"true love", compassion and suffering According to Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh, "true love" has four elements:

Loving kindness: this produces a lot of joy and happiness.
Compassion: it makes us and the other people suffer less.
Joy: "If love does not generate joy, it is not [true] love."
Inclusiveness: "In true love there is no frontier between the one who loves and the one who is loved."

I'd like to focus on "compassion" here. Don't people who are more compassionate suffer more because they experience the suffering of other people in some sense? So aren't the elements 2 and 3 as mentioned above contrary to each other?

I think this question is related but not identical to another question asked before: love and caring is suffering.

Don't people who are more compassionate suffer more because they
  experience the suffering of other people?

The above appears to be the Western/Christian meaning of compassion, namely, "to suffer with".

In Buddhism, the term "karuṇā" (often translated as "compassion") is the wish to ending suffering. It does not mean "to suffer with".

  karuṇā - “ahita-dukkh-âpanaya-kāmatā,” the desire of removing bane and sorrow (from one’s fellowmen)


What to do after becoming free from suffering and attachments? Suppose I'm free from suffering, free from attachments, untouched by pain and pleasure, with absolute, constant calm and peace of mind; feeling profound compassion towards all beings (from an ant, to my mother, to a murderer).

I no longer see any vexation in front of me. There's nothing to fix. There's nothing to overcome. There's nothing to attain. (I'm not really interested in enligthenment).

What would you recommend me to do? Is there a way to make good use of this state, maybe to help others somehow? What would you do in my place?

If nothing is left for attainment. Why would you ask anyone else to tell you to do , is this still not a form of an attachment to views of others ?

If someone is not interested in enlightenment or if it is not achieved then in particular ,  they would consider to promote and propagate  compassion and kindness amongst beings so that it could lead to path of partial fulfilment of end of suffering.


Difficulties Maintaining Balance In Between Buddhism Teaching in Today’s Lives I’m not sure if this is a good question to ask but would be great if anyone could shed some lights.
Not sure if it’s just me or anyone of you experiencing the same in one way or another?

In workplace – It’s relatively hard to have the Buddhism practice applied when dealing with your co-workers or your bosses. It seems like one needs a little bit of drama to climb the corporate ladder. If you failed to do that, you may very well be left behind the rat-race unless you are satisfied with the condition where you are at now, else you might need to do something to get there. There are couples of scenarios commonly seen in today’s workplace. For example :

(i)How do you even cultivate the so-called “right speech” to your co-workers at a somewhat hostile meeting or even competitive environment?

(ii)In workplace, there’s a constant need for you to show that you are go-getter, driven person. How do you actually incorporate the not clinging to the desire for recognition or acknowledgement to a point where it’s considered acceptable in Buddhism context?
On one hand, you are trying to detach yourself from this desire but on the other, you just wanting to do a good job.

At home with family – Are you actually generating bad karma if you are minimizing interaction with your parents/siblings/relatives?
Being away from home for couple of years, I find it pressurizing to go home even on an occasional basis.
But I do try my best to go home as often as I could cos deep down I knew, I’m still holding the duty as a daughter.
I knew my family misses me dearly and I can’t bear being in that emotional state. It’s like I’m opening up the chances of them having the desire for expecting me to be back again and again which is obviously not my intention here.
Also, there are times when conflicts and disagreements arise, I find myself in a position using all kinds of unkind words towards my family which I felt bad later on.  As much as I wanted to maintain good terms with them but it’s always seems like an energy-draining process and I gave up.  I simply gave up the notion of having a proper communication with them in order to get the message conveyed properly or at least to have myself understood.
And I thought by minimizing the interactions with them could at least mitigate the continuation of unwholesome act and I thought I could repay them in another way such as sending money back or sponsoring them for trips and etc.
But part of me feels like I’m not fulfilling the duty as a daughter cos I failed to show gratitude to my parents/family.

In Society – At times I find it hard to relate myself to non-Buddhist or to those free thinkers. It seems like we have different views and when you start speaking in a spiritual way, they turned judgemental to you or worse, they may think you are a weirdo or have issues and needs to be fixed.
I can’t deny that some people going into Buddhism as a way of looking for an answer, for some guidances in life perhaps. I guess my intentions are undeniably between both, also I took it quite seriously as some sort of guide for betterment of oneself.
But sadly, in this materialistic world today, the lay life are pretty ignorant with the essence of these valuable teaching.
How do you actually pursue your spiritual path without offending others?

Sorry for my lengthy questions. =(

I've experienced some of these issues as well. Before I began a regular meditation and study practice my success at work and in society was much more important to me. Now, quite frankly, it's not important.

Work - I work hard in a focused way but I don't try to fit in (using wrong speech) or be seen as a go-getter. I see the benefits of actually not being promoted as leaving me more time to study and practice. And that's more important than the increase in salary I might have received if I had continued to be ambitious.

Society - I've found myself socializing a lot less. Really doesn't feel like time well spent; especially when you are socializing with people who want to judge you or your practices. It's ok if some old friends move on. Trying to cling to old relationships that don't work anymore will definitely lead to suffering. Trying to forge new relationships with people who don't understand your journey will likely be a waste of time. Finding new friends who are on the same path can be very helpful though.

Family - Going home and getting upset then avoiding family does sound draining. I have only a suggestion to try to keep in touch primarily by phone or email (or letters) or Skype or social media or anything that breaks the pattern of going home and getting involved in old issues all over again, until you have reached a point where others behavior won't upset you so much. Once you have reached that point, a visit home might be more doable.

But meditation can help you be more detached and less inclined to get upset about any of these things. Best wishes.


Best way to develop different meditation practices (simultaneously or not) I got introduced to Buddhist meditation through the practice of meta and the cultivation of the four bramaviharas. It was going well but I decided I needed the ability to separate my ego and my will. For this, I thought vipassana would be the right tool. After doing some readings, however, it became apparent that to properly do vipassana I would have to develop my concentration with samadhi. At this time I almost solely do samadhi concentration meditation.

I am a lay person and feel I don't have time to do the different meditation sessions per day, one each for meta, samadhi, and vipassana. Yet I see benefits in them all and would like to master all three.

Do you have any guidelines on how to incorporate different styles of meditation into my practice? Is it best to stick with one for a while, then move on to another? Is it best to rotate on a daily basis? Is it best to do a combination of all three in one sitting?

Also, the question can be repeated for meditating on the four bramaviharas. Is it best to do them one by one, all at once, or something else?

Ideally what you should be doing is a different kind of Ānāpānassati Meditation. What almost everyone will try to do is the "breath mediation” or “mindfulness of breathing”.  Very few of us know that Ānāpānasati is infinitely more deeper than just focusing on one’s breath.

In many suttās it is described as assāsa/passāsa, which conventionally means taking in / putting out of something, and particularly to breathing in / breathing out. My advice to you is to take “So satōva assāsati, satōva passāsati” to mean “He maintains his mind on dhamma (what is beneficial) that should be taken in (kusala or moral) and those that should be gotten rid of (akusala or immoral)”.

“Assa” is same as “āna”, and “passa” is the same as “āpāna”. When  “sati” is added for being mindful of that, it becomes ānāpānassati. So, from now on, what ever that you do, wherever that you go, from the time you wake up, and until the time that you go to bed, try to be selective in taking in “good things” and throwing away “things that are not beneficial”. That is where mindfulness comes in. That cannot be done with breath.

That means basically all the time! One just needs to be mindful of one’s actions, speech, and thoughts, and stop bad ones and cultivates good ones.

Try to be like a “rukkhamūla”. “rukkha” is “tree” and “mūla” is the “root”; even though the top of a tree sways back and forth with the wind, the tree trunk close to the root is very stable. Thus take “rukkhamūla gatō vā” to mean getting to a stable mindset. Get into a calm and stable mindset that is devoid of greed, hate, and ignorance; keep a modest attitude without any sense of superiority; be forthright and honest, and keep the mind on the main object of cooling down the mind”. That can be done anywhere, a formal seated meditation is not needed, even though that could be helpful.


How do you write Anicca (Impermanence) in Pali script? I'm looking to get a tattoo and have anicca written in Pali in several places.  Can you help me with how to write this in Pali script?

Thanks in advance!

Pāli was in oral tradition, so pāli had no its own script. However, pāli can be written by most of the indo-europian script instead.

Therefore, the best tattoo in Buddhism is reciting the Sutta in pāli, it is the beginning of all meditations.

Anicca is anicca (अनिच्‍च; อนิจฺจ) without number&gender-definition.

It is aniccā (अनिच्‍चा; อนิจฺจา), aniccāni (अनिच्‍चानि; อนิจฺจานิ) as plural.

It is aniccā (अनिच्‍चा; อนิจฺจา), aniccaṃ (अनिच्‍चं; อนิจฺจํ), anicco (अनिच्‍चो; อนิจฺโจ) as singular.

It is mostly used as an adjective, and its noun often is plural.

"Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā (सब्बे सङ्खारा अनिच्‍चा; สพฺเพ สงฺขารา อนิจฺจา)" is common widely used.


What sutta refers to 'emptiness in small space'? I remember reading about one sutta  "emptiness in small gap". Since consciousness (Vijñāna) raises and falls all the time, between each consciousness there is a very small and briefest gap where Vijñāna doesn't take place. If i remember correctly, Buddha might have said about this emptiness as FYI. Anyone could help me find sutta about "emptiness in small gap" or "emptiness in small space", or "void in tight space".  i want to study this sutta again to see if buddha ralated this emptiness to vimutti or maha-sunyata.    thanks

I have never read a Sutta talking about emptiness in terms of a gap or a small space, and to my knowledge the Suttas don't explicitly talk about what happens between individual consciousnesses (although the commentaries on the Suttas do interpret certain passages as referring to it).

Within the Theravada Abhidhamma, this issue is taken up more explicitly. According to the Abhidhamma, between individual consciousnesses there is another type of mind-state called the Bhavanga-citta. The Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi in his book A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma explains the Bhavanga quite succinctly as follows on page 106:

  (2) Life-continuum (bhavanga):  The word bhavanga means “factor (anga)
  of  existence (bhava),” that is, “the indispensable condition of
  existence.”  Bhavanga is the  function of consciousness by which the
  continuity of the individual is preserved through  the duration of any
  single existence, from conception to death.  After the paṭisandhicitta
  has arisen and fallen away, it is then followed by the bhavangacitta,
  which is a resultant  consciousness  of  the  same  type  as  the
  paṭisandhicitta  but  which  performs  a  different  function,
  namely,  the  function  of  preserving  the  continuity  of
  individual  existence.
  Bhavangacittas  arise  and  pass  away  every  moment  during  life  whenever  there  is  no  active cognitive process taking place.  This
  type of consciousness is most evident during deep dreamless sleep, but
  it also occurs momentarily during waking life countless times  between
  occasions of active cognition.  When an object impinges on a sense
  door, the bhavanga is arrested, and an active  cognitive process
  ensues for the purpose of cognizing the object.  Immediately after the
  cognitive process is completed, again the bhavanga supervenes and
  continues until the  next cognitive process arises.  Arising and
  perishing at every moment during this passive  phase of consciousness,
  the bhavanga flows on like a stream (sota), without remaining  static
  for two consecutive moments.

(Emphasis added)


If all things are impermanent, then how can Buddhism make absolute assertions? I had someone ask me this afternoon:

  If Buddhism teaches that all things are impermanent, then how can it
  make absolute assertions such as there are 5 aggregates or there
  are 4 noble truths?

Since I am very new to all of this I had to honestly answer, "I don't know". I would appreciate any insights on this question.

You friend has indulged into what is called the logical fallacy of false equivalence.

Buddhism teaches that all things are impermanent which means that there is no static nature to the things or static nature of the basic elements that everything is made up of.

So it means that the 5 aggregates are in a state of constant flux it's changing every moment, and not that it is ceasing to exist.

Now,

Buddhism can make an assertion that there are 5 aggregates because the assertion is 'about' the 5 aggregates. Furthermore, it can tell that there are four noble truths because 'four noble truths is the nature of the process, not the process itself'.

It's something like saying, 'if uncertainity principle is right we should be uncretain about the uncertainty principle'. It is a logically fallacious statement.

So, you should have replied to your friend saying,

  If the second law of thermodynamics is true, how would you like your Beer?

A story you might like;

  Two monks were watching a flag flapping in the wind. One said to the
  other,

  “The flag is moving.” The other replied, “The wind is moving.”

  The Zen master overheard this. He said, “Not the flag, not the wind;
  the mind is moving.”

  From there comes KungFu Panda he says, "most probably, it's your mouth
  that is moving."

Also, a story for any such further conversation you might have, from a discourse on Dhammapada the way of the Buddha.

  There were two temples in Japan, both enemies to each other, as
  temples have always been down the ages. The priests were so
  antagonistic that they had stopped even looking at each other. If they
  came across each other on the road, they would not look at each other.
  If they came across each other on the road they stopped talking; for
  centuries those two temples and their priests had not talked.

  But both the priests had two small boys - to serve them, just for
  running errands. Both the priests were afraid that boys, after all,
  will be boys, and they might start becoming friends to each other.

  The one priest said to his boy, "Remember, the other temple is our
  enemy. Never talk to the boy of the other temple! They are dangerous
  people - avoid them as one avoids a disease, as one avoids the plague.
  Avoid them!" The boy was always interested, because he used to get
  tired of listening to great sermons - he could not understand them.

  Strange scriptures were read, he could not understand the language.
  Great, ultimate problems were discussed. There was nobody to play
  with, nobody even to talk with.

  And when he was told, "Don't talk to the boy of the other temple,"
  great temptation arose in him. That's how temptation arises.

  That day he could not avoid talking to the other boy. When he saw him
  on the road he asked him, "Where are you going?"

  The other boy was a little philosophical; listening to great
  philosophy he had become philosophical. He said, "Going? There is
  nobody who comes and goes! It is happening - wherever the wind takes
  me...." He had heard the master say many times that that's how a
  buddha lives, like a dead leaf: wherever the wind takes it, it goes.
  So the boy said, "I am not! There is no doer. So how can I go? What
  nonsense are you talking? I am a dead leaf. Wherever the wind takes
  me...."

  The other boy was struck dumb. He could not even answer. He could not
  find anything to say. He was really embarrassed, ashamed, and felt
  also, "My master was right not to talk with these people - these are
  dangerous people! What kind of talk is this? I had asked a simple
  question: 'Where are you going?' In fact I already knew where he was
  going, because we were both going to purchase vegetables in the
  market. A simple answer would have done."

  He went back, told his master, "I am sorry, excuse me. You HAD
  prohibited me, I didn't listen to you. In fact, because of your
  prohibition I was tempted. This is the first time I have talked to
  those dangerous people. I just asked a simple question. 'Where are you
  going?' and he started saying strange things: 'There is no going, no
  coming. Who comes? Who goes? I am utter emptiness,' he was saying,
  'just a dead leaf in the wind.

  And wherever the wind takes me....'" The master said, "I told you
  before! Now, tomorrow stand in the same place and when he comes ask
  him again, 'Where are you going?' And when he says these things, you
  simply say, 'That's true. Yes, you are a dead leaf, so am I. But when
  the wind is not blowing, where are you going? Then where can you go?'
  Just say that, and that will embarrass him - and he has to be
  embarrassed, he has to be defeated. We have been constantly
  quarreling, and those people have not been able to defeat us in any
  debate.

  So tomorrow it has to be done!"

  Early the boy got up, prepared his answer, repeated it many times
  before he went. Then he stood in the place where the boy used to cross
  the road, repeated again and again, prepared himself, and then he saw
  the boy coming. He said, "Okay, now!"

  The boy came. He asked, "Where are you going?" And he was hoping that
  now the opportunity would come....

  But the boy said, "Wherever the legs will take me...." No mention of
  wind! No talk of nothingness! No question of the nondoer! Now what to
  do? His whole ready-made answer looked absurd. Now to talk about the
  wind would be irrelevant.

  Again crestfallen, now REALLY ashamed that he was simply stupid: "And
  this boy certainly knows some strange things - now he says, 'Wherever
  the legs take me....'" He went back to the master. The master said, "I
  have told you NOT to talk with those people - they are dangerous! This
  is our centuries-long experience. But now something has to be done. So
  tomorrow you ask again, 'Where are you going?' and when he says,
  'Wherever my legs take me,' tell him, 'If you had no legs, then...?'
  He has to be silenced one way or other!"

  So the next day he asked again, "Where are you going?" and waited.

  And the boy said, "I am going to the market to fetch vegetables."

Live Unpredictable, Live Prepared.


With my interpretation of 'rebirth', can I become a Buddhist and become accepted within a Buddhist community? I am just beginning and in need of help and advice on rebirth.

I'm struggling for direction in life. I felt a connection with Buddhism in my day to day life and decided to pursue it further, In the hope it would help me connect to the universe in the way I crave. I'm struggling with the life, death rebirth concept. Before I take my next big step I need to know if my beliefs could be accepted.

I believe heavily in cause and effect but I am struggling with the concept of rebirth. I believe that when I die, my mind dies with me. I am willing to accept that my mental energy may live on but not in the way I have read about.

Please bear in mind I am not saying I categorically do not believe in rebirth I'm just saying my interpretation of it is probably not of the norm. I am concerned this will hinder my progress.

I believe that my energy will not move to another being after I die, but I believe that the way I treat people and the good I do in my short time on earth will live on, although my body is gone I believe that in some way I will live on in the people I have encountered in life. The people I have done good and the people I have done bad.

I feel I need to find a community as many people do not share my opinions and I find a lot of the things I believe marry up with that of the Buddhist beliefs and I want to extend I'm beliefs and build a better connection physically and spiritually with myself and my surroundings. I would like to find peace within myself and help others.

As I'm sure you can tell I am very new to this and the way I explain myself is probably not the best, my spiritual connection is lacking and I'm struggling to see the bigger picture, that I what I wish to expand on. I'm just getting to grips with things and regardless to whether the answer to my question is a yes or no I will still pursue my beliefs. Ultimately I would like to know if I can become a Buddhist and if I can become accepted within a Buddhist community.

Thank you in advance.

You don't have to believe in rebirth. Rebirth concept in Buddhism is not as simple as simple as reincarnation anyway.

It's actually better if you don't hold any blind beliefs in Buddhism since it is a find-out-for-yourself kind of religion, i.e. when you reach the proper stage you will have the insights.

It all starts from working on the trainings for morality, concentration and insight.


What are sariras (scientifically seen)? What are sariras (Tibetan: ringsels)?

I have seen those small crystal 'pearls' (exposed in bottles) at several (even small) monasteries in SE Asia. These relics remain (are found in the ashes) after the cremation of the body of (high appreciated) Buddhist monks.

Is there a scientific explanation for those sariras?

Wikipedia is referencing this article:

Scanning electron microscope observations of heat-treated human bone.
This report describes the heat-induced alterations in human bone tissue observed using scanning electron microscopy and microradiography. Femoral bone samples were taken from persons varying in age from 1 year to 97 years at the time of their death. The bone was heated at selected temperatures in the range 200-1600 degrees C for periods of 2, 12, 18 and 24 h. Macroscopically, changes in colour occurred, together with some shrinkage, fracturing and distortion. However, dramatic changes occurred at the ultrastructural level. These changes included the progressive combustion of the organic portion of the bone tissue up to 400 degrees C and recrystallisation of the bone mineral beginning at 600 degrees C. Recrystallisation produced a range of crystal morphologies: spherical, hexagonal, platelets, rosettes and irregular. Crystal growth occurred at temperatures > 600 degrees C. Sintering led to fusion of crystals at 1000 degrees C. This process continued up to temperatures > 1400 degrees C. At 1600 degrees C the bone mineral melted. On heating, the morphology of crystals formed, and the ultrastructural changes which occurred, were found to be related to the age of the deceased, the temperature to which the bone had been heated and the duration of heating. These results are of importance to forensic scientists, arson investigators and paleoarcheologists in their investigation of cremated human bones, particularly when only fragments of bone are available, in order to determine something of the life history of the deceased and the circumstances surrounding the death.

600 degrees C is the temperature at which material begins to glow red (i.e. an achievable temperature when a body is cremated), and 1000 degrees is when it's orange.


Verses and lines of dedication of merits: Does one like to share traditional and personal verbal ways? Ven. members of the Sangha (coming across here),
Valued Upasaka, Upasika,
Valued Team here and for awakening seeking readers,

whether young or old, lay person or ordained, since child one would be trained in generosity after having made merits, may it be just a recitation, veneration, after a giving, after taking precepts, after a meditation session, after having listened to Dhamma.

In traditional countries there are many deep and beautiful verses used an known. Here some may know a traditional recitation as sample: Dedication of Merit

Do you know or even practice a certain Verse and feel inspired sharing it?
Do you know good and nice sources (not commercial but dedicated as Dana) of valuable Verses in various languages?

Feel inspired to share you ways and possessions.

If inspired to even share an audio of your recitation, feel invited to do such here: Rejoice with others & sharing merits pattanumodāna & pattidāna. You can link it into here and no need to take uninvited space or contracts anywhere.

[Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma, and not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily gains.]

There are probably as many answers to this question as there are Buddhists, but as you ask the question to all, I thought maybe I can offer something about the rule, rather than the form.

There are several textual sources regarding what is appropriate for dedication - in general one may dedicate ones' actions any way one may wish, but then the behaviour does not lead to liberation, and is therefore not Dharma activity, unless the dedication is in line with Dharma activity.

These are the four ways of dedication that are in accordance with Dharma activity, as I have been taught from within the Himalayan tradition:

Dedication towards one's own liberation and enlightenment.
Dedication towards the liberation and enlightenment of all beings.
Dedication towards the longevity of Buddha's words.
Dedication towards the longevity of the Sangha and one's Dharma teachers.

Of these four, the best is the first because it involves taking personal responsibility for the Buddha Dharma through the greatest means possible.


How to meditate, lower parts of Dependent Origination? How to meditate, lower parts of Dependent Origination with five aggregates ?

The 'meditator' is 'nama-rupa' (4th link). 'Nama' is defined as 'feeling, perception, intention, internal contact & attention' and also includes mental functions such as 'mindfulness', 'effort', etc. 'Rupa' is the physical body.

The breathing is 'kaya sankkara' (2nd link).

When the breathing arises into awareness, this is consciousness (3rd link).

When the breathing is 'felt' & 'perceived' as 'long', 'short', 'smooth', 'rough', 'calming', 'agitated', etc, this feeling & perceiving is 'nama' (4th link).

When the mind drifts away from the object of meditation (breathing) and then makes the decision to return to the breathing, this wholesome intention is 'nama' (4th link).

When the mind sustains attention (4th link) on the breathing (2nd link), this is nama (4th link). Knowing the breathing & nama is consciousness (3rd link).

You must meditate continuously on the method described above until you can clearly distinguish between the 2nd, 3rd & 4th links & their role.

If the breathing (2nd link) feels (4th link) agitated, this agitation is due to ignorance (1st link).

If distracting thoughts (2nd link - vaci sankhara) and perceptions & feelings (2nd link - citta sankhara) arise in the mind, these are produced from ignorance (1st link).

When the drives or moods of the five hindrances (sensual desire, ill-will, sloth, restlessness, remorse, doubt, fear) spontaneously flow out (asava) of the mind, this outflow of hindrances is the 1st link (ignorance).

When the nama (4th link) generates intention (4th link) to calm or remove the distracting thoughts (2nd link) & hindrances (1st link), this intention & application of wisdom is the 4th link (nama).

When the nama perceives (4th link) the ignorant thoughts & perceptions arising at the 2nd link, the right perception (4th link) of the wrong perceptions (2nd link) is mindfulness & clear-comprehension (4th link)

If the nama-rupa (4th) link is overwhelmed & controlled by ignorance (1st link), the nama-rupa will generate intentions (4th link) to seek external sense objects (5th link) and make contact with the external world (6th link). From this, the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th & 12th links will lead to the generation of dukkha (suffering).

The above is meditation upon the first 4 links of dependent origination.

When the sankhara (2nd link) are all calmed & clear, this is samatha.

When ignorance (1st link) is reduced or eradicated due to seeing the four noble truths & the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self of the five aggregates, this is vipassana.


Does Theravada Buddhism accept Jataka Stories? Once in a Dhamma talk I heard a Theravada Monk saying he did not believe in such stories, because some of them contradict the Buddha's teachings (suttas), I don't know if that was his personal opinion or a general view in Theravada Buddhism.

The Theravada accepts the Jataka stories as commentarial literature; they are not canonical, but are considered a reliable account by a learned Buddhist scholar. What are canonical are the verses that accompany the stories, as that is how 547 of the latter were easily remembered. Number of verses per varies; some have a single verse, others have over 100, I think.

It's not uncommon for modern Theravada Buddhists to question the authenticity of the stories, especially given their often fantastical content. Probably, though, it is more common for Theravada Buddhists to accept the stories far more at face value than they really should, again given their content.


Why is there something instead of nothing? Why is there something instead of nothing?
Why there are clothes , why food , why shelter , why surprise , why anger , why love , why disgust , why father , why mother , why child, why atom , why Einstein , why Buddha and also why Universe?
Buddha said sabbe sankhara anicca (all conditioned things are impermanent) ... therefore all things, whether tangible or intangible are anicca (impermanent) but why? Why not nothing? No conditionality ever?

This sounds like the type of philosophical questions that is mentioned in the Acintita Sutta:

Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

You just cannot speculate on things like this. It will make you mad, says the Buddha.
It also doesn't help with the path to end suffering - see Parable of the Poisoned Arrow. This means such type of questioning has no practical value.
From MN 63:

“Here, venerable sir, while I was alone in meditation, the following
thought arose in my mind: ‘These speculative views have been left
undeclared by the Blessed One…If he does not declare these to me, then
I will abandon the training and return to the low life.’ If the
Blessed One knows ‘the world is eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare
to me ‘the world is eternal’; if the Blessed One knows ‘the world is
not eternal,’ let the Blessed One declare to me ‘the world is not
eternal.’ If the Blessed One does not know either ‘the world is
eternal’ or ‘the world is not eternal, ’ then it is straightforward
for one who does not know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I
do not see.’
“If the Blessed One knows ‘the world is finite,’…‘the world is
infinite,’…‘the soul is the same as the body,’…‘the soul is one thing
and the body another,’…‘after death a Tathāgata exists,’ …’after death
a Tathāgata does not exist,’…If the Blessed One knows ‘after death a
Tathāgata both exists and does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare
that to me; if the Blessed One knows ‘after death a Tathāgata neither
exists nor does not exist,’ let the Blessed One declare that to me. If
the Blessed One does not know either ‘after death a Tathāgata both
exists and does not exist’ or ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists
nor does not exist,’ then it is straightforward for one who does not
know and does not see to say: ‘I do not know, I do not see.’”
“How then, Mālunkyāputta, did I ever say to you: ‘Come, Mālunkyāputta,
lead the holy life under me and I will declare to you “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Did you ever tell me: ‘I will lead the
holy life under the Blessed One, and the Blessed One will declare to
me “the world is eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists
nor does not exist”’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“That being so, misguided
man, who are you and what are you abandoning?
“If anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the
Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and
meanwhile that person would die. Suppose, Mālunkyāputta, a man were
wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and
companions, his kinsmen and relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him.
The man would say: ‘I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow
until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble or a brahmin
or a merchant or a worker.’ And he would say: ‘I will not let the
surgeon pull out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man
who wounded me;…until I know whether the man who wounded me was tall
or short or of middle height;… until I know whether the man who
wounded me was dark or brown or golden-skinned;…until I know whether
the man who wounded me lives in such a village or town or city;…until
I know whether the bow that wounded me was a long bow or a cross-bow;
…until I know whether the bowstring that wounded me was fibre or reed
or sinew or hemp or bark;…until I know whether the shaft that wounded
me was wild or cultivated;… until I know with what kind of feathers
the shaft that wounded me was fitted—whether those of a vulture or a
heron or a hawk or a peacock or a stork;…until I know with what kind
of sinew the shaft that wounded me was bound—whether that of an ox or
a buffalo or a deer or a monkey;…until I know what kind of arrowhead
it was that wounded me—whether spiked or razor-tipped or curved or
barbed or calf-toothed or lancet-shaped.’ “All this would still not be
known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Mālunkyāputta,
if anyone should say thus: ‘I will not lead the holy life under the
Blessed One until the Blessed One declares to me: “the world is
eternal”…or “after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not
exist,”’ that would still remain undeclared by the Tathāgata and
meanwhile that person would die.


Does Mahayana Buddhism worship the Buddha as a God and, if so, why? The Buddha always held that he was a simple man, one among us, not a God. In fact, Buddhism is principally an agnostic philosophy. Then why does Mahayana Buddhism practice the worship of the Buddha?

No, the Buddhas are not Gods and Mahayana does not conceive of them as such. In fact, all forms of Buddhism - not just Mahayana - largely agree with the following:

However, let's be clear on the many ways in which Buddhism does not conceive of the Buddha:

The Buddha did not create the universe.
The Buddha did not create man.
The Buddha is not singular in the sense that many are described as Buddhas.
The Buddha was once an imperfect sentient being just like us.
The Buddha does not pass judgement and enact cosmic justice.
The Buddha does not cause the workings of karma.

Now, let's examine some of the ways Buddhism does conceive of Buddhas that seem to have some similarities with different definitions of "God":

Buddhas are perfected beings.
Buddhas have some forms of omniscience.
Buddhas have what appears to be some forms of supernatural powers.
Buddhas are the greatest of teachers.
Buddhas are worthy objects of refuge.

I think most if not all extant traditions of Buddhism would agree with the above and not just Mahayana.

Now, are Buddhas worthy of "worship?" Well, I don't know about that word, but I would say they are worthy of the highest respect and veneration. They have perfected themselves for the sole benefit of others. They have perfected all virtuous qualities. If you define "worship" as the highest respect and veneration, then I would say they are worthy.


Is it me or someone else paying karma for my sins? According to Buddhism, is it me who is getting punished or rewarded in next life for my deeds in this life?

Neither You nor Anyone else.

It is not you, because you are dying and reborning with very very short time period all the time we live in Sansara. It is not anyone else because the result taker is a anyway a  part of the series of dying and reborning cycle.

To understand this you have to understand components of a creature.

maximum number of components that a creature can have are two. They are body and mind.
minimum number of components that a creature can have is one. That is mind.(Aruupa Brahmas)
(So now at that moment you must realize that there is no soul to a creature.)

In descriptive Abhidhamma, mind is categorized to 4 components as  Vedanā,  Saṃjñā, Saṅkhāra,  Vijñāna.

This image shows the components of the creature without considering time.

Mind is continues flow of born, existence, dying of Naama (Mindlet). mindlet or Naama is the smallest sub component of the mind. 17 mindlets make a mindlet group called Ruupa.

This image shows how Naamas are born, exist and die with transmitting energy to the next Naama.

This image shows the time intervals of one Naama. Naama's born time=exist time= dying time= t1.
 Time interval between Dead Naama and Born start of Naama = t2. So at that very little time there is no visible mind. At that moment only body is exist. This is the thing called as anathma/anatta.

There can be one mindlet in the mind at once.
For a time of blink, trillions of mindlets born, exist and die (So one Naama exist less than nanoseconds).
If creature consists of body and mind combination, it must be considered both to call that as a creature. (At creatures point of view I, my point of view me).
If creature consists of only mind , it must be considered mind to call that as a creature. (At creatures point of view I, my point of view me).
When consider a wheel, engine, chase individually cannot be called as CAR. Likewise, body or mind (When both are there) individually cannot be called as me or I.
This rapid born, existance and deth of Naama can be seen in high meditation levels of vidhardhana meditation.
Now you realize there is no soul or thing that can be called as me because even before a person say me or I there are trillions of born, existence, dying of Naama.
When someone do a Karma, karma is completed in one Ruupa (consecutive 17 Naamas).
After doing the karma that Ruupa is dead. but energy transmitted to next Ruupas.
If creature made karma those Ruupas are dead at 17 Naama's time. So the creature did the karma is dead with Ruupa (But Body didn't dead so actual dead is not visible).
When Karma get punished at proper time the creature's body also can be dead.
When body dies we call it as real death.
When Karma get punished the Ruupas did the karma is dead and body also can be dead.
Karma is also get punished to Ruupas. Ruupas feels the senses according to the Karma.
When Karma is get punished, punished Ruupas are not the Ruupas that done the Karma but Those Ruupas are generated from the same stream of Naama cycle. So Load Buddha have said that the Punished person is Neither You nor Anyone else.


How are metta and dana related? In accord to Dhamma, What is appropriate to give oneself?

What is appropriate to give to others?

Does dana ever go to oneself? Could
 oneself be  seen  impersonally as another that needs  dana? How is    metta and dana related or not related?

'Dana' can be a 'test' of true 'metta'. For example, the Christian Bible refers to 'metta' without 'dana' as being something 'dead', as follows:

Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you tells him, “Go in peace; stay warm and well fed,” but does not
provide for his physical needs, what good is that ? So too, faith by
itself, if it is not complemented by action, is dead.…
James 2:16

The Pali suttas often refer to 'dana' as follows:

... devoid of the stain of stinginess, freely generous, open-handed, delighting in relinquishment, devoted to charity, delighting in giving and sharing
SN 11.11

'Dana' can show we have true metta towards others rather than the fake metta of politicians, virtue signallers and social justice warriors.


Sense of Accomplishment in Meditation Regardless of a meditation's perceived quality, I feel that finishing a meditation provides some sense of accomplishment.

Nowadays, I am experiencing great lack of motivation, and when I set the goal of meditation as '30 minutes', I stop half-way and feel that I failed.

Knowing how finishing things provides accomplishment, would it make more sense setting shorter times which I can finish? Is there such a thing as the momentum of accomplishment in meditation or even in virtuous activity in general? Or, is such a feeling of success a kind of attachment, and problematic?

Thank you

Here are some excellent advice given by Ajaan Fuang in "Awareness Itself":

  § "When the meditation goes well, don't get excited. When it doesn't
  go well, don't get depressed. Simply be observant to see why it's
  good, why it's bad. If you can be observant like this, it won't be
  long before your meditation becomes a skill."

  § A young nurse practiced meditation with Ajaan Fuang several days
  running, and finally asked him one day, "Why wasn't today's session as
  good as yesterday's?"

  He answered: "Meditating is like wearing clothes. Today you wear
  white, tomorrow red, yellow, blue, whatever. You have to keep
  changing. You can't wear the same set of clothes all the time. So
  whatever color you're wearing, just be aware of it. Don't get
  depressed or excited about it."

  § A few months later the same nurse was sitting in meditation when a
  sense of peace and clarity in her mind became so intense that she felt
  she would never have a bad mood infiltrate her mind again. But sure
  enough, bad moods eventually came back as before. When she mentioned
  this to Ajaan Fuang, he said, "Looking after the mind is like raising
  a child. There will have to be bad days along with the good. If you
  want only the good, you're in for trouble. So you have to play
  neutral: Don't fall in with the good or the bad."

  § A student came to complain to Ajaan Fuang that she had been
  meditating for years, and still hadn't gotten anything out of it. His
  immediate response: "You don't meditate to 'get' anything. You
  meditate to let go."

  § "Don't make a journal of your meditation experiences. If you do,
  you'll start meditating in order to have this or that thing happen, so
  that you can write it down in your journal. And as a result, you'll
  end up with nothing but the things you've fabricated."

  § "You can't plan the way your practice is going to go. The mind has
  its own steps and stages, and you have to let the practice follow in
  line with them. That's the only way you'll get genuine results.
  Otherwise you'll turn into a half-baked arahant."

  § "When the mind's not quiet — that's when its poor and burdened with
  difficulties. It takes molehills and turns them into mountains. But
  when the mind is quiet, there's no suffering, because there's nothing
  at all. No mountains at all. When there's a lot to the mind, it's
  simply a lot of defilement, making it suffer."

Maybe you can give yourself the flexibility of meditating between 15 to 30 minutes. At the end of it, don't cling to any result/ state, and be observant about why today's session was the way it was. If today's session was not good, it's not because you had failed. It was probably due to some defilement entering the mind. Then that would lead you to identify how the defilement came into the mind. That's more skillful than blaming yourself.


The Four Nutriments: what do the metaphors in SN 12.63 mean? In the Puttamansa Sutta, the Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are discussed using four comparative similes ('metaphors').

The 1st simile of eating the flesh of one's own son (merely for the sake of crossing the desert) is very straightforward. However, the remaining three similes of a 'skinned cow', of 'two strong men dragging a man into a pit of fire' & of a 'thief punished by a king' are not obvious in their meaning.

These three similes are:

  And how, O monks, should the nutriment sense-impression be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a skinned cow that stands close
  to a wall, then the creatures living in the wall will nibble at the
  cow; and if the skinned cow stands near a tree, then the creatures
  living in the tree will nibble at it; if it stands in the water, the
  creatures living in the water will nibble at it; if it stands in the
  open air, the creatures living in the air will nibble at it. Wherever
  that skinned cow stands, the creatures living there will nibble at
  it.

  And how, O monks, should the nutriment volitional thought be considered? Suppose, O monks, there is a pit of glowing embers, filled
  to cover a man's height, with embers glowing without flames and smoke.
  Now a man comes that way, who loves life and does not wish to die, who
  wishes for happiness and detests suffering. Then two strong men would
  seize both his arms and drag him to the pit of glowing embers. Then, O
  monks, far away from it would recoil that man's will, far away from it
  his longing, far away his inclination. And why? Because the man knows:
  'If I fall into that pit of glowing embers, I shall meet death or
  deadly pain.'

  And how, O monks, should the nutriment consciousness be considered? Suppose, O monks, people have seized a criminal, a robber, and brought
  him before the king saying: 'This is a criminal, a robber, O Majesty!
  Mete out to him the punishment you think fit!' Then the king would
  tell them: 'Go, and in the morning strike this man with a hundred
  spears!' And they strike him in the morning with a hundred spears. At
  noon the king would ask his men: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still
  alive, Your Majesty.' — 'Then go and strike him again at noontime with
  a hundred spears!' So they did, and in the evening the king asks them
  again: 'How is that man?' — 'He is still alive.' — 'Then go and in the
  evening strike him again with a hundred spears!' And so they did.

What do we think each of these similes means?

The Four Nutriments ('ahara') of physical food, sense contact, intention & consciousness are true for the worldlings who have craving (tanha) and greed (lobha) or aversion / revulsion (dosa), caused by ignorance (moha).  Tanha, lobha, dosa, moha provides nourishment for the continuation of life from existence to existence.

The worldlings have  five aggregates of clinging (Panca Upadana Khandas).  In the case of Arahants – the awakened ones - there is no craving. They have rooted out the “I concept”.  They have fully realized five groups of existence and the five grasping groups of existence (Panncakkhandha and panca upadanakkhandha) .  Arahants have only the five aggregates in detachment  (Anupadana).  Upadana means ‘grasping’ and Anupadana means ‘non-grasping’ or letting go.While Upadana leads to Samsara, Anupadana leads to Nibbana.

To put it in another way, (for better understanding), after the elimination of all defilements an arahant lives in society without Upadana or Attachment to any thing in the world. He does not have the five grasping groups (pancaupadanakkhandha) but only five groups,aggregates (Pancakkhandha), namely, rupa (body), vedana (feeling), sanna (perception), sankhara (volitional formation), and vinnana (consciousness).  His consciousness is ‘translucent’ (for wont of a better word) as no food is provided. In this he is immeasurable - is like the Buddha. All measurement is from a here to a there, with in-betweens. In the Buddha, there is neither a here nor a there nor any in-between. He is thus immeasurable. See Bahiya Sutta: About Bahiya - Ud 1.10

  “Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there’s no you in that. When there’s no you in that, there’s no you there. When there’s no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.” (Ud I.l0)...

An arahant is sustained by ONLY the physical food that does not create upadana. He does not have the other three ‘mental’ foods as he has rooted out the “I concept”.  He is free from attavada upadana by seeing it as a deceit (the true nature). So if there is no nutriment  consciousness, an Arahants  consciousness is mere presence.  Since there cannot be presence without something being present, it is what distinguishes living from non-living, such as tables and chairs. The Buddha has stated that consciousness is dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness. In an Arahant, Paticcasamuppada (dependent arising) ceases.  Which means Vinnana paccaya (conditioned by consciousness) too ceases.


What is the meaning of 'Om mani padme hung'? I found on google that 'om mani padme hum, mean that in dependence on the practice of a path which is an indivisible union of method and wisdom, you can transform your impure body, speech, and mind into the pure exalted body, speech, and mind of a Buddha..'.
I want more about this.

You will probably not find a better explanation than that of the Dalai Lama.

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

The entire talk can be found here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/omph.htm

  Thus the six syllables, OM MANI PADME HUM, mean that in dependence on
  the practice which is in indivisible union of method and wisdom, you
  can transform your impure body, speech and mind into the pure body,
  speech, and mind of a Buddha. It is said that you should not seek for
  Buddhahood outside of yourself; the substances for the achievement of
  Buddhahood are within. As Maitreya says in his SUBLIME CONTINUUM OF
  GREAT VEHICLE (UTTARA TANTRA) all beings naturally have the Buddha
  nature in their own continuum. We have within us the seed of purity,
  the essence of a One Gone Thus (TATHAGATAGARBHA), that is to be
  transformed and full developed into Buddhahood.   (From a lecture
  given by His Holiness The Dalai Lama of Tibet at the Kalmuck Mongolian
  Buddhist Center, New Jersey.)


Infidelity in marriage If you are in a sexless marriage where your wife absolutely denys you any sex or intimacy no matter what, is it OK to cheat?  What is the Buddhist rules on that?  I understand that my wife's behavior can be considered sexual abuse.  What she does for me is actually not good for my health and well being.

You don't need to have sex to be healthy and well. Otherwise, most Buddhist monks should be sick. Cheating breaks the 3rd precept. That is bad Karma for you.

Whether your wife agrees or not, associating with prostitutes has many bad consequences. You and your family's reputation can be tarnished. Higher risk of catching diseases. Your wealth will decrease. You could be cheated in many ways as you have very little idea about the character of the other person. You could be blackmailed by those who get to know about your habit. Most of all, your lust will increase. After sometime, you will start developing unnatural sexual cravings. There's no end to it, if you crawl down that pit.

Nevertheless, sexual pleasures are not forbidden for lay people. So, as a Buddhist layman, you have several decent options available:

Try different socially acceptable methods like being romantic, changing the environment, buying presents etc. and see if she changes according to your liking.
Talk to her, let her know that you are not happy and take a decision on the future of your relationship, if she doesn't change.
Restrain yourself and try to focus on your spiritual development as having sex doesn't bring you true happiness.


What is 'vision externally' in AN8.66? In AN 8.66 the Buddha says, "Not perceiving form internally, they see visions externally. This is the second liberation".
I am totally confused here. If by 'form' we mean body, how not to perceive it internally. And what is meant by 'see visions externally'?

First thing, you shouldn't be relying on B. Sujato's translation for meditation specific terms. He has gross misunderstandings of key words like kāya (physical body), rūpa (in meditation context, usually means 4 elements of physical body of meditator). So in his translation, he inconsistently translates rupa sometimes as 'physical form', sometimes as 'vision', according to his wrong understanding of jhana and arupa samadhi.
Going by a straightforward, and correct EBT interpretation, 'rupa' translates consistently as 'physical form of  the anatomical body made up of 4 elements and 6 sense bases active - you can see, hear, touch, etc.'
So the first base of liberation (vimutti), having form (rupa) and seeing form is referring to the point of view of being in the 4 jhanas, where the 6 sense bases of the physical body are active.
The second base of liberation, one is in an a-rupa (form-less) samadhi attainment, you are in a meditative state where you can't perceive your own physical form of body anymore, can't hear sounds, 6 sense bases are divorced from the mind. But you can perceive external forms, for example seeing visions of the rupa (form, 4 elements) of external world, other beings, etc.


What is the proper mindfulness anchor for a stream-winner? If a practitioner of mindfulness has experienced cessation/fruition should they use the memory of that as their anchor or should they continue to use the perception of the arising and passing away of kalapas? Or does focusing on either one of these cause the practitioner to develop different skills?

Recollection of the memory is not attending to the present but attending to sanna (past perception that has been stored). The best the recollection of the memory can do is inform one of the path that one has travelled and probably one can help other people along the same path.

The continued perception of arising and passing away of dhammas will deepen the insight into the three characteristics. Each stage of the breakthrough occurs because one has clearer and clearer insights of the 3 characteristics and able to let go of further attachments until nothing sticks, and everything slips like "a drop of water on a lotus leaf".

Even at the stage of an Anagami, Khemaka still watch further the arising and passing away of dhammas.


How sacrosanct is the "source material" of Buddhism? In this answer to my question about why we keep referring to antiquated old parables and similes, Inzenity wrote,

  "The scriptures are part of the teachings, the source of the teachings. It makes sense that to learn the teachings, what you call true Buddhism, they must go to the source material."

The source material is not really straight from Buddha's pen, is it; nor is it even from the pens of his contemporaries or his disciples. What anybody may call source material was first committed to writing many centuries after the death of Gautam Buddha.

Isn't that's a bit like a whole bunch of us on this forum sitting down to commit to writing what was said by some guru who lived 10 generations ago, after about 500 years of oral transmission at least?

And then all that was translated from Pali into English -- possibly not in a single step either. And in between, there were commentaries in many languages, and many diverse traditions of speech and thought...

So, is it really "source material", just because it has bits and pieces of Pali tradition and ancient similes attached to it, imparting a certain quaint orientalism to the whole conglomerate? And if this body of work somehow acquired bits and pieces of Nordic or Mayan similes, parables etc, then would it stop suddenly being "Buddhist source material"?

Inzenity also wrote (about use of original explanations and logical arguments, as against the old well-worn ones from various Buddhist texts),

  When they go to another person's teachings, are they still Buddhists or followers of the new guru? New religions are created this way.

True that! Being original about it may mean that we may drift away from Buddhist teachings, and end up starting new religions or, alternatively, following new religions.

Are we hanging on to quaint old parables and similes and Pali aphorisms translated painfully into English, for the luxury of calling ourselves Buddhists, instead of, say, "Robertists" or "Umeshists" or "followers of Osho Rajneesh"?
How sure are we that we haven't unknowingly gone to "another person's teaching" already -- those persons being numerous disciples and commentarists who willy-nilly added their own substantial philosophical DNA to Buddha's teachings, or alternatively, excised crucial teachings from Buddha's body of thought?
What is Buddhism about, anyway? Is Buddhism about learning precepts about the nature of existence "at the feet of a master" as it were? Or is it about a fearless enquiry into the nature of existence, guided by numerous masters who broadly follow Buddha's school of thought, but not enchained to the philosophies of these masters?

I think there are some very good and apposite questions here. I find I meet two kinds of Buddhists online. Those committed to the idea that the Pāḷi Canon is something like the Bible, the words of the Buddha and thus an ultimate authority. These kind are mostly, but not only, Theravādin Buddhists. To a lesser extent one also sees this kind of ideological commitment from Mādhyamikas about Nāgārjuna as well. The second kind take the opposite view. That the texts are worthless and that apart from the some of the practices that there is nothing worth saving.

There is a kind of middle way. No modern historian treats the Pāḷi Canon as historically accurate any more. Apologetics which argue for the authenticity of the suttas tend to come from establishment figures within one or other Theravādin movement. Thanissaro and Sujato have both written apologetics in recent times for example. But this is what we expect of men who have made a strong commitment to a Buddhist sect (especially one which involves life-long chastity).

However many of the stories in the texts are still of considerable interest for their insights into the historical development of Buddhism and the changes that Buddhist doctrines undergo over time. I am particularly interested in these kinds of changes. And of course some stories are timeless. This is why we preserve and retell stories from the distant past: the Mahābharat in India and the Greek myths in Europe are good examples. Good story telling is timeless and fictional characters no less moving and educative for being unreal.

It's widely acknowledged, by scholars at least, that Buddhism is syncretic from the first evidence we have of it. The earliest records of Buddhism show influence from a number of other cultures not limited to Brahmanism, Jainism, local animistic cults, and Zoroastrianism (the latter discovery is relatively old, my own contribution to the field has been to put the case more systematically). Such syncretism continues throughout the life of Buddhism in India and outside it, right down to the present. With more or less success. Usually the process involves subordinating the assimilated material to Buddhism in some explicit fashion, though sometimes the process is implicit, and often it is transparent to Buddhists (e.g. the Vedic myth in the Agañña Sutta quoted time and again as a "Buddhist" creation story).

That said I think the identity of "Buddhist" is meaningful for many people in many ways. The history of Buddhism is not one in which everyone is a full-time practitioner devoted to awakening. Such people were and will continue to be relatively rare. Most of us aspire to more than we can achieve. This does not invalidate the aspiration or the achievement. Most of us require positive conditions to flourish, and a positive experience of Buddhist community can contribute to that. As such membership of a Buddhist group is a necessary facet of life as a Buddhist for many of us. And part of group membership is conformity to group norms, including taking on the jargon and mythology of the group. Being able to recite popular stories is a mark of membership.

That said I think there is a problem in Buddhism with people not correctly assessing their own limitations. The wide availability of Buddhist texts to lay people with no training in linguistics or critical thinking has led to a glut of uncritical opinions. The internet has only exacerbated the trend. Some of us have very limited experience of living a Buddhist life, but full access to multiple translations of Buddhists texts. With no basis for assessing the value of translations or other sources of information, they tend to be cited indiscriminately (to support views). I notice it is routine in this website to cite Thanissaro's translations, which happen to be the easiest to get hold of because they are online for free. But Thanissaro is an eccentric translator, to say the least. All his translations need to be carefully assessed before being cited - but they never are. I would put Access to Insight on a par with Wikipedia as a source. Use with caution.

It is good to see some hard questions being asked of Buddhists.


Detailed definition of Lokavidu I've seen this translated as knower of worlds/cosmos and with relation to the senses as what arises, but I still don't have a solid understanding, can someone add clarity?

Lokavidu is one of the nine qualities of the Buddha.
Here is a definition of the quality:

LOKAVIDU

Lokavidu is the person who knows about the world. What do we mean by
Loka? As There are six worlds; the seeing world, the hearing world, the smelling world, the tasting world, the touching world and the thinking world. There are no other worlds than these six. The Buddha understands how they arise and cease. He knows how clashes and harmony happen in this world. He knows why people can be trapped in them or be free from them. That is why He is called Lokavidu. You are in harmony with the world only when you know about it and live accordingly accepting as it is.

Another quote from the book "The Great Chronicles of Buddhas", p. 1164 :

(ii) Āsayānusayan-ñāna:
Knowledge that discuss the natural bent and latent proclivities of individuals. (Ref: original text at pp 597 on the Lokavidu attribute of the Buddha.) The term ÈsayÈnusaya, a compound may be rendered as ‚the seed-germ of an individual’s mental makeup.‛ By this special knowledge, the Buddha knows discriminately that such and such a being has such natural bent of mind, such latent potential for defilements that are dominant in his mental makeup.
It was due to the possession of the above two special knowledges that the Buddha could deliver the right message to the right-hearer. Even the Venerable SÈriputta, being not endowed with these special knowledges, could not know the state of readiness of his hearers to receive the message, i.e. about the ripeness or otherwise of the mental makeup of his hearers, with the result that his discourses, in a few occasions, fell flat on the hearers.

Another quote on the term:

Gautama Buddha's explanation on 'World' or 'Loka'
A very significant word that comes in Gautama Buddha's Sutta discourses is the "Loka" or "Loke" that is commonly regarded today as the "World". One needs to have a proper understanding of what Gautama Buddha considered as the "World" or "Loka " since Buddha is "Lokavidu" , one of the nine qualities Gautama Buddha had been ascribed to. The meaning of the word" Lokavidu" is "knowledge of entire worlds" or "loka".

Another quote on the term from "The Qualities and Virtues of the Buddha" By Mithra Wettimuny:

V) Lokavidu means the seer of the world. He sees everything as it really is, with regard to this world. He sees all the conditions that bring about a situation, that bring about a dhamma, the root causes, the proximate causes, and the results that can come, that can flow from that situation. All that is his knowledge or his ability to see the world as it really is.


Buddhadasa and the continuity of suffering beyond physical death, without rebirth I read "Anatta and Rebirth" by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (let's call this explanation B) and I also read similar explanations by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu from this answer, this comment and this answer (let's call this explanation Y).

First I need to make some definitions and assumptions, before asking my questions:

The birth and death of a moment in Y is equivalent to the birth and death of selfhood in B i.e. a moment of selfhood.
The definition of birth (jati) and existence (bhava) comes from SN 12.2, while the definition of being (satta) comes from SN 5.10.
Sammuti-marana or conventional death or conceptual death is equivalent to the event of physical death (according to this answer).
"At the moment of conceptual death, this process of momentary birth and death continues unimpeded unless one has experienced 'death by cutting off'" in Y is what I will call "continuity of suffering beyond physical death" (that is, without rebirth).
The fact that the Buddha taught that there is no rebirth whatsoever is proven in the story of Bhikkhu Sati in MN 38, where Sati describes his understanding of rebirth, "it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another" and consciousness as "it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions". This is a kind of self view associating consciousness and self.
The fact that the Buddha taught that suffering can continue beyond physical death is proven in many suttas: MN 4 ("with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared"), SN 15.3 (ocean of tears), SN 44.9, Dhp 400 (last body), MN 57, SN 42.3, DN 2, Dhp 153-154 and many more.
Explanation Y supports both #5 and #6 above.
Explanation B supports #5 above, but does not explicitly reject #6 above.
There are some Buddhists (sometimes describing themselves as Secular Buddhists) who reject rebirth and also reject continuity of suffering beyond physical death. They claim to reconcile Buddhism with science using explanation B, and say that any kind of continuity beyond physical death is superstition.
Those who support (Bhikkhu Sati's version of) rebirth are eternalists, while those who reject continuity of suffering beyond physical death are annihilationists according to DN 1 and SN 12.17. Both are false views.

Questions:

Am I right to say that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu in "Anatta and Rebirth" (explanation B), while correctly rejecting rebirth, did not explicitly reject the continuity of suffering beyond physical death?
Are there any other sources, from speeches or writings of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, that prove that he had explicitly rejected the continuity of suffering beyond physical death?
Am I right to say that those who support (Bhikkhu Sati's version of) rebirth are eternalists, while those who reject continuity of suffering beyond physical death are annihilationists according to DN 1 and SN 12.17?

My comments are as follows. I have posted these basic matters many times:

Existence (bhava) is a defilement (asava). It does not mean life existence. This matter of "bhava" is the most basic & unambiguous here. "Bhava" is officially defined as one of three asava, the other two being "sensual desire" and "ignorance". There is absolutely no scope to regard "bhava" as "rebirth", as Sujato does, or life existence, as Bhikkhu Bodhi does.
The definition of birth (jati) in SN 12.2 includes the word "beings" ("sattanam") but does not define it. Therefore, it is a ordinary scholarly practise to find definitions of words. The definition of 'satta' is found SN 23.2 & also SN 5.10. If alternative definitions are not found, we should follow the official definition in SN 23.2. We need to respect the suttas rather than engage in our own personal defiled interpretations. We need to be honest and not misrepresent the suttas.
The word "kaya" does not necessarily mean "physical body" ("rupa"); such as when used in "sakkaya" and "Nikaya". There are many suttas, such as SN 12.19, where "kaya" does not mean "physical body". It means "collection" or "group". Therefore, when the suttas say: "with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared", this does not necessarily refer to the physical body. We should not insist "kaya" means "physical body"; and we should also not insist it means "collection of aggregates". In these mundane teachings about kamma, each person can choose the interpretation they wish.
"Eternalism" & "Annihilationism" are defined in DN 1, Iti 49, etc, as 'self-views', that is, beliefs that a self will continue after death or a self will end at death. They are not about the continuity or discontinuity of consciousness or suffering at the termination of life. If Annihilationism meant the ending of consciousness at the termination of life then the teaching of anicca (impermanence) would be wrong. SN 22.85 is about why a Buddha is not annihilated with death. SN 22.85 clearly says the ending of the life of a Buddha is merely the ending of the aggregates. The words "annihilation" and "death" have no relevance to an Arahant, as explained in many suttas. "Death" does not mean the termination of life. It means the "death of a self".
As for Buddhadasa, he is famous for his rejection of post-mortem rebirth (however, I heard him personally but reluctantly say in a private discussion to a young German monk who kept asking him the same question that rebirth view can help people maintain morality). Some quotes of Buddhadasa are:

  Therefore, there being no one born here, there is no one who dies and is reborn. So, the whole Question of rebirth is utterly foolish and
  nothing to do with Buddhism at all.

  Whenever there arises the mistaken idea "I," the "I" has been born; its parents are ignorance and craving. The kind of birth that constitutes a problem for us is mental birth. Anyone who falls to grasp this point will never succeed in understanding anything of the Buddha teaching. The word "birth" refers to the arising of the mistaken idea "I," "myself". It does not refer to physical birth, as generally supposed. The mistaken assumption that this word "birth" refers to physical birth is a major obstacle to comprehending the Buddha's teaching.

  Now, going a little higher, we come to the word "birth". In everyday language, the word "birth" refers to physically coming into the world from the mother's womb. A person is the born physically only once. Having been born, one lives in the world until one dies and enters the coffin. Physical birth  happens to each of us only once. This birth from the mother's womb is what is meant by "birth" in everyday language. In Dhamma language, the word "birth" refers to the birth of the idea "I" or "ego" that arises in the mind throughout each day. In this sense, the ordinary person is born very often, time and time again; a more developed person is born less frequently; a person well advanced in practice (ariyan, noble one) is born less frequently still, and ultimately ceases being born altogether. Each arising in the mind of "I"  in one form or another is called a "birth". Thus, birth can take place many times over in a single day.   As soon as one starts thinking like an animal, one is born as an animal in that same moment. To think like a human being is to be born a human being. To think like a celestial being is to be born a celestial being. Life, the individual, pleasure and pain, and the rest-all these were identified by the Buddha as simply momentary states of consciousness. So the word "birth" means in Dhamma language the arising of the idea of "I" or "me," and not, as in everyday language, physical birth from the mother's womb. The word "birth'' is very common in the Buddha's discourses. When he was speaking of everyday things, he used the word "birth" with its everyday meaning. But when he was expounding Higher Dhamma-for instance, when discussing conditioned arising - he used the word "birth" with the meaning it has in Dhamma language. In his description of conditioned arising, he wasn't talking about physical birth. He was talking about the birth of attachment to ideas of "me" and "mine," "myself" and "my own".


Wheel of life and bodhicitta Why is the desire/attachment in the middle of the
Wheel of Life considered negative and the desire of bodhicitta considered positive?

What is the difference between them?

You can think of this in terms of addiction.

For the most common example, let's take addiction to alcohol. The more you desire alcohol and the more you let your desire drive your action, the more you sustain your addiction, which makes you helpless and creates all kinds of trouble for you and others.

Bodhicitta is like desire to stop drinking. You desire to be free from the addiction. Which means you desire to be your own master. You develop the will power to abstain from drinking. You learn to resist the temptation. Moreover, you learn to generate the same type of relaxation and joy that you used to get from alcohol - through other, more healthy means.

The same idea is at play in Buddhism - except in Buddhism the context is much broader, we are not talking about any specific addiction - we are willing to be free from them all, any dependency on anything whatsoever. This is why it's called Liberation, being not bound, not dependent, not addicted, not controlled, free.

The state of mind when you are determined, intent on, convinced, motivated - to be free - which means being actively determined to make every action in context of the four right efforts - is called relative bodhicitta, while the state of having attained Liberation, or rather, mastered it, which basically means having completely mastered the four right efforts - is called absolute bodhicitta.

Now, somewhat counterintuitively, attaining liberation is not always done through passive means like letting go and acceptance. It also requires mastery of will power - particularly mastery over ones thoughts, emotions, mood, motivation, and energy. Not just mastery in the sense of being able to stop them and suppress them or accept - but in the sense of being your own power generator, your own mood maker, your own sustenance. It's the four right efforts, not the two right efforts - this is a very important point!

So these are two very different desires - one is the desire of weakness and addiction, to get your satisfaction from the outside - the other is the desire to be strong and not dependent.


Uncomfortable sleeping conditions on retreat I was thinking about going to a retreat in thailand called suanmok and then I saw the picture of the bed. A straw mat and a tiny wooden pillow!!! why would they make people sleep like that?  It seems like torture to me and so I decided not to go. If the Buddha didn't believe in asceticism why do some monasteries and retreat centres?   At the very least I need to sleep comfortably when on retreat. I would just end up sleep deprived and grumpy and not be able to meditate properly anyway. I can't even sleep properly in my luxurious queen size bed with pillow top mattress most nights. Does anyone know of a more comfortable retreat?

Google earth of meditation centre

They also provide a piece of 'masonite' wood over the concrete bed.

You can take your own camping mattress & pillow.

Since the retreat is catering mostly for backpackers, people turn up with their backpacks & whatever they are carrying in them, which they take into their room.

They don't have 'dhamma police' checking for camping mattresses the rooms.

As for taking a bath, it is outdoor, communal, cold water, using a dish.

As for toilets, generally squat (unless you can find a sit down, somewhere).

In the good old days, we all piled into these old wooden dorms, sleep on the floor & use this old toilet in the forest. At least recently there is an individual wooden bed.

This old toilet location is circled in red, below. One of the most beautiful toilet in the world.

Better view:

Meditate with the white Buddha.


A question about DN 23 and existence of soul Here is a part of DN 23:

“Even though Master Kassapa says this, still I think that there’s no afterlife.”
“Can you prove it?”
“I can.”
“How, exactly, chieftain?”
“Suppose they were to arrest a bandit, a criminal and present him to me, saying, ‘Sir, this is a bandit, a criminal. Punish him as you will.’ I say to them, ‘Well then, sirs, place this man in a pot while he’s still alive. Close up the mouth, bind it up with damp leather, and seal it with a thick coat of damp clay. Then lift it up on a stove and light the fire.’ They agree, and do what I ask. When we know that that man has passed away, we lift down the pot and break it open, uncover the mouth, and slowly peek inside, thinking, ‘Hopefully we’ll see his soul escaping.’ But we don’t see his soul escaping. This is how I prove that there’s no afterlife.”

(Payasi argues there is no soul so no afterlife.)
However, Kassapa, one of the principal disciples of Gautama Buddha, argues there is a soul. He further says in DN 23:

“Well then, chieftain, I’ll ask you about this in return, and you can answer as you like. Do you recall ever having a midday nap and seeing delightful parks, woods, meadows, and lotus ponds in a dream?”
“I do, sir.”
“At that time were you guarded by hunchbacks, dwarves, midgets, and younglings?”
“I was.”
“But did they see your soul entering or leaving?”
“No, they did not.”
“So if they couldn’t even see your soul entering or leaving while you were still alive, how could you see the soul of a dead man? By this method, too, it ought to be proven that there is an afterlife, there are beings reborn spontaneously, and there is a fruit or result of good and bad deeds.”

In the above Sutta DN 23, Kassapa proves that there is a soul. Kassapa, who directly got knowledge from Buddha argues there is a soul and that is what travels to the afterlife. But we who have never seen or been taught by Buddha say there is no soul. We are furthermore down in a timeline than Kassapa. Knowledge might have changed and we must have interpreted something very simple in a complicated way. Why do we say there is no soul, while the direct disciple of Buddha says there is in fact a soul that goes to the afterlife. Remember that Kassapa was the third most liked disciple of Buddha after Sariputta and Ananda. I think today we have completely changed our point of view. There is also not any sutta where Buddha says no soul. But he says, this is not-self. The things in the physical world are not-self. Like feeling is not self, perception is not-self and all things that are created in the body are not-self.
What's your point of view on the soul? How can you argue with Kassapa who has seen and learned Suttas direct from Buddha?

You wrote ...

  (Payasi argues there is no soul so no afterlife.)

  However, Kassapa, one of the principal disciples of Gautama Buddha, argues there is a soul.

... but I don't think so. Instead I think the dialog or argument in the sutta is:

Payasi: there is no afterlife because we don't see a visible soul leaving the body at death
Kassapa: the existence of a visible soul is not necessary for there to be an afterlife (for example when you dream there's no visible soul living the body) -- the non-existence of a visible/separating soul doesn't prove there is no afterlife

That (saying "the existence of a soul isn't necessary, and needn't be assumed") is not the same thing as saying "there is a soul".
The main argument is about "afterlife", it is not about "soul".

Secondly the argument in Pali uses various words like:

  āyu
  life; vital power; duration of life, life-time; long life.
  jīva

Those words are used in several suttas -- in MN 63 for example, where various questions about the body and soul are declared to by the Buddha to be "not declared":

  And why haven’t I declared these things? Because they aren’t beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. They don’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment.

Thirdly, even if Buddhist doctrine did say that something like that existed, and if someone translated that statement or that word as "soul", I'd try to doubt whether the word "soul" there has the same kinds of meanings as is taught by other religions


What is the easiest way to achieve a state of no physical suffering? I read that those monks who self-immolated probably felt no pain because they were in nirvana...

Is there a state you can get to more easily than nirvana where you can be conscious and pain-free? If so, how many hours of meditation do you need to get there, on average?

You can reach states after a couple of years of practice where the "suffering" caused by pain is mitigated to a degree.  The sensation of pain is still there, however.  The only state I've read of where pain might not be felt is in nirodha samapatti.  Here, feeling and cessation cease.  In fact, the consciousness stream temporarily ceases almost as if you were dead.  I don't think you can put a number on how many years (lifetimes!) it would take to reach that state.  It's only available to one who has mastered the other eight absorption (rupa and arupa) and then possibly only to those who have reached the stage of arahantship or non-returner.  See MN 111 for a description of Sariputta entering this state and the Visuddhimagga at XXIII for a gloss of nirodha samapatti.


Its been said that deep meditationl leads a meditator to another world, what is this another world actually? I have heard that when a meditator does a long meditation, he is able to enter into different world, see and hear that world. What are those? Are they just illusion, imagination or different universe?

What is called world in Buddhism is the six senses. When you meditate you experience finer senses which you can't experience via ear, nose etc. When you meditate you experience finer wholesome mental states.
The logic here is for example you can see only colours from your eye. Even if you become a Deva or Brahama with your eye you only see colours.


Does the will to live cease after enlightenment? What would motivate an enlightened person to continue living? It seems like once somebody attains enlightenment, other than teaching, there would be no reason to continue living.

"Ceasing the will to live" sounds depressingly suicidal. That's not a good description.

Dhammapada 203-204 describes Nirvana as the highest bliss.

You could say that the craving to enjoy life and, the craving to do or become something in life ceases.

When you look at your remaining years of life, and think that "in the next years or decades, I can travel to many countries, spend more time with my family, enjoy different types of food, build a career, become successful, raise my children to be successful etc." - well, that kind of thinking and emotions cease after enlightenment and is replaced with the peaceful bliss of the moment.


What is Zen Qigong in Zen Buddhism? Question is in the title.

I was wondering about what this Qigong practice is and how it relates to Zen Buddhism. I've heard that it's a way of developing internal energy but I'm not sure what it's used for.

Thanks for your time.

Click on photos for full size

Qigong in Zen Buddhism comprise the Shaolin Eighteen Lohan Hands

They were taught by the great Bodhidharma in 527 CE to monks at the Shaolin Monastery in China when this First Patriarch of the Shaolin arts found the monks weak and often sleepy during meditaion...

Lifting the Sky
Shooting Arrows
Plucking Stars
Turning Head
Thrust Punch
Merry-go-Round
Carrying the Moon
Nourishing Kidneys
Three Levels to Ground
Dancing Crane
Carrying Mountains
Drawing Knife
Presenting Claws
Pushing Mountains
Separating Water
Big Windmill
Deep Knee Bending
Rotating Knees

Introduction to Shaolin Temple Luohan Qigong

Luohan Qigong is the "Art of Breath of the Enlightened Ones."  Luohan Qigong, or Lohan Chi Kung, is an system of exercises and breath control for improving your fitness, vitality, energy levels, concentration, poise, and well being.  Combined with seated or standing meditation, Luohan Qigong can also contribute to steady spiritual progress.  Numerous legends attribute the development of the Luohan Qigong methods, and the Muscle Tendon Changing Qigong methods, to the Buddhist leader Bodhidharma (Da Mo, Ta-Mo, Daruma), circa 525 CE, a early advocate of Chan (Zen) Buddhism.  There is little nor no written documentation of Luohan Qigong methods prior to 1880 CE.
The native religion of China, Daoism, and the native social philosophy of China, Confucianism, antedate the arrival of Buddhism by over 300 years.  These three viewpoints have often conflicted with one another, with Buddhism often characterized as a "foreign" influence, and at other times the three schools have blended together as in Complete Reality Daoism.  The Daoist scholar, Livia Kohn, has researched the history of Taoist and Chinese medical practices using exercise methods as a cornerstone.  There is documentation back to 200 BCE regarding these practices, although specific movement descriptions are often lacking.  Clearly these Daoist Daoyin practices and secular medical exercise methods for health and longevity influenced and were influenced by the qigong and martial arts practices of Buddhists at places like the Shaolin Temple.  Numerous other authors, listed above, have explained the intertwining and cross fertilization of the related qigong practices of the Buddhists, Daoists, and traditional Chinese medicine doctors: Liang Shou-Yu, Yang Jwing-Ming, Andy James, and Kenneth Cohen.


How is Nibbana unconditioned? It is often said that Nibbana is unconditioned. But isn't Nibbana to be attained through practice of the Noble Eightfold Path (abandoning desire, meditation, realizing paticcasamuppada etc)? Aren't those practices conditions for Nibbana? What am I missing here :) ?

The practice of the eightfold noble path leads to the experience of nibbāna, just like the act of adverting the mind to the eye door leads to seeing light. Light, the object of seeing, is saṅkhata (conditioned), but nibbāna, the object of supermundane consciousness, is asaṅkhata (unconditioned). So nibbāna isn't the result of the eightfold noble path, the experience of it is.


Meditating dead monks I stumbled upon this story about a 200 year old buddhist monk found in Mongolia where its claimed that he is not dead but instead in a very deep state of meditation.

I have heard about dead meditating monks before where its been claimed that they are not really dead but in deep state of meditation.

Here are some quotes from the story:

  "Now, an expert has claimed the monk may have been in a rare spiritual state known as "tukdam"."

  "When his body was examined by Buddhist monks in 1955 and again in 1973, Itigilov apparently remained in the lotus position and his body did not appear to show signs of decay."

  "He said while the salt in the coffin may have played a part in slowing decay, other factors may have included the soil and the coffin's condition, adding the possibility of "some secret process of embalming" could not be ruled out."

Are these stories ought to be taken as fake or superstition or are there any reliable proof based on facts if such can even exist?

Thank you for your time.

Lanka

I tired to answer that question on another site: see this answer.

In summary I think (based on my reading, not being an expert) that "tukdam" means 'dead and meditating' or 'meditating after death' (so, it doesn't mean, 'not dead' or 'body not dead').

The news article hyperlinked in that question includes a picture of the monk's mummified (dead) body.


What is the relationship between Bon and Tibetan Buddhism? What is the relationship between Bon and Tibetan Buddhism? My understanding is that Bon is a religion that pre-dates Tibetan Buddhism but is it still an active influence within Tibetan Buddhism? Is still a religion in its own right or is it always found in connection with Buddhism? If it does still influence Tibetan Buddhism how does that influence manifest itself?

Part of the trouble is that the term Bon has been used historically to refer to several rather different groups and traditions. It is used to refer to the pre-Buddhist religion of Tibet which is depicted in the Tibetan histories as being barbaric and based on using evil spirits to defeat their enemies. Traditionally, Padmasabhava, one of the main figures credited with establishing Buddhism in Tibet, is regarded as having subdued these spirits, converting them to Buddhism and getting them to act as protectors instead of violent beings.

Obviously these texts were written by Buddhist scholars and show the pre-Buddhist religion in a quite negative light, so we probably can't rely on them too much.

Bon is also used to refer to another separate religion in Tibet that exists even today that has very strong similarities to Tibetan Buddhism, particularly the old Nyingma school, in that it also has treasure texts which claim to have been secretly written many years ago and then discovered, and also shares the Nyingma teachings on dzogchen, a type of meditation based on direct observation of the mind.

These are very different from one another, and the influence goes both ways. Old Bon had a strong influence on developing Tibetan Buddhism with many of its figures being appropriated as protectors and many religious folk customs simply being mixed in with Buddhism, and the New Bon essentially drawing its doctrines from Tibetan Buddhism and giving it a new name.


What is the relevance of Pratityasamutpada in Nagarjunas system? In his philosophy, Nagarjuna uses the Pratityasamutpada to prove, that everything is empty and without reality. In the end, however he proves not only the emptiness of that very Pratityasamutpada but he also somehow leaves the law (of dependent arising) intact and working. Does anyone understand his point, especially in what concerns Pratityasamutpada?

I took a university course in Asian Philosophy and my professor explained emptiness this way:

Nagarjuna makes the claim that an essence (a list of essential qualities that make a thing what it is) can only be stated in reference to other things. This is a way of saying that all things are defined in relation to other things, including samsara and nirvana.
The point of doing this, supposedly, is to help us realize that this means enlightenment and samsara are defined in terms of each other: Without samsara we can't define enlightenment, and without enlightenment we can't define samsara.

Basically according to this professor, Nagarjuna makes the argument that "We're all in this together" and we should be helping each other reach enlightenment and not strive for it by ourselves.
He also stated that Emptiness is a flashy re-packaging of the teaching of dependent origination.
In my opinion, the concept of Emptiness makes sense, but I don't really see how it's useful above and beyond the teachings in Early Buddhism. If anything, an enlightened person is more able to help others, so there shouldn't be a problem in striving towards enlightenment.


Do modern day Buddhists still believe in the magical siddhis? From Wikipedia on the Visuddhimagga and Siddhi:

Aṇimā: the ability to become smaller than the smallest, reducing one's
body to the size of an atom or even become invisible.
Mahimā: the ability to become infinitely large, expanding one's body
to an infinitely large size.
Laghimā: the ability to become weightless or lighter than air.
Prāpti: the ability to instantaneously travel or be anywhere at will.
Prākāmya: the ability to achieve or realize whatever one desires.
Īśiṭva: the ability to control nature, individuals, organisms, etc.
Supremacy over nature and ability to force influence upon anyone.
Vaśiṭva: the ability to control all material elements or natural
forces.
Kāma-avasayitva (per Kṣemarāja and Vyasa): satisfaction, suppression
of desire, or (as Yatrakāmāvasāyitva) wishes coming true.

Is it possible for a modern Buddhist to believe in what sounds like
fantasy or magical powers (Rddhi) ?
Do any current day Buddhists practice these?
Are the eight classical Siddhis or Rddhi now rejected or reinterpreted ?

Is it possible for a modern Buddhist to believe in what sounds like fantasy or magical powers (Rddhi) ?
If there is a belief in these things, then there exists conceptual artefacts. I certainly don't believe in them. In Buddhism, if they occur for you, - and they can occur in some quite powerful ways - they can be seen to have only an indicative value, both for personal practice and in how you skilfully integrate with others. Personally, I was plagued by these things, but given the correct attention, they served my practice well.
Do any current day Buddhists practice these?
Off the top of my head, Daniel Ingram is quite vocal about the siddhis. Whilst he is certainly an interesting character, I would find it difficult to recommend many of his practice methods to others for many reasons. For one, he teaches Buddhist practices that are far too powerful and disproportionately off-centre from the eightfold path for the average run-of-the-mill person, and some of those practices can't even be considered Buddhist in nature.
Are the eight classical Siddhis or Rddhi now rejected or reinterpreted ?
They are neither rejected nor reinterpreted. The approach to the siddhis from the suttas tells us two things: 1) to much wrong attention towards the siddhis is not helpful towards the primary task at hand: the ending of suffering. 2) the siddhis are only symptomatic of the primary task at hand. In other words, they are a sign that the radiant mind is opening further.

Then Venerable Anuruddha went up to Venerable Sāriputta, and exchanged
greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were
over, he sat down to one side and said to him:
“Here’s the thing, Reverend Sāriputta. With clairvoyance that is
purified and surpasses the human, I survey the entire galaxy. My
energy is roused up and unflagging, my mindfulness is established and
lucid, my body is tranquil and undisturbed, and my mind is immersed in
samādhi. But my mind is not freed from the defilements by not
grasping.”
“Well, Reverend Anuruddha, when you say: ‘With clairvoyance that is
purified and surpasses the human, I survey the entire galaxy,’ that’s
your conceit. And when you say: ‘My energy is roused up and
unflagging, my mindfulness is established and lucid, my body is
tranquil and undisturbed, and my mind is immersed in samādhi,’ that’s
your restlessness. And when you say: ‘But my mind is not freed from
the defilements by not grasping,’ that’s your remorse. It would be
good to give up these three things. Instead of focusing on them, apply
your mind to the deathless.”
After some time Anuruddha gave up these three things. Instead of
focusing on them, he applied his mind to the deathless. Then
Anuruddha, living alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute, soon
realized the supreme culmination of the spiritual path in this very
life. He lived having achieved with his own insight the goal for which
gentlemen rightly go forth from the lay life to homelessness.
He understood: “Rebirth is ended; the spiritual journey has been
completed; what had to be done has been done; there is no return to
any state of existence.” And Venerable Anuruddha became one of the
perfected.
With Anuruddha