit -- is a wonderful, exciting idea; but one never gets started with it, because there is no tangible psychological or material benefit from it -- for whatever reason [you won't find anyone new to talk with, most texts are in translation, no-one will care, etc.].

What remedy is there for this?

From the article "Two Exercises for Turning Intention into Motivation" by Thupten Jinpa on Buddhist site tricycle.org, we see some useful tips on how to motivate yourself to do a task that you set yourself to do.

He states that "parents who have struggled with their child taking up a new instrument will recognize how everything changed the moment the child began enjoying it." Basically you need to find a way to enjoy what you're doing - this is intrinsic motivation. When you enjoy it, the rest comes naturally.

You can try the two exercises on this page.

  The question of how we motivate ourselves to pursue our deeper
  aspirations has been a major interest in the long history of Buddhist
  psychology. In Buddhist thinking, motivation is a matter of desire,
  more specifically the desire to act accompanied with a sense of
  purpose. Say, in the case of being more compassionate, it’s by making
  emotional connection with compassion and its objectives that we arouse
  in ourselves the desire to act. And it’s through seeing the benefits
  that we acquire a sense of purpose in being more compassionate.

  Contemporary psychology has only relatively recently come to
  appreciate the role of emotions in motivating our behavior. For a long
  time, the Western theory of action was dominated by rational choice
  theory, and emotions were accused of clouding the process rather than
  being an integral part of the system. To articulate the dual dimension
  of our motivation—cognitive awareness of and emotional connection with
  our goals—Buddhist psychology uses a term that is almost impossible to
  capture in any single word in English. The Sanskrit term shraddha
  (depa in Tibetan) has a broad range of meaning, the important ones
  being “faith,” “trust,” “belief,” or “confidence,” connoting
  “appreciation” and “admiration” as well. Shraddha is a felt sense like
  trust, rather than a cognitive state like belief or knowledge.
  Experientially, shraddha feels something like attachment or attraction
  to our goal, like being inspired to play guitar when you see a rock
  star do it. It’s this quality, shraddha, that primes our heart and
  mind to roll up our sleeves and play.

  How do we tap our emotional reservoir? Cognitions play a critical
  role, which the early Buddhist texts characterize as seeing the value
  of doing something. Through cognitive engagement, such as seeing the
  benefits, we connect intention with motivation. So, within this causal
  nexus, the crucial link to watch for is the one between our awareness
  of the goal and why we would go for it, our feelings about the goal,
  and our desire or will to pursue it.

  Then, again, it’s the joy we take in our efforts—the courage to try,
  the dedication to stick with it—and their results that helps sustain
  our motivations over the long run. Or, in other words, makes us want
  to keep trying and keep doing it. Parents who have struggled with
  their child taking up a new instrument will recognize how everything
  changed the moment the child began enjoying it. This is called
  intrinsic motivation, as opposed to the extrinsic motivation of, for
  example, the parent rewarding the child with more screen time for
  practicing her instrument. From decades of motivation research, we
  know that intrinsic motivation is far more stable and enduring. The
  process of setting intentions and joyfully reflecting on them in
  dedication is how, over time, we transform extrinsic into intrinsic
  motivations, and thereby sustain the energy and purpose to live true
  to our best aspirations.


How buddha came back to his human consciousness if consciousness and fabrication ceases after release QN 1: After complete cessation of consciousness, how did the Buddha come back to human consciousness?
If he can come back, isn't it not a complete release?

And that state is just like the Dimension of Nothingness, or the Dimension of Neither Perceptions nor Non--perceptions. So if craving again develops, then there may be chance of becoming.

QN 2: And is it possible to have complete release through jhana only by ceasing craving, fabrication etc without gaining insight of nirvana.

QN 3: Buddha stated in many suttas that five aggregates are not-self; but as human being we do require idea of self (identity or ego) and will power (self-esteem). [Like, "If I try I can learn it or do it etc"] . Is there any sutta where buddha talked about such healthy ego? [Here ego word does not mean pride, conceit etc but Identity.]

Note: Buddha avoided such type of questions because this stop us from direct knowing, but I am asking due to curiosity. But do reply for third question.

Edit: I think I found the sutta for healthy ego (Identity).  AN 5.57

I was not asking about 'self' or 'no-self'. I was asking because it's help us psychologically and even Buddha used to call himself Bodhisattva (Who thinks about well-being of everyone and has compassion towards all.) before awakening because it's remind us about our path.
Also there is one video I found helpful.

  https://youtu.be/w7irEcQHChw?t=1h08m32s

"I updated my last question because I think it was creating a little confusion."

QN 1: After complete cessation of consciousness, how did the Buddha
  come back to human consciousness? If he can come back, isn't it not a
  complete release?

Well, there is such a thing as clinging aggregates. According to this answer, for a living arahant, when ignorance is uprooted, this breaks dependent origination, that ends craving, clinging and suffering. In the chain of dependent origination, clinging aggregates would also cease.

The living arahant according to Iti 44, attained nibbana with fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa), meaning the non-clinging aggregates are still functioning like glowing embers, although the fires of passion, aversion and delusion have ceased.

Parinibbana is when the non-clinging aggregates stop functioning. This is nibbana without fuel remaining (anupadisesa) according to Iti 44.

So, the answer to this question is that upon attaining nibbana, the Buddha experienced complete cessation of clinging consciousness, but non-clinging consciousness remained functional for the rest of his human life. The five aggregates that are referred to in dependent origination is clinging aggregates (including consciousness), and not non-clinging aggregates.

In other words, upon nibbana, an arahant has complete cessation of clinging.

  QN 2: And is it possible to have complete release through jhana only
  by ceasing craving, fabrication etc without gaining insight of
  nirvana.

No. It's quite possible to cling to the pleasures of jhanas and get one's mind stuck, as seen in MN 138:

  And how is their consciousness stuck internally? Take a mendicant who,
  quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful
  qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the
  rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and
  keeping it connected. Their consciousness follows after that rapture
  and bliss born of seclusion, tied, attached, and fettered to
  gratification in that rapture and bliss born of seclusion. So their
  mind is said to be stuck internally.

And the sutta continues about the higher jhanas.

  QN 3: Buddha stated in many suttas that five aggregates are not-self;
  but as human being we do require idea of self (identity or ego) and
  will power (self-esteem).

In a sense, you can use the idea of self in a skillful way (as long as you have not dropped self-view) as shown in AN 5.57 below:

  “And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
  this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
  should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
  kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
  resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

Also, please see Attakari Sutta.


Mindfulness of breathing - What is meant by "arising and passing away of the body"? When it is said that one is "mindful of the arising and passing away of the body" -- what is meant with "being mindful of the arising and passing away of the body"?

The body is here all the time, solid, and I am not understanding how it is "arising and passing away"? How can I see the impermanence of the body -- it is not the same as thoughts that can arise and pass, because the body is present here all the time.

The body is here all the time, solid, and I am not understanding how
  it is "arising and passing away"?

It is extremely common to believe that the body is present all the time. Persistence of the body is actually an illusion that can be seen through using insight meditation.

  How can I see the impermanence of
  the body -- it is not the same as thoughts that can arise and pass,
  because the body is present here all the time.

First some questions to address your belief that the body is present all the time:

When you are in a deep sleep or dreaming, is your body present?
Are you always feeling the presence of your clothes pressing against your skin?

It is important when doing insight meditation to analyze your personal experience. How does your personal experience confirm or disprove the beliefs about your body that you currently have?

Most people have a deep seeded belief that the "body" and the "mind" are two separate entities. They believe that the body creates the mind through sensory organs. When I say "mind", I am referring to the experiences of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, and thinking. If you analyze your experience honestly and without belief, you will find that experiences of mind is all that has ever arisen. We have never experienced a body, only the experiences of mind. If we have only experienced mind and never body, on what basis do we believe in the bodies existence?

So what is the body? The body is simply a label we put on different experiences. When we look in the mirror, we say "This sight is my body". When we feel a sensation of touch we say, "This pain is happening in my body". We mistakenly identify mental sensations as something more than just mental sensations.

What you call "the body" is simply mental sensations that arise and pass. The reason your "body" feels solid is because you believe it is always there.

When you have a dream you are walking somewhere, and you see your hands and feel your feet on the ground, does that prove your body in the dream really exists? Most would say your dream body is "not real" and your waking body is. But there is no difference between touch you feel in a dream, and touch you feel while you are awake. If you believe your dream body does not really exist, why do you believe your waking body really exists? If you had a dream every night that began in the same location as the last dream ended, would that prove your dream body exists?

Good luck with your journey! I hope something I wrote here will be useful to you. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime!


What does 'Not percipient of form internally' in Salayatana Sutta mean? In the Salayatana Sutta in the last paragraph it says;

  Not percipient of form internally, he/she sees forms externally. This is the second direction.

What does this mean? Does it mean you do not react? OR Is related to reification, like look at things and don't try to make sense of them?

Your quote from MN137 appears in several suttas. It is significant:

  ajjhattaṃ arūpasaññī bahiddhā rūpāni passati

The word ajjhattaṃ has a connontation of self, of identity view. In other words, there is a personal relationship to the seen, the heard, etc. In this way, it is very much like "My Precious" from the Lord of the Rings. There is a sense of possession in the internal form. There is the taint of identity.

The word rūpāni has a connotation of non-identity, of simple recognition of form, that which is seen, heard, etc., but without personal identification. One sees a stranger's wedding ring, one sees the wealth embodied in the ring, one sees the proclamation of wealth in a ring, one sees the promises bound into the ring, one sees the hope bound into the ring, one sees the suffering bound into the ring.

The liberations are an important progression of awareness. Suffering, one perceives the world in terms of craving. With each step of liberation, one sees beyond oneself. One sees more of the world as it is and relinquishes identity view.

Seeing things externally, just see them for what they are, not for what they are to you.


Can a Buddhist use antibacterial soap? During my college humanities class, I learned some things about Buddhism, which I had not had exposure to before. My teacher would sometimes tell us stories about field trips he would take with the class to a local Buddhist temple. In one such story, he said that he asked the cute Buddhist that worked at the temple if Buddhists were allowed to use antibacterial soap.

From his story, she apparently didn't find that very funny, but he was left without an answer.

I understand that Buddhist's are not allowed to kill. Does this include microscopic living organisms that would be alive on your hands? In other words, what is the answer to his question, "Can Buddhists use anti-bacterial soap?"

There istance a monk with psychic ability looked into the water and saw there were microbes and asked the Buddha if drinking will harm them. Buddha said don't look and drink.

One intention of Buddhist morality is the stabilize the mind so it is free from remorse and so it can develop concentration and wisdom.

So if you use antibacterial soap without much thought there are microbs and intention of killing microbes then there will be not issue.


Shamata - attention on upper lip, diaphragm or belly? A very interesting discussion here on SE on breathing focus made me a bit confused. Allan Wallace says in the beginning focus on belly, then when you get better at it, diaphragm, then nostril/upper lip. He is basing his instructions (in The Attention Revolution) Kamalashila's Stages of Meditation.

In the q/a i linked above some disagreement occurs there and some of the people there says diapragm is better. They are folks whom I've gotten very many good answers from before, and whse answers I therefore have come to trust quite much. But in almost al other books, videos, techers instruction the tendency is to say that once you get the hang of shamata, you should focus on upper lip/nose/nostril.

If anyone has good references and arguments for focusing on diaphragm I'd like to hear them, and try it out.

Well it depends on the teacher who is guiding you. If you do have a teacher go by what he instructs.

One of interpretations focul point (as in the original teaching as well as the most effective location) is the centre of the upper lip: What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?, Is watching the heart beat (instead of watching the breath) a known form of meditation?,

Also a very comprehensive book which gives instruction to the original breath meditation method see by answer to: Breath getting shorter and shorter and also Is watching the heart beat (instead of watching the breath) a known form of meditation?

When you focus on the diagram you are supposed to look at the Wind Element, i.e., the expansion and contraction. For a beginner this is generally easy but there are arguments that as you go deeper into meditation you progress stall and slows down for some. Based on this rationale have tend to switch to other methods which seemed to have worked better for them. (E.g. Banthe Vimalasiri, Anagarika Munindra, Piya Tan, etc.) This might not be the case for everyone but you will not know for sure whether this will work for you or not unless you try it and see for yourself.

  If anyone has good references and arguments for focusing on diaphragm I'd like to hear them, and try it out.

Also when you have developed some level of concentration and also looking to switch to 4 elements meditation while doing normal day to day work this might be sometimes a good place to rest your attention. (E.g. in office, while driving, etc.) For more details on which parts of the body which each element dominates see:  Mahā Rāhulovāda Sutta

For a basic introduction to the Mahaisi Method see: Essentials of Insight Meditation Practice by Ven. Sujiva. This was a book I used for reference when I tried out this method many years ago. Also there is a book: How To Meditate by Ven. Yuttadhammo.

Meditation techniques are like drug trial. There are some methods with generally work well for everyone but with a few exceptions. There are some methods which works well for a few does not give as great results to every one in general. Keeping this in mind try to figure out what works well for you. My belief and experience is that what works better to the masses is when you practice close to the original Suttas. A view shared by: Banthe Vimalasiri, S.N.Goenka, Ven. Nanavira, Richard Shankman, Leigh Brasington.

Also keep in mind you have to pratice for a while using one techniques to get results. You should not change too often. Only after a year to two with no progress.

Best of luck in your search and pratice!


Mahasi Sayadaw Walking In the tradition of Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw, it is taught that walking and sitting meditation should be practiced balanced with one another. I am wondering where it can be found that the Buddha taught this, or how the venerable sir came to this instruction. Thank you.

The Buddha did in fact teach just this practice:

Bhikkhus, you should train thus: ‘We will be devoted to wakefulness. During the day, while walking back and forth and sitting, we will purify our minds of obstructive states. In the first watch of the night, while walking back and forth and sitting, we will purify our minds of obstructive states. In the middle watch of the night we will lie down on the right side in the lion’s pose with one foot overlapping the other, mindful and fully aware, after noting in our minds the time for rising. After rising, in the third watch of the night, while walking back and forth and sitting, we will purify our minds of obstructive states.’
-- MN 39 (Bodhi, trans)

This passage occurs frequently in the suttas. The Buddha taught there are five benefits to walking meditation:

addhānakkhamo hoti - one is able to tolerate long-distance travel
padhānakkhamo hoti - one is able to tolerate exertion
appābādho hoti - one has little sickness
asitaṃ pītaṃ khāyitaṃ sāyitaṃ sammā pariṇāmaṃ gacchati - what is eaten, drunk, chewed and tasted goes to proper digestion
caṅkamādhigato samādhi ciraṭṭhitiko hoti - walking-produced concentration is of long duration.

-- AN 5.29


Does any/every form of lying violate the precept of "not-lying"? What if one thought it wiser to tell a lie, because the truth could potentially endanger one's own life?

For instance, someone might lie that they believe in a supreme being, in reply to a question being asked by their parents who have strong faith. This is a very sensitive topic in some cultures or countries, to the point that parents might kick their son or daughter out of the house.

This is an example where the intention is to maintain personal security.

Does this violate the precept of not-lying? Or, instead of being a lie, might this be considered like the "noble silence" that Buddha once exhibited when the listener was incapable of understanding the Dhamma?

The motivation DOES make a difference to the karma of an action. The classic discussion about karma stresses motivation.

  Karma as action denotes an act of mental volition (cetanā), and the bodily and verbal actions that stem from it.

  (Classical Indian Buddhist Philosophy, by John Powers)

This is almost literally from  Vasubandhu's Abhidharma-kośa (4th century CE).

So the mental volition (that is - motivation) is the whole point. That makes sense: everything in Buddhism is about consciousness first.

So if you lie to protect jews from the Nazis, to use a modern example - that is not necessarily negative karma. If you had taken lay vows, as a Tibetan Buddhist you would probably do some purification ritual to be sure, but since the motivation is to help someone & you are also preventing people from harming (the nazis) - on balance it is better to lie in such circumstances.

Your example is a bit less clear. I do think it is better to stay silent than to actively lie about your faith. If you have taken lay vows, you have at the very least taken on the attempt not to lie. Staying silent does not break your vow.

The vow to not-lie is also sometimes explained as follows:

  Do not distort fact
  ... Sometimes the use of words can make something seem acceptable, when it could have been said very differently and be totally unacceptable. This is not a lie, but a distortion of fact.

  (Essays on Karma, by Katinka Hesselink)


Is the role of rogyapas in sky burials considered unclean by Tibetan Buddhists? I just came across a Reddit comment referencing the Human Planet documentary about sky burials, in which there was an implication by the narrator that the rogyapa (body-breaker) performing the ritual must be a non-Buddhist (around 2:40). The Reddit comment states that breaking the body apart is a form of defilement, thus not appropriate for monks. Is this true, and is there any basis in Buddhist literature supporting such view?

Quoting from the Pali texts (not Tibetan literature)...
The first thing I notice is in the Mahāparinibbānasutta (DN 16):

Then Anuruddha said to Ānanda, “Go, Ānanda, into Kusinārā and inform the Mallas: ‘Vāseṭṭhas, the Buddha has become fully extinguished. Please come at your convenience.’”

Or I've seen this translation:

At that time the Mallas of Kusinara had gathered in the council hall to consider that very matter. And the Venerable Ananda approached them and announced: "The Blessed One, Vasetthas, has passed away. Do now as seems fitting to you."

In summary it's the responsibility of the local lay society.
Looking into the Vinaya I find this:

Funerals
Unlike some of the other early Vinayas, the Pali Vinaya contains no rules on how to conduct the funeral of a dead bhikkhu or novice. Writers have speculated as to why this is so, but the speculation tends to say more about the writers than about the Vinaya. The practical upshot is that the Community (or the bhikkhu’s friends, relatives, etc.) may dispose of his body as they see fit in line with local custom and law. DN 16 states that an arahant, after death, deserves to have a stūpa built over his/her remains, but the Vinaya contains no rule to enforce this.
One issue that arises at present is the custom of willing one’s body to medical science. Because there is no rule that the bhikkhu’s body (as opposed to his belongings) belongs to the Community, if he has willed his body in this way his wishes may be honored.
Another issue arising at present is the cost of a funeral. In the Buddha’s time, funerals could cost nothing. The body would either be cremated, in which case wood was easy to find in the ubiquitous forest, or the body would be exposed in a charnel ground, which involved little effort and no expense. At present, with the high cost of funerals, the tradition in Thailand is a useful adaptation of the Vinaya’s rules. There, if no one else volunteers to sponsor a dead bhikkhu’s funeral, the Community itself is the sponsor, and the funds for the funeral come first from his belongings. Only if any of his light articles and requisites remain after the funeral are they divided among the Community’s members.

That doesn't say it's "considered unclean" -- but does continue the theme of its being a responsibility for lay-folk -- and perhaps in that way, "not appropriate for monks".
Also I do gather that in Tibetan society, a lot of the "manual labour" tasks were done by lay-people -- I think that's generally true of other Buddhist societies too, though apparently monks may do some forms of physical work (e.g. building or maintaining a monastery).
I get the impression that there were no "body-breakers" in the society associated with the Pali texts -- that corpses were taken intact to "charnel grounds" (Sivathika) and left there unbroken to decay.

Incidentally I'd normally associate the word "unclean" as referring to a Western understanding of the Indian caste system -- see Untouchability -- whose jobs tended to be literally/physically polluting e.g. emptying latrines.

Occupations
In the past, they were believed to be so impure that caste Hindus considered their presence to be polluting. The "impure status" was related to their historic hereditary occupations that caste Hindus considered to be "polluting" or debased, such as working with leather, disposing of dead animals, manual scavenging, or sanitation work.

I don't know if there was an equivalent practice in Tibetan society.
I guess that dismembering corpses might be unclean or polluting -- dangerous for medical reasons -- so if it were considered ritually or professionally unclean that might be part of the reason (though this is not exactly what you were asking for).


Buddhism on paying for previous bad Karma I am only a Lay practitioner of Buddhism.  However, I recently read a view point of someone who had been at a Buddhist school for 8 years.  And it was slightly worrying.

He said a young person at th is school had had trouble learning and taking on information.  She had asked some of the buddhist monks why she struggled.  Now, as an educator his thought process was "The teaching type for you is wrong.  Let's review how you learn, and try a different approach".

However, the monks advised her she must of been an evil person who burned or destroyed books in a past life; in this life therefore, she was through karma destined to struggle so she could learn and develop for her past mistakes.  Obviously, this was very stressful for the young person.

I understand that the monks are far more informed in buddhism than I.  And that obviously there may be more to the story.  I also appreciate that they where seeking to offer a spiritual answer to her questions.

But surely as a Buddhist one can look beyond a previous life?  As none of us are certain beyond a shadow of a doubt what we done in a previous life. Instead of speculation, could we not instead say "what is done is done.  Instead, this is how we combat this new situation"?

In the given example, it would of saved the young person pain - she felt her - for lack of a better word 'soul' - was scarred and mared then and it would affect her ability to develop irretrievably.

Surely better to have said "You may be struggling from some past transgression.  But that's not you now.  Instead, let's look at how we can help you now and bring you on"?

Any input advice or guidance would be very greatly appreciated.  Thank you.

I understand that the monks are far more informed in buddhism than I.

The above is wrong view. Many monks are idiots.

  I also appreciate that they were seeking to offer a spiritual answer to her questions.

The above is wrong view. The monks were offering a superstitious (rather than spiritual) answer to her questions.

  But surely as a Buddhist one can look beyond a previous life?

Buddhism became extinct in India because the Buddhism after the Buddha developed an obsession with past & future lives, which made it the same as Hinduism. It invented superstitions such as the Jataka Stories & added dodgy suttas into the suttas, such as the unique MN 135; which obviously justified the status quo of the society and supported the monks who pandered to the ruling classes for political support & financial donations. As a result, this corrupted Buddhism became extinct; absorbed into Hinduism.

Real Buddhism teaches about suffering & its cessation. When the Buddha taught about "kamma" ("action"), he taught about unwholesome & wholesome kamma that leads to "suffering" ("hell") & "happiness" ("heaven").

Obviously, a lack of a "worldly" quality cannot be explained by past lives. Our academic skills or intelligence, our ability to make money, our ability to play sport, our ability to play music, our physical beauty or ugliness, is obviously unrelated to "suffering" & "happiness". It is quite obvious many highly academically intelligent people are evil; such as the evil people who work in evil governments or evil industries that create evil things, such as wars & weapons of mass destruction. Or the many greatest musicians, most beautiful movie stars & champion sports people who die of drug addictions & unhappiness.

In summary, there is no correlation between what is "spiritually wholesome" and "worldly qualities". Since the Buddha taught Dhamma  was not something "worldly", there can never been any correlation between what is "spiritually wholesome" and "worldly qualities". In fact, a hypothesis could be pursued or researched about whether the majority of high level university graduates end up working in immoral unethical industries.

To end, similar to many current Western Christian schools, it appears the primary goal of this Buddhist school is not to make the students good people but to make the students high academic achievers for the gaining of worldly financial rewards. Similar to the dodgy MN 135, the impression is these religious schools are teaching narcissistic "spiritual materialism".


May one learn how to breathe from the diaphragm (Buddha Belly Breathing) holistically throughout all of their activities and if so how exactly? Peace, Divine Love, and Blessings to All.  I recently began to research meditative/breathing for the Solar Plexus.  I was instructed that the "normal breathing" done in the west is not the right/true way that we are supposed to be breathing but instead we should do it from the diaphragm (liken unto babies).  During my research, I came across Belly Breathing/Diaphragmatic Breathing which I came to find out is "Buddha Belly Breathing" (please forgive me if I come across as ignorant not knowing the true terminology and cultural linguistics).
The very little I have done so far has been amazing but extremely difficult.  Inhaling while expanding the stomach (and vice versa) took a lot of concentration while simultaneously trying to keep an erect posture with square shoulders (all while trying to be loose) was/is full of challenges. It made me consider and realize, one how bad my posture is (sad face) and two is it possible to continuously and consistently do this form of breathing throughout the entire day and in all activities?  I understand that meditation is about going inwardly, so I know I must take that journey and do the inner work but I pose this question asking if there are people who have done it, are doing it, and would they kindly share any pointers or guidance about their accomplishment(s).
This question is open to anyone. Feel free to share howsoever you are led to...Thank you.
(As suggested this question was posed on the Hinduism StackExchange as well)

Welcome to the community! Before answering your question, I believe some clarification would be helpful.
As the user Buddhism pointed out, specific breathing exercises are more related to other ascetic practices of ancient India. One important component of the Buddha’s discovery of the path to awakening, is the leaving aside of exercises such as these. What the Buddha taught instead was the mindful watching of the breath, as well as the development of the four establishings of mindfulness.
But leaving that aside, to answer: yes, it is possible to maintain a meditative state throughout the day, and it was something that was actually taught by the Buddha. Though I do not practice to that extent myself (I find that it requires a great deal of mindfulness, which I do not have yet), it was the way the Buddha encouraged his disciples to practice, and it is my understanding that modern monastics are encouraged to practice in this same way as well.
I hope this is helpful, and Metta.


Seafood - End and The Alternative Karma Consequences Assume a scenario that a seafood chef that inherited from the parent's seafood restaurant business and used to kill seafood alive before have a chance to study Buddhism. When the chef understood the basic and respect the basic perspective of Buddhism then he tried hard and changed his job/business entirely to a job that not required to kill animal/seafood alive.
He is also doing very well in the 5 basic lay Buddhist precepts and has changed entirely the mindset and behavior after studying Buddhism.
What would happen to animal/seafood that had been killed before? Does he still need go thru the Karma consequences or a least some waiver of punishment or this person is still going to hell but a better hell or how to reduce the bad karma consequences further?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts
This question is similar to the below but couldn't find the answer
What does "ending karma" mean?
Post Note: This question is more specific to the Chef and Seafood karma issue. The bad karma should go to those folks that order the Chef to kill and to consume the fresh and taste of seafood. At least to those folks that basic Buddhism theory/common sense already exposed to them. Correct me from wrong if any.
Lobster is best tasted when boiled alive and also it is also known to have the highest  consciousness level in term of vision of all being on earth
https://science.howstuffworks.com/lobster-x-ray-technology.htm

"Monks, these four types of kamma have been directly realized, verified, & made known by me. Which four? There is kamma that is dark with dark result. There is kamma that is bright with bright result. There is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result. There is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html
Considering the above Sutta, It appears this person has done both dark and bright kamma. The only way he will be totally free from his bad Kamma is when he became an Arahant and after Parinibbana. He should at least attempt to be a Sotapanna, which will free him from rebirth in a woeful state.


Question about going forth (while having children & wife) Do the scriptures somewhere mention that it's appropriate to go forth when having a wife & children?

According to the scriptures Gotama, the Buddha-to-be,  left his palace & his parents to reach enlightenment, but leaving one's parents is quite different than leaving one's wife and his child.

Reference to scriptures is highly appreciated!

When Rahula was born the Buddhisattava was contemplating to renouncing a householder's life hence he said "rāhulajāto bandhanaṃ jātaṃ", meaning "A rāhu is born, a fetter has arisen".

So a kid and a wife bind you to with the burden of responsibility. There were many monks who left householders life with families to become monks at the time of the Buddha. Even now in Buddhist countries, this happens.

Going forth is leaving aside ones household responsibilities to wife, children, parents, relatives and friends, so that one is free from these responsibilities, hence having more time to practice the dhamma.


Isn't Buddhist insight practice more scientific than the so-called scientific method? All enlightened beings since the first Arahant have confirmed the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path to be true through their own experience. So there is a community of Ariya Sangha who accept them to be the truth. Isn't this better than the peer review evaluation used in the "Scientific Method"? Many findings that were previously accepted under the scientific method as scientific knowledge have since been rejected, but no enlightened being has ever changed his mind to say that the four noble truths or the noble eightfold path are false.

I like this question (I've cleaned it up a bit for clarity).

Basically, what it's asking is whether Buddhist practice should be considered more or less scientific than the scientific method. I've tried to make this argument before - most recently in a talk at the University of South Florida. The concepts are still a bit vague, but I think the argument is sound.

The problem is in defining what constitutes valid scientific inquiry, and what is meant by knowledge.

In material science, the frame of reference is an interpersonal environment where the requirement for evidence is third-person verifiability. A theory is only considered scientific if there is some means of impersonal falsifiability (i.e. can it be disproved by a third person through experimental means). Observations should be made by an impartial third party (preferably a double blind where the observer and the administer are two different people) reproducible by others undertaking the same experiments as the original observer.

In insight meditation, the frame of reference is internal and so any observations must be made by the individual themselves. Thus, their observations are seen as unreliable by the modern scientific community. Within the context of an interpersonal frame of reference, this makes sense.

An argument in defence is that the frame of reference in Buddhism is not interpersonal - i.e. it doesn't matter whether I "really" made observation X; what is important is that I perceived it as being observation X. Using this premise as a basis for investigation, I think it is still possible to separate objective observations from subjective ones, though it is of course more difficult.

The difficulty I've found is in explaining Buddhist insight practice as objectively objective; how can one prove that the act of reminding oneself "seeing" actually allows oneself to be completely objective? I think there is some logic behind the fact that reminding oneself of the inherent nature of the observation creates objectivity, but it is still an uncertain hypothesis.

I think the answer lies in the expected outcome; we would expect experimentation A to be objective if it brought about consistent, reproducible (again, only by the individual) results in all situations. Subjective experimentation would lead to inconsistent results. Objective experimentation would also be expected to lead to clear definition of the nature of the objects of observation (i.e. object X appears to invariably display property A).

Such principles could then be verified between experimenters; interviewing individual meditators could potentially lead to patterns of observations of the sort mentioned above.

The point of all this is that there is at least a quasi-scientific aspect to personal meditation; it need not be discarded as purely subjective, especially since it is acknowledged that the mind does seem to follow orderly principles.

Where this all gets interesting is at the level of enlightenment, where a meditator actually claims to be certain of their observations, due to overwhelming personal evidence of its truth. Obviously such certainty is useless in an interpersonal frame of reference, but for the meditator themselves, such statements can perhaps be examined and differentiated between. For example, a meditator may come to a certainty through faith, in which case it will be of a specific quality that must be different from that arrived at through overwhelming evidence. The former would be subject to alteration in the face of further observation (or even over time), whereas the latter would only be confirmed through further observation.

From the frame of reference of the individual, then, it wouldn't matter what anyone else said about the subjectivity or invalidity of their claim; since their every observation reaffirmed the certainty of their conclusion, they would feel their claim to be scientifically arrived at, and it would be impossible to shake them of that conviction without resorting to tactics like brainwashing.

Further, once a meditator attains nibbana, even brainwashing would be unable to shake their conviction, since their very being would be changed by the realization; not clinging to body and mind, they would be impervious to all attempts at subversion.

The point here is that they would regard their certainty as scientifically gained; i.e. through what they felt to be objective observation. The obvious criticism is that anyone can claim such objectivity, even in the case of those under the influence of subjective partiality. Again, this is only important in the case of an interpersonal frame of reference. Within one's own mind, it is completely up to the individual to critique their own observations, since it is indeed only they who can possibly determine whether an observation is objective or not.

We therefore place the onus on the individual to critique themselves, and assume that there is indeed a means by which one can distinguish a subjective state from an objective one. Defining criteria by which one could undertake such discernment would assumedly look a lot like the Buddha's own methodology of separating experience out into constituents parts and subjecting each aspect to rigorous inspection to determine natures of each aspect and relationships between aspects.

In the end, then, the idea would be that the meditator would be able to cultivate an increasingly objective outlook on their own experience, eventually culminating in a paradigm shift from subjective partiality to objective observation, at which point they would intuitively understand the nature of observable phenomena.

The purpose of this would be a heightened level of "knowledge" (i.e. certainty) about a given claim, e.g. "no experience is worth clinging to". The idea here is that such knowledge would be weaker without such cultivation.

The question, then, is whether such knowledge is superior to material scientific knowledge. Obviously, it is inferior in the sense that it cannot be directly shared with others, but given the premise that anyone can undertake the same practices, with the claim that they will achieve the same level of knowledge, even this is a poor argument. Equally obvious is the superiority in the sense of the level of individual certainty which, according to an arahant themselves, would be absolutely and eternally unshakable.

The only really valid criticism is as to whether such certainty can be in any way distinguished from simple brainwashing. The defence against this criticism, I think, lies in the ability of an individual to distinguish between states of knowledge; in fact, there is the sense that brainwashing is not knowledge in any real sense of the word, since the certainty would go against one's own experience.

Which is another key point (sorry for my meandering thoughts) - that there are two levels of observation - the conceptual and the ultimate. Whereas the nature of and relationship between concepts can be changed, those of the building blocks of experiential reality are immutable.

For example, an experimenter may administer an experience to trick the subject into finding a correlation between stimulus A and result X where there wouldn't naturally be one (e.g. A Clockwork Orange). What the experimenter cannot do is affect the perceptions of the individual itself. So, while it is possible to brainwash someone into believing that violence is a cause of nausea, it is not possible to alter their observations of the experience of the violence and the nausea, because the building blocks that make up the experience cannot be changed, nor can their relationships. This seems like a reasonable premise, one which allows an individual to potentially discriminate between brainwashing and true knowledge.

Obviously, since there is no potential for peer review, such discrimination is extremely unlikely to occur in the average individual, hence the esteem given to the Buddha; still, this doesn't invalidate the claim that it is technically possible, given the right tools and determination. The important point is that it is not only possible, but absolutely preferable given the inherent strength of such knowledge, even over peer-reviewed material scientific knowledge.

Or something like that :)


When an experienced monk meditates how much does their mind wander? I’m wondering if most monks would go 99 pct of time with no mind wandering, just focus on breath.

Case 38 of the Mumonkan An Ox Passes Through a Window

  Case

  Goso said, "For example, it's just like an ox passing through a
  laticed window. Her head, horns, and four legs have passed through.
  Why is it that her tail can't pass through?"

  Mumon's Commentary

  If in regard to this you are able to turn yourself upside down,
  attain one single eye, and utter a turning word, you will be able to
  repay the four obligations above and help the living beings of the
  three realms below. If you are still unable to do this, reflect again
  on the tail; then you will be able to grasp it for the first time.

  The Verse:

  If it passes through, it will fall into a ditch;
  If it turns back, it will be destroyed.
  This tiny little tail-
  What a strange and marvelous thing it is!

I'll let you in on a little secret - the mind never stops wandering.  Oh sure, the mind of an experienced meditator looks nothing like that of a novice, but to say that it's 99% focused on the breath is a pretty romantic view.  One thing that becomes apparent over the course of one's practice is that our illusions are depthless.  Unless you are the Buddha himself, there will always be imperfections in your awareness.  The only difference between someone who is experienced and someone who is just beginning their practice is the nature of these delusions.

To give you an example, when one first starts their meditative practice, the small mind is pretty much it's own master and it will drag itself around in limitless ways.  There is internal narration, irritation at discomfort, plagues of doubt, and an assortment of other defilements affecting the mind.  The mind of someone who has been sitting consistently for, say, ten years is much more spacious.  One's internal narration almost completely disappears.  Discomfort more or less vanishes.  Doubt has mostly been cured.  Those defilements that remain are much, much more subtle.  Most of them are completely beyond the realm of language.  Here, imperfections in awareness are dealt with in a way comparable to a master craftsman who knows how to apply his file just so to get the wood to respond in the way he wants.  Just how he could never describe the feel he uses to apply his craft, the skilled meditator simply cannot vocalize the feel they have for keeping their mind applied to a counter-point sign, for instance.

More to the point, the deeper one engages with emptiness, the more likely they are to discover a veritable ecology of subliminal mental obstacles, habitual patterns, and other phenomenon arising from the personal unconscious (e.g. those issuing from the alaya vijnana or store-house consciousness).  These subtle, unconscious phenomenon merely "perfume" the experience of the novice.  Their presence is so pervasive - like an odor from an old, soiled couch that lingers in a room - that they are mistaken as being fundamental to the nature of experience.  For the the experienced practitioner, on the other hand, these phenomenon are seen for what they are and become the fodder for much of his practice.  They are also the very things that will give rise to most of the subtle distraction he experiences in meditation.

Off the cushion, the experience is mostly the same albeit it is much, much more difficult to maintain a deep level of mindfulness with so much going on in the world.  The mind is far less stable off the cushion than it is on it.  Because of that, any disruption makes  a much larger splash.  Because there is so much going on, it is also much harder to really see the much more subtle defilements (like those arising from the alaya).  One might think that they are free from disturbance, but the truth of the matter is that their mind isn't quiet enough to see the torrents raging just underneath the surface of consciousness.

In short, no matter how experienced you are, there's always that tiny bit of tail.


The Philosophy of Zen How can the Zen school of thought distinguished from the Chan school of thought? Both spring from Mahayana, true; but what are the basic differences?

Both originate from Bodhidharma, the first patriarch of Zen and Chan, as he transferred Indian heritage up north. The difference is that Zen was technically Chan that was imported to Japan by the likes of Dogen Zenji, and because both languages are different, here you go - different word. It is respectively Thiền in Vietnam, and Seon in Korea, all of which refer to the same thing. On the other hand, Chan is more rooted into Chinese philosophy, you could find traces of Taoism and Confucianism there, mostly unlike Zen.

Having said all of the above, Zen is very minimal, Soto Zen for that matter deprioritises chanting and koans and focus on zazen almost entirely. They meditate with their eyes open staring at the wall, posture is very important, due to how Japanese society is disciplined you might even get hit with a stick by your master if your posture is off. The key is in Zazen, it is in between of Samatha and Vipassana in my opinion. Zazen is almost entirely associated with enlightenment, as Dōgen said that practise itself is Enlightenment.

Rinzai school for another example has strong rooting in Japan but not entirely (it’s derived from Chinese Linji) and they, on the other hand utilise koans  to cut through rational, dualistic thinking to make leaps in experiencing enlightenment.

All of the rest is standard Mahayana approach: Bodhicitta, Bodhisattva vow. There is some Amidaba Buddha influence regionally, which is Pure landish, but not omnipresent. Also, Zen/Chan (etc) stresses Yogacara school philosophy that is mind only school.

I generally recommend a classic book on Zen by Philip Kapleau - The Three Pillars of Zen if you are interested in Zen.


Why should Mahayana practitioners strive for anything at all? In the Theravada tradition:

There is no self in all phenomena (including the five aggregates).
The five aggregates and the rest of nature and the world is always changing and not permanent (anicca).
Emptiness is only about the emptiness of self in all phenomena (including the five aggregates). The aggregates and the world definitely exist. These are not empty.
Suffering definitely exists (first noble truth).
The Theravada practitioner has to strive to become free from suffering. Nibbana exists, and is permanent and unchanging.

Whereas, in the Mahayana tradition:

There is no self in all phenomena (including the five aggregates).
The five aggregates and the rest of nature and the world is always changing and not permanent (anicca).
Emptiness refers to the emptiness of everything (including Nirvana) - the self, the five aggregates, the world, nature etc.
According to the Heart Sutra, "There is No Truth of Suffering, Of the Cause of Suffering,Of the Cessation of Suffering, Nor of the Path."
According to the Heart Sutra, "There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever."

So, why should the Mahayana practitioner strive for anything at all, if everything is emptiness (nothing really exists), and there is no suffering at all, and there is no wisdom to be gained, and there is nothing at all to attain?

Well in Mahayana, just like in Theravada, we strive for the end of striving. As @ChrisW said, Heart Sutra is written from the perspective of completion, the end of striving. This is called "taking the result as the path". Meaning, instead of discovering the result step by step, you try the result  on, like a hat, until you internalize it through getting used to it.

Another point of Heart Sutra is to serve as an antidote for attachment and reification of the raft of Dharma. Mahayana's issue with Theravada is that they sometimes get so obsessed with Dharma concepts to the point that Dharma becomes a problem, an obstacle in itself. So by reminding of its inherent emptiness we are hoping to help the student come back to the natural state, so they can experience the groundlessness and positionlessness in which there is no more need for striving.

Now, to just abandon all effort without having mastered the peaceful mind would be fooling oneself. Which is why in real life most Mahayana practitioners have to work on essentially the same practices as Theravada, whether before or after realization of emptiness.

Wouldn't it be nice if one could attain dispassion and unbinding upon hearing that everything is contrived and absolutely pointless? But habitual patterns and karmic inertia are difficult to overcome...

Although certainly in the absolute sense the universe does not care if you're enlightened or still suffer. It remains as lacking any solidity or certainty to rely on as it always were.


Meditation Retreat Question I have been following your (yuttadhammo) videos for some time. I had a question that I wanted to ask to someone who is experienced and familiar with meditation and Buddhism. I went to a 60 day meditation retreat in Myanmar last year. I had a great experience there and so as a result I am planning to go back again for 4 months at the end of this year. I have had some experiences during my last trip which puzzled and scared me a bit. I was disturbed on a couple of occasions by beings from other world at night. These were scary experiences that scared me to the core during the retreat. It was difficult for me to meditate and to fall asleep at night as my mind would always stay in that defense mode where it wouldn't relax and fall asleep. I talked to the teachers about it and they said to practice metta meditation and to ask these beings to not disturb my meditation. They also asked me to not be afraid and simply watch the fear. It did that and it did work for the time being but the fear overpowered me during the entire retreat although I am glad that I was able to make some good progress. I want to be better prepared this time around when I am going back again. My question is what can I do better this time so I can be well prepared and so the fear of being  disturbed again does not overwhelms me? I would like to practice meditation this time by leaving fear behind. Thank you for reading this.

I talked to the teachers about it and they said to practice metta
meditation and to ask these beings to not disturb my meditation.

If these are real external disturbances (rather than internal delusions):
(i) they are not beings from another world;
(ii) they are merely minds with psychic powers, as described in the Pali suttas; and
(iii) these minds are engaged in transgressions of the Buddhist Vinaya, as follows:

Displaying psychic powers. A related rule at Cv.V.8.2 states that to display psychic powers to lay people is a dukkata. (page 266)

(iv) this type of activity is cult activity; trying to engage in mind control.
(v) in the Pali suttas, being "captured by non-humans (devas)" is one of many reasons for not reaching the ocean of Nibbana, as follows:

The Lord Buddha continued,
If that log is not caught on the near bank, it will reach the ocean.
If it is not caught on the far bank, it will reach the ocean.
If it is not submerged under the water, it will reach the ocean.
If it does not land on a small island in the middle of the river, it will reach the ocean.
If it is not taken away by a human being, it will reach the ocean.
If it is not taken away by a deity, it will reach the ocean.
If it does not sink into a whirlpool, it will reach the ocean.
If it does not become rotten, it will reach the ocean.
Parable of the Log

They also asked me to not be afraid and simply watch the fear. It did that and it did work for the time being but the fear overpowered me
during the entire retreat although I am glad that I was able to make
some good progress.

The fear overwhelms the mind because what is occurring is psychologically intrusive. It is worse than physical abuse because it is very difficult for the nervous system to control the psychic power sense contact; which causes loss of sleep; because psychic power is external mental energy entered into the nervous system. Because the mental energy is not created by the afflicted mind, the afflicted cannot control the energy; unless the mind is highly developed.
It is ideal to view the sense contact as 'nama-rupa' or 'a sound' (rather than as a "being"). The Buddha taught external objects are merely mind & matter (nama-rupa) and not-self (anatta). Refer to SN 12.19, which is properly translated as:

Bhikkhus, for the wise man, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, this group (of five aggregates) has thereby originated. So there is this group and
external mentality-and-materiality: thus this dyad.

What is experienced is not "beings" but mere "mentality".

I want to be better prepared this time around when I am going back
again. My question is what can I do better this time so I can be well
prepared and so the fear of being disturbed again does not overwhelms
me? I would like to practice meditation this time by leaving fear
behind. Thank you for reading this.

Personally, I would not return to this place because, to me, it sounds like an immoral cult that does not follow the Vinaya of Buddhism.


When the Dharma will have been forgotten by most It is said that the next Buddha will arise when the Dharma will have been forgotten by most. Forgetting about the time period, which seems to be around 5000 years after the previous Buddha, what does "by most" actually mean? It there a definition of most, or is it open to interpretation?

The definition of "most" is indeed rather ambiguous. But if you think about it, the very notion of "Dharma have been forgotten" is also rather ambiguous, too: should we consider it forgotten when there's no-one left who can clearly explain phases of gradual arising of self-centred consciousness? Or is it when most Buddhists don't understand the unifying theme behind the steps of the Noble Eightfold Path? Or is it when only a few understand the nature of Dukkha and the exact conditions when it arises? Or is it when no-one seem to remember what Liberation and Nirvana actually refer to and what the word 'suchness' supposed to mean? Or when even the most of the so-called monks can't clearly explain the progression of Jhanas and how it fits with the rest of the teaching?
It seems to me, based on these basic criteria, I can hardly say that Dharma hasn't been forgotten already. I wish I was wrong but it will take some serious effort to convince me.


Should we feel good about life? It was intense suffering which bought me to the path of Dhamma. But now as I practise I see that I have started defining my life through the lens of suffering. Even if I practise non-attachment and remind myself of ancicca which destroys craving and clinging I feel bad about my life.

Should we feel good about our lives?
What are the reasons to feel good about it?
Can we be both happy about our life and pursue Nibbana?
If we only look at life as suffering and unsatisfactory does this not make us masochist?

Some reasons to be happy comes from Dhammapada 197-200:

  How very happily we live,
  free from hostility
  among those who are hostile.
  Among hostile people,
  free from hostility we dwell.

  How very happily we live,
  free from misery
  among those who are miserable.
  Among miserable people,
  free from misery we dwell.

  How very happily we live,
  free from busyness (materialism, avarice)
  among those who are busy.
  Among busy (materialistic, avaricious) people,
  free from busyness (materialism, avarice) we dwell.

  How very happily we live,
  we who have nothing.
  We will feed on rapture
  like the Radiant gods.

Rapture (piti) comes from jhana (level achieved in concentration meditation)

The above words come from the perspective of monks who have renounced the worldly life.

But even for lay people, it just goes to show that we can be very happy and grateful for all the good things or situation that we have, the good environment that we're in, and the good deeds that we have done.


How does Buddhism explain consciousness if there is no self? One major differing point between Hinduism and Buddhism is the understanding of the self. Buddhist reject the Brahminical notion of an eternal, non-material soul substance that is distinct from the mind, body and sense organs. How then, is consciousness explained? Acts of cognition must occur from a cogniser, a subject that knows, because consciousness does not belong to the body or the mind. Could it not be therefore inferred that this cogniser exists as the self - a non-material soul? How can Buddhism explain  consciousness?

Acts of cognition do not require a "cogniser, a subject" that knows (apart from the mind itself), because consciousness belongs to the body & mind.

The original question contains an implicit assumption that is invalid.

Cognition results from consciousness; just as a mirror reflects without a self.

Buddhism explains there are five aggregates (khandha) that compose a human life. SN 22.81 explains the idea of 'self' is ignorantly created by the 'sankhara khandha' (mental forming aggregate) and not the 'vinnana khandha' ('consciousness aggregate'). SN 22.59 clearly states each aggregate is 'not-self'. The sankhara created 'self' is a temporary product of ignorance (SN 22.81) & suffering (SN 5.10).

Despite ideas contained in later-day Buddhism about 'relinking' or 'stream of consciousness', the Pali suttas report the Buddha taught there can be no arising of consciousness without sense organs (MN 38), without other aggregates (SN 22.53) and without a mind-body (SN 12.67).

Also, the suttas do not explain a 'cause' ('hetu') of consciousness, i.e., the parts or sub-elements that create consciousness (similar to how water, clay & pain are the parts used to make a cup or how ignorance, craving & attachment mix together to create suffering). The suttas only state consciousness has a requisite 'condition' ('paccaya'), which is the mind-body ('nama-rupa') & sense bases ('salayatana').


What would Buddhists say about 'pantheism' I take 'pantheism' to be the belief that all our talk about God can resolve into "the world", while retaining the divine status of "God", perhaps because our words about God retain their structure.

What would Buddhists say about the idea that the world or universe is God?

I think that Buddhists don't assume that there's a "one God". So there's no need to explain the relationship between God and World.

Wikipedia's Pantheism in religion mentions many religions, but not Buddhism. Maybe the concept (of "pantheism") is meaningless when there's no concept of (no meaning attributed to the word) "God".

I suppose the nearest Buddhist analog might be the concept of Buddha-nature.