When were Buddhist suttas written? When were Buddhist suttas written?

Does anybody know any source with a compiled list of suttas and their approximate date of writing?

On this page and this page, you can find the "Chronology Of The Pali Canon" by Dr. Bimala Churn Law.

Here, it is written in the beginning:

  Rhys Davids in his Buddhist India (p. 188) has given a chronological
  table of Buddhist literature from the time of the Buddha to the time
  of Asoka which is as follows:--

  The simple statements of Buddhist doctrine now found, in identical words, in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.
  Episodes found, in identical words, in two or more of the existing books.
  The Silas, the Parayana, the Octades, the Patimokkha.
  The Digha, Majjhima, Anguttara, and Samyutta Nikayas.
  The Sutta-Nipata, the Thera-and Theri-Gathas, the Udanas, and the Khuddaka Patha.
  The Sutta Vibhanga, and Khandhkas.
  The Jatakas and the Dhammapadas.
  The Niddesa, the Itivuttakas and the Patisambbhida.
  The Peta and Vimana-Vatthus, the Apadana, the Cariya-Pitaka, and the Buddha-Vamsa.
  The Abhidhamma books; the last of which is the Katha-Vatthu, and the earliest probably the Puggala-Pannatti.

But later, after in-depth analysis, the author comes to the conclusion:

  The results arrived at concerning the chronology of the Pali canonical
  listerature are preseented in the subjoined table:

  (1) The simple statements of Buddhist doctrines now found, in identical words, in paragraphs or verses recurring in all the books.

  (2) Episodes found, in identical works, in two or more of the existing books.

  (3) The Silas, the Parayana group of sixteen poems without the prologue, the atthaka group of four or sixteen poems, the sikkhapadas.

  (4) The Digha, Vol. l, the Majjhima, the Samyutta, the Anguttara, and earlier Patimokkha code of 152 rules.

  (5) The Digha, Vols. II & III, the Thera-Theri-Gatha, the collection of 500 Jatakas, the Suttavibhanga, the Partisambhidamagga,
  the Puggala-pannatti and the Vibhanga.

  (6) The Mahavagga and the Cullavagga, the Patimokkha code completing 227 rules, the Vimanavatthu and Petavatthu, the Dhammapada
  and the Kathavatthu.

  (7) The Cullaniddesa, the Mahaniddesa, the Udana, the Itivuttaka, the Suttanipata, the Dhatukatha, the Yamaka and the Patthana.

  (8) The Buddhavamsa, the Cariyapitaka and the Apadana.

  (9) The Parivarapatha.

  (10) The Khuddakapatha.

But there is no table available listing each sutta with its date of writing.


Are bhanga and sotapatti synonyms? Is it correct to say that the vipassana experience of bhanga is a synonym  of stream entrance (sotapatti)?

Not! Bhanga nana is just the 5th of the 16 stages of insight. Sotapatti starts from the 14th, i.e. Magga nana.


Phsyical, emotional, mental, what is next? I think I am pretty well aware that the physical body is influenced by emotions (blushing is an example, or a nervous feeling in the abdoment due to axienty). I think I am also pretty well aware the emotions is a product of the mental processes. When I take something for granted I am not thankfull and that is reflected in my emotions and physical body. During meditation I can put my focus on something which I would not call the sensations of the physical, nor are it my emotions and it aren't also thoughts. But, it influences all 3. Thoughts become more positive, I feel happier, and my body starts tingling with pleasant sensations.

I am reading about these different kinds of 'bodies'. The physical body, emotional body, lower/higher mental body, oversoul and spiritual body... I also read somewhere about the buddhic body. Now I am confused by all these different kinds of models/interpretations.

I've never read anything about distinct energy bodies from a buddhism perspective. The terms look so a like that it almost should be, but I do not find a direct relationship on the web. Does Buddhism support the buddhic body perspective? Is there literature or teaching related to this, or any other conceptualiziation of energetic bodies.

Briefly speaking, Mahayana and especially Vajrayana schools assign utmost importance to energetic phenomena at the level of latent potentials, hidden relationships, and subtle influences. However, we don't consider it a "body" or even any kind of bounded entity. We just say, the energy at that level is in flux, things are fluid, neither one nor apart.

If you think about it, in Buddhism we try to stay away from too much appropriation of stuff as me/mine. So recognizing energy-level phenomena but not identifying with them kinda makes sense.

Also it should be noted, that in (Mahayana) Buddhism we don't say that stuff on different levels is made from different materials, no. Physical, emotional, energetic, karmic - they are all here, made from the same stuff, but can be observed by focusing on different levels, from coarse to subtle, and these different observations produce different perceived planes (dhatu). It is very important to understand that all these levels or planes are same stuff.

To consider physical and spiritual to be two different things would be a gross error of Dualism, in Mahayana Buddhism.


Should I always put another person's interest before mine? I try to become a kinder person. Sometimes I feel bad ( guilty) after not doing a service for someone, even if it's not in my benefit to do that thing. How can I understand when it's kindness toward another and when it's "stepping over me"?

In Buddhism, there are fundamental realizations that help you answer these kinds of questions via direct experience, especially the realization of non-self.

There is in fact no "other" that does stepping on.
There is in fact no "me" that is being stepped on.

You are not just yourself. "You" are the whole universe (in a sense).

Anyway, when you can realize that then you will be able to let go enough to stop feeling sorry for yourself and be able to see things objectively more clearly.

That is what the following advice is based on.

If people did not pay for services and people just gave them away then two things would happen:

Those people would in fact not value the service/gift that they are receiving
The person doing the giving will go hungry and perish, one way or another

Furthermore, this delicate exchange that I am referring to, if disrespected by letting other people "step on you" by not getting something back in value (whether it is the practice itself be it teaching or whatever service you are offering), then they will eventually form a debt with you and a chronicity of theievery in their own mind.

In Buddhist tradition, monks don't just beg and run off after they get a meal. They tend to share dharma with their benefactor.

Something to think about: by letting other people "step on you", you are enabling them to do an evil deed! Do not let them use you! This evil deed is not only their seed of retribution but your own to experience in the future as well.

So be strong, be assertive. Make sure you are happy with the exchange! Give and take value. Even if that value is just the action itself, make sure you are happy with it before doing it and not doing it too much out of guilt or pity. If you have to do it out of pity, then try to assert that you are just "making one exception" so that there is no chronicity in the person's mind (which strangely enough is your mind as well!)

I am sure I lost you somewhere and I would need to talk much longer in order to clarify this deep, deep matter but the following things will help you solidify and strengthen your thinking in this regard as you live in this world.

Read MindOS 2nd edition (the best psychology book that exists)
Read Diamond Sutra Explained
Do Metta meditation
Meditate on the feeling of being "stepped on"... find out where it is coming from... talk to it in a journal. Ask this feeling what will make it feel better and happy. You will have surprising insights when you can open up to.. yourself.


Can Buddhists see into the future? It's said that Buddhist practice can cause the arising of certain psychic powers. This answer hints that one of those physic powers might be precognition. Have I understood that correctly? I've never read anything about this in any of the texts. I wonder if anyone else has and can provide a reference where precognition is written about.

Pa Auk Sayadaw treats this topic in Knowing and Seeing, P. 190-196.

According to the Sayadaw, follow the method given for discerning the past, making appropriate changes to see the future, including future lives. He says there are multiple methods and this is one of them.

  How You Discern the Past

  To discern the past, you begin by making an offering of either
  candles, flowers, or incense at a pagoda, or to a Buddha image. You
  should make a wish for the rebirth you desire, for example, to become
  a monk, nun, man, woman, or deva.
    Afterwards, you should go and sit in
  meditation, develop concentration, and discern in turn internal and
  external mentality and materiality. This is neces- sary, because if
  you cannot discern external mentality and materiality, you will have
  great difficulty discern- ing past mentality and materiality. That is
  because the discernment of external mentality and materiality is
  similar to the discernment of past mentality and materiality.  Then you
  should discern the mentality and materiality that occurred at the time
  of making the offering at the pagoda or Buddha image, as if they were
  an external object. When doing this, an image of yourself at the time
  of offering appears. You should discern the four elements in that
  image.  When the image breaks into kalàpas, discern all 190 the types
  of materiality in the six doors, especially the fifty-four types in
  the heart-base. Then you will be able to discern the bhavaïga
  consciousnesses, and the mind- door thought-processes that that arise
  in-between. You should discern those mind-door thought-processes
  backwards and forwards, and find the defilement-round (kilesavañña)
  mind-door thought-process with twenty mental formations, and
  kamma-round (kammavañña) mind-door thought-process
  (manodvàra-vãthi) with thirty- four mental formations.  Let me
  illustrate with a practical example: the case of making an offering of
  candles, flowers, or incense to a Buddha image, and making a wish to
  be reborn to become a monk.  In this case, ignorance is to deludedly
  think that ‘a monk’ is an ultimate reality; craving is the desire and
  longing for life as a monk; and clinging is the attach- ment to life
  as a monk. These three, ignorance, craving, and clinging, are all
  found in the consciousness that makes up the round of defilements
  (kilesa-vañña).  If, instead of making a wish to be reborn to become
  a monk, you had made a wish to be reborn to become a woman, then the
  ignorance would be to deludedly think that ‘a woman’ is an ultimate
  reality; craving would be the desire and longing for life as a woman;
  and clinging the attachment to life as a woman.  In the examples,
  volitional formations (saïkhàra) are the wholesome intentions
  (kusala-cetanà) of the offering, and kamma is their force of kamma.
  Both are found in the consciousnesses that make up the kamma round of
  dependent-origination.  When you are thus able to discern the
  mentality and materiality of the defilement- and kamma-round of the
  recent past, you should go back to the more distant past time previous
  to the offering, and in the same way discern the mentality and
  materiality. Then go back a little further again, and repeat the
  process. In this way, you discern the mentality and materiality of one
  day ago, one week ago, one month ago, one year ago, two years ago,
  three years ago and so on. Eventually you will be able to discern
  right back to the mentality-materiality of the rebirth-linking
  consciousness (pañisandhi-citta) which arose at the conception of
  this life.  By looking for the causes of conception, you go back even
  further, and see either the mentality- materiality of the time near
  death in the previous life, or the object of the near-death
  impulsion-consciousness (maraõàsanna-javana-citta). There are three
  possible objects for the near death impulsion:
  1. Kamma; again having the thoughts that pro- duced a particular good or bad action in the past, for example, an offering.
  2. Kamma sign (kamma-nimitta); for example, a pagoda, a monk, flowers, or an object offered.
  3. Rebirth sign (gati-nimitta); the place where you will be reborn. For a human rebirth it is the future mother’s womb, and is usually red
  like a red carpet.  If you discern the mentality-materiality near
  death, you will also discern the object of the near death
  impulsion, be it kamma, kamma sign, or rebirth sign. This object
  appears because of the force of kamma which produced the
  rebirth-linking consciousness (pañisandhi-citta). When you discern
  this, you are able to discern also the volitional formations and kamma
  that produced the resultant aggre- gates of this life, and the
  preceding ignorance, craving, and clinging. After that, you should
  discern the other mental formations of that kamma- and
  defilement-round.

  How You Discern the Future

  Once the power of this insight-knowledge has been de- veloped by
  discerning the causes and effects through those past lives, you can,
  in the same way, discern the causes and effects in future lives. The
  future you will see, and which may still change, is the result of both
  past and present causes, one of which is the medita- tion you are
  doing. To discern the future, you begin by discerning the present
  materiality-mentality, and then look into the future until the time of
  death in this life. Then either the kamma, kamma sign, or rebirth sign
  will appear, because of the force of a particular kamma you performed
  in this life. You will then be able to discern the rebirth-linking
  mentality-materiality to be produced in the future life.  You must
  discern as many lives into the future as it takes till ignorance
  ceases without remainder. This happens with the attainment of the
  arahant path(arahatta-magga), that is, your own attainment of
  ara- hantship. You should then continue discerning into the future,
  until you see that the five aggregates, mentality- materiality, cease
  without remainder, that is, at the end of the arahant life, at your
  own Parinibbàna. Thus you will have looked into the future, and seen
  the complete cessation of phenomena (dhamma).  Discerning the five
  aggregates of the past, present, and future, and also discerning their
  causal relation, is what I call the fifth method. Having completed the
  fifth method, you can now learn what is called the first method, the
  one taught by the Buddha.  The first method of discerning dependent-
  origination (pañiccasamuppàda) goes over three lives, and in forward
  order. It begins with the causes in the past life, that is, ignorance
  and volitional formations. They cause the results in the present life:
  the rebirth-linking consciousness, mentality-materiality, the six
  sense- bases, contact, and feeling. There are then the causes in this
  life, craving, clinging, and becoming, which cause the results of
  birth, ageing, death, and all forms of suffering in the future life.
  You have to look for ignorance, craving and clinging in the defilement
  round, see how it causes the kamma round, and how the kammic force of
  the kamma round in turn causes the five aggregates of conception.  That
  concludes my brief explanation of how to discern dependent-origination
  according to the fifth and first methods. There are many more details
  which you can learn by practising with a proper teacher.

 The Buddha makes predictions about the future in the suttas and, in one case, if I recall correctly, takes action to prevent a disciple from having a bad rebirth; it is a female disciple who is a weaver or something if I am correct. If anyone knows what I am referring to, please do leave a comment.


How is enlightenment or mindfulness reflected in the functioning of the aggregates? How are the aggregates affected by a person's becoming enlightened or more enlightened?

I'm guessing that some aggregates (e.g. "form" perhaps) are not affected, and some are.

I'm asking, hoping to better understand what an enlightened state of mind is, or in what way it functions differently.

How does "mindfulness" affect the aggregates, what's the change (in the functioning of each aggregate) depending on whether or not you're being mindful?

Is this a wrong question -- were/are the "aggregates" only taught in the context of their being something inconstant and not worth attaching to?

How are the aggregates affected by a person's becoming enlightened or more enlightened?

As far as I understand , for an enlightened mind the aggregates will cease to exist because the mind will no longer cling to the aggregates. Because with the cessation of clinging, cessation of existence … cessation of birth … aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. The cessation of this whole mass of suffering will happen. This includes cessation of forms, feelings,perceptions, consciousness and volitional formations.

How does "mindfulness" affect the aggregates, what's the change (in the functioning of each aggregate) depending on whether or not you're being mindful?

To be mindfully aware of not clinging to the aggregates(as long as they are present) is mindfulness. Logically for a mindful person aggregates will cease to exist once enlightenment is achieved.

Is this a wrong question -- were/are the "aggregates" only taught in the context of their being something inconstant and not worth attaching to?

Aggregates are taught with reference to getting rid of the idea of self which is present in most of us. Conceiving self is like a disease and a person conceives self through the aggregates. Aggregates are taught in this context.

I have tried to answer logically based on whatever I have learned till now. Hope this helps.


text for the 2013 course: Shamatha and the Bodhisattva Way of Life. Class 2 on Motivation and 7 Point Mind Training Alan mentions a handout for this class from which he's teaching the Lojong. Is there any way to acquire this hand out or; is there a text that goes along with this lojong portion of the class?

This is an old question, but just popped up at the beginning of my feed.
I am not sure about a handout, but the book on the subject by Alan Wallace is The Seven-Point Mind Training: A Tibetan Method For Cultivating Mind And Heart
The kindle or paperback is available on Amazon.


Praying to a Buddhist deity for healing of someone How do Buddhists look to deities such as Green Tara or the Medicine Buddha by saying prayers or mantras for another person? How do the deity and the divine operate or function for this purpose? I believe that there can be divine intervention of a divine source. How is it with these deities? When I send healing to another person through reciting a mantra to the Medicine Buddha for example? How does the thought get through? How is the Medicine Buddha or Tara a vehicle for my prayers?

The sutras speak about the benefits of reciting Medicine Buddha mantras for oneself. What does it do in praying for someone else? Simply, does the deity have powers to heal that person in a divine way? Like through God or calling for the archangels to assist?

There are many misconceptions regarding mantrayana.

In essence, the ultimate nature of the deity is bliss and emptiness, just like the ultimate nature of our own minds.

When we invoke the deity via visualization and/or recitation or chanting of the mantra, we are invoking that aspect of our own consciousness, our Tara-ness or our Medicine-Buddha-ness.

The Buddha Shakyamuni did teach that treasuring someone while in positive states of mind or sending beneficent prayers and thoughts would benefit another being, certainly in the "realm beyond" (afterlife, afterlives) and in the present there can certainly be effects.

It is important to remember that Tara is Prajnaparamita, she is not a self-existent deity, the same for all the deities of the Buddhist pantheon.  Some are called deities to mean deva or god-like rebirth, but in the tradition you are referring to deity means something special: it means that long ago a being aspired to be of benefit to countless sentient beings and through the strength of such aspirations and the diligence and patience of practice one was able to reach a state that helped reflect the fundamental goodness of all beings who practice their mantra/visualization with joy and faith, or devotion.

So what happens when you are invoking green Tara or Medicine Buddha to help heal a friend?  Well, the attitude you have is the most important part.  You are using enlightened Buddha forms as a fulcrum for your own praxis, to adjust your mind and heart attitude to embrace their full healing potential.  This will certainly result in a positive effect, and the waves of which may reach your friend rapidly through causation and intensity, having an ameliorative effect.  At the very least, your mind will become more adjusted to these divine states of being (please see the four unlimited or immeasurable abodes) which is of immense benefit to yourself and to others.

In Buddhism, attitude is just about everything.  Karma is intention, so cultivating the intention to heal and relieve suffering (kindness, bodhichitta) is excellent.

There are many methods, but sometimes it is easiest and fastest for us to relate to our own primordial purity through the practice of such sophisticated "spiritual technologies" such as deity and mantra practice.  There are pure aspects of our consciousness, just remember that their ultimate nature is no different from the nature of mind itself.


What does venerable Sariputta mean by "dwelling withdrawn"? In Bhikkhu Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words", venerable Sariputta gives a discourse on "The Conditions for Wisdom", which contains eight causes and conditions for obtaining wisdom. He says,

  Having learned the Dhamma, he dwells withdrawn by way of two kinds of withdrawal: withdrawal of body and withdrawal of mind. This is the third cause and condition for obtaining the wisdom fundamental to the spiritual life.... (AN 8:2, abridged; IV 151-155) pg. 322

What does it mean to be withdrawn in these two ways?

Thank you

Piya Tan's comment for AN 8.2:

The third factor that conduces to developing wisdom in an individual is aloneness of body and of mind (kāya,vūpakāsa citta,vūpakāsa), that is, cultivating aloneness of both the body and the mind. The word vūpakāsa (“estrangement, alienation, separation, seclusion”) comes from the verb vūpakāseti (causative of vavakassati, “to be drawn away, to withdraw”). It is found in only as a suffix (in fine compositi) to these two compounds: kāya,vūpakāsa and citta,vūpakāsa.10 These two terms also appear in the (Bojjhaṅga) Sīla Sutta (S 46.3), which should be studied with this Sutta.11
“Aloneness” is not “loneliness” (where we miss someone or something familiar). Here, aloneness is where we leave behind the world we were familiar with to face ourself so that we dedicate ourself fully to the spiritual life. It means being undistracted by the world and worldliness, and to commit all our body and heart to our training.

This quote is only the first subsection: see the PDF (pages 145 through 147) for further explanation (which describes bodily solitude, mental solitude, and spiritual solitude).


Any research on the authorship of the Avatamsaka Suttra? I was reading through the sutra (well, using global search in my kindle) to find references to the word mathematics. In at least two places the author suggests Bodhisattvas should study all manners of topics to be of benefit to others, including mathematics. And in at least two places, the text goes on and on naming extremely large numbers and describing how to calculate them using powers of ten. These chapters seem to have been written by the same guy-- an interest in large numbers and their application to Buddhism can't be that common.

The last chapter, the Gaṇḍavyūha, even wikipedia says it used to be a suttra separate from the rest of the book.

Kenneth Wilson was from India and he had a deep interest in mathematics till his death in 2013
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/blogs/blogs-the-copernican/article4992321.ece

He has probed deeply into numbers and found ancient sources that attribute large numbers to the Bodhisatva's

Link above has this paragraph.

  The incalculable number

  Kenneth Wilson did not come up with inclusivity. Yes, he found a way
  to use it in the problems that were prevalent in mid-20th century
  physics. But in the Mahavaipulya Buddhavatamsaka Sutra, an influential
  text of Mahayana Buddhism written in the third or fourth century AD,
  lies a treatment of very large numbers centered on the struggle to
  comprehend divinity. The largest titled meaningful number in this work
  appears to be the bodhisattva
  (10^37218383881977644441306597687849648128) and the largest titled
  number as such, the jyotiba (10^80000 infinities).

  The jyotiba may not make much sense today, but it represents the early
  days of a centuries-old tradition that felt such numbers had to exist,
  a tradition that acknowledged and included the upper-limits of human
  comprehension while on its quest to deciphering the true nature of
  'god'.

  The Mahavaipulya Buddhavatamsaka Sutra itself, also known as the
  Avatamsaka Sutra, also contains a description of an "incalculable"
  number divined to describe the innumerable names and forms of the
  principal deities Vishnu and Siva. By definition, it had to lie
  outside the bounds of human calculability. This number, known as the
  asamkhyeya, owes its value to one of three arrived at because of an
  ambiguity in the sutra. Asamkhyeya is defined as a particular power of
  a laksha, but there is no indication of how much a laksha is!

  One translation, from Sanskrit to the Chinese by Shikshananda, says
  one asamkhyeya is equal to 10 to the power of 7.1-times
  10-to-the-power-of-31. Another translation, to English by Thomas
  Cleary, says it is 10 to the power of 2.03-times
  10-to-the-power-of-32. The third, by Buddhabhadra to the Chinese
  again, says it is 10 to the power of 5.07-times 10-to-the-power-of-31.
  If they have recognisable values, you ask, why the title
  "incalculable"?

As far as authorship, there are several references to translators, but unlike many Buddhist texts, the authorship is attributed to someone that may not have written it, of unknown authorship or a collaborative effort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatamsaka_Sutra

  The Avataṃsaka Sūtra was written in stages, beginning from at least
  500 years after the death of the Buddha. One source claims that it is
  "a very long text composed of a number of originally independent
  scriptures of diverse provenance, all of which were combined, probably
  in Central Asia, in the late third or the fourth century CE."[6] Two
  full Chinese translations of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra were made.
  Fragmentary translation probably began in the 2nd century CE, and the
  famous Ten Stages Sutra, often treated as an individual scripture, was
  first translated in the 3rd century. The first complete Chinese
  version was completed by Buddhabhadra (Bodhibhadra) around 420 in 60
  scrolls with 34 chapters,[7] and the second by Śikṣānanda around 699
  in 80 scrolls with 40 chapters.[8][9] There is also a translation of
  the Gaṇḍavyūha section by Prajñā around 798. The second translation
  includes more sutras than the first, and the Tibetan translation,
  which is still later, includes many differences with the 80 scrolls
  version. Scholars conclude that sutras were being added to the
  collection.

  According to Paramārtha, a 6th-century monk from Ujjain in central
  India, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is also called the "Bodhisattva
  Piṭaka."[4] In his translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya, there is
  a reference to the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, which Paramārtha notes is the
  same as the Avataṃsaka Sūtra in 100,000 lines.[4] Identification of
  the Avataṃsaka Sūtra as a "Bodhisattva Piṭaka" was also recorded in
  the colophon of a Chinese manuscript at the Mogao Caves: "Explication
  of the Ten Stages, entitled Creator of the Wisdom of an Omniscient
  Being by Degrees, a chapter of the Mahāyāna sūtra Bodhisattvapiṭaka
  Buddhāvataṃsaka, has ended."[4]

It may not be that common in Buddhist texts, but Hindu texts are filled with all kinds of numbers. It is apparent that this environment friendly to numbers must have inspired some writers to go down this avenue, perhaps to appeal to potential Hindu converts to Buddhism.


Why are the 16 Unwise Reflections ("shall I exist in future" etc.) considered unwise? In a quest to find the Buddhist meaning of life, I stumbled upon The Unanswered Questions and the Unwise Reflections (Sabbasava-Sutta), and I am surprised that The Buddha actually advised against thinking about these questions:

  Am I?
  Am I not?
  Did I exist in the past?
  Did I not exist in the past?
  What was I in the past?
  How was I in the past?
  Having been what, did I become what in the past?
  Shall I exist in future?
  Shall I not exist in future?
  What shall I be in future?
  How shall I be in future?

The reason given is that it causes attachment to self, and some others say because they are founded on false premises.

Firstly, this is the Wikipedia, so I am not 100% sure of its accuracy, but as per my interpretation, this means that, for example, "Self" is only a concept or theory that may be false and incompatible with reality, and a question like "Who Am I" is then founded on the false premise of the "Self" concept. In short, it preoccupies us with confusion. All good so far.

Even though what I gather generally is that Science and Buddhism are consistent in approach, is Science's relentless search for answers bad for people as well? Does The Buddha (1) recognise the possibility of finding the truth for these questions, or (2) is it impossible to find the truth, or (3) is it detrimental for us to know the truth?

Is there a better (than Wikipedia) explanation why we should not reflect on these questions?

P.S. this question was partly inspired by the 14 questions left unanswered question, which I think does not answer my question. In the quoted text, it does not state what Buddha thinks of the "findability" of the answers to those questions. It only states that Buddha thinks the answer will confuse us, therefore choose to be silent. However, we are 2000 years later now and we may have better science to explain certain phenomenon. Are Buddhist scientist advised or permitted to delve into such questions?

Furthermore, I am specifically asking about the "Unwise Reflections" in Wikipedia in the bottom section, rather than the 14 questions.

Is there a better (than Wikipedia) explanation why we should not reflect on these questions?

Perhaps a better explanation is the Sabbasava Sutta itself.

The 'unwise reflections' are diverse (16 if you count them) opinions about the 'self':

  "This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

This causes views or opinions about the self:

  "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or [etc.]

These views aren't helpful:

  This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

The are other views to be attended to instead:

  "He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.

(i.e. the 'four noble truths').

And the rest of the sutta describes dwelling with restraint; using things moderately; tolerating various things; abandoning various things; destroying (not tolerating) various evil thoughts; developing various virtues.

When the practitioner is successful, then he or she will have abandoned 'fermentations' by the various things above (restraint, use, tolerating, abandoning, destroying, and developing), and will have achieved the goal:

  He has severed craving, thrown off the fetters, and — through the right penetration of conceit — has made an end of suffering & stress."

Even though what I gather generally is that Science and Buddhism are consistent in approach, is Science's relentless search for answers bad for people as well?

Buddhism doesn't try to answer everything.

Science tries to explain why the gravity on the moon isn't as strong as here; why chemicals react with some chemicals but not others; how photosynthesis produces oxygen; how the universe began and whether it will end; etc.

Buddhism is more like a single scientific procedure, a (repeatable) experiment, or a recipe: i.e. Buddhism is a way, teaches a way, to end suffering.

Within that context, and assuming that you want to end suffering, questions or view which don't lead to the end of suffering (which includes 'attending to' those views about the self) are called "unwise".

I don't mean to say that Science itself, or the pursuit of science, is wrong: it may be in the category of Right Livelihood.


Is observing the start-middle-end of breath a correct practice in Anapanasati meditation? I was reading through Patisambhidamagga, KN. From page 164, it describes about 'Eighteen kinds of knowledge of imperfections' related to Anapanasati(Mahavagga->Anapanasatikatha).
Following is the except:

1)When he goes in with mindfulness after the beginning, middle and end of the in-breath, his cognizance being distracted internally, both his body and his cognizance are disquieted, perturbed and excited.
2)When he goes out with mindfulness after the beginning, middle and end of the out-breath, his cognizance being distracted internally, both his body and his cognizance are disquieted, perturbed and excited.
3)With such behavior of craving as hope for, and attachment to, in-breath both his body and his cognizance are disquieted, perturbed and excited.
4)With such behavior of craving as hope for, and attachment to, out-breath both his body and his cognizance are disquieted, perturbed and excited.
5)Owing to longing for out-breath in him when he is fatigued by [too long or too short] in-breath is body..
....

Does anybody have a reference to pali canon(not commentary) where it supports the observation of start-middle-end of breath?

He trains himself thus: "I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body (of breath)",

  He trains himself thus: "I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body (of breath)",

  ...

  Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, understands that he is making
  a long turn, or in making a short turn, understands that he is making a short turn, so, too, a monk

  ...

  He trains himself thus: "I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body (of breath)",

  He trains himself thus: "I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body (of breath)",

Source: Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta

Experiencing the whole breath is sometimes interpreted as being aware of the start-middle-end of the breath. Also the skilled tuner passage seems to imply such as cited by some in support of this interpretation.

See: How is the Pali Phase "Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati..." Interpreted as per Different Linage?


Managing sloth and torpor in meditation? Recently sloth and torpor has been a huge hindrance in meditation; my biggest hindrance as it happens. I've managed to reduce the bulk of it but I find that it's still hanging around in some sessions. For the most part, I can see sloth and torpor trying to engulf me and thus am able to take evasive action by refocusing my meditative state. Sometimes though, it gets me even to the point of falling asleep. It's been with me now for months on and off. 18 months previous to this it hasn't really effected me like it has now.

Here are some descriptions of the hindrance in question:

Heaviness of mind, like wading through oil. Tiredness when I don't appear to be tired outside of meditation. Falling asleep. Dullness of mind. Sinking into a gloop.

The Buddha compared it to (I'm paraphrasing here) being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell, unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside.

The largely recommended antidote by my sangha is to rouse energy by exerting myself outside of meditation. This has not been helpful or perhaps I'm not receiving the message correctly. It seems to be more of a mind thing and that is the route I'd like to take to address it so I've been sitting and watching and trying to evade it. I just can't seem to eliminate it completely. I have some sessions where I am free of it and some sessions that start out with meditative potential only to be confronted some-way through the session with the dealings of sloth and torpor.

Things I've tried: bright light from a light box and also from daylight, light exercise before meditation, opening my eyes in mid-session, water on my face before a session.

Mumonkan Case 16: When the Bell Sounds

  Unmon said, "The world is vast and wide.  Why do you put on your
  seven-piece robe at the sound of the bell?"

  Mumon's Comment

  In studying Zen, you should not be swayed by sounds and forms.  Even
  though you attain insight when hearing a voice or seeing a form, this
  is simply the ordinary way of things. Don't you know that the real Zen
  student commands sounds, controls forms, is clear-sighted at every
  event and free on every occasion?

  Granted you are free, just tell me: Does the sound come to the ear or
  does the ear go to the sound? If both sound and silence die away, at
  such a juncture how could you talk of Zen?  While listening with you
  ear, you cannot tell. When hearing with your eye, you are truly
  intimate.

  Mumon's Verse

  With realization, things make one family;  Without realization,
  things are separated in a thousand ways. Without realization,
  things make one family; With realization, things are separated in
  a thousand ways.

Medhini gives a good gloss of the traditional techniques for overcoming sloth/torpor.  Honestly, I'd try those first before moving into what I'm about to say.

One thing I've noticed in my own practice is that my own sloth and torpor is inversely proportional to my clarity of intention.  What I mean by that is sometimes we take up an object of meditation but don't fully commit to it.  We might focus on the tip of our nose, for instance, but never quite arouse a sense of clear intention.  Our vitaka - our applied thought - is more like someone lazily flopping on a bed.  We just sort of hang out there in a haze of comfortable, quasi-concentration.  And then we promptly fall asleep.

Instead, imagine the intention of a monk putting on his seven piece robe before sitting down for meditation.  Or take a look at this bloke doing some iado:

https://youtu.be/byAgl-b2xFs

That is how you want to approach your concentration object.  Command sound,
 control form!  Your breath is like a razor sharp sword.  Don't let it escape your attention for even a moment.  Handle it as if your life depended on it!


Can lokuttara citta's be defined as the true knowing essence (yathabhuta nana dassana)? Can lokuttara citta's be defined as the true knowing essence (yathabhuta nana dassana)?

No, yathābhūtañāṇadassana is said to refer to early stages of Vipassana insight:

yathābhūtañāṇadassananti yathāsabhāvajānanasaṅkhātaṃ dassanaṃ. etena taruṇavipassanaṃ dasseti. taruṇavipassanā hi balavavipassanāya paccayo hoti.
yathābhūtañāṇadassana refers to that which is understood as knowing things according to existential characteristics (sabhāva). By this is meant weak (taruṇa) vipassana. And weak vipassana is a requisite for strong (balava) vipassana.
-- SN-a 2.1.3.3

The commentary here is explaining a passage showing the following progression:

avijjūpanisā saṅkhārā - formations have ignorance as a cause

saṅkhārūpanisaṃ viññāṇaṃ - consciousness has formations as a cause

viññāṇūpanisaṃ nāmarūpaṃ - mind and body have consciousness as a cause

nāmarūpūpanisaṃ saḷāyatanaṃ - the senses have mind and body as a cause

saḷāyatanūpaniso phasso - contact has the senses as a cause

phassūpanisā vedanā - sensations have contact as a cause

vedanūpanisā taṇhā - craving has sensations as a cause

taṇhūpanisaṃ upādānaṃ - clinging has craving as a cause

upādānūpaniso bhavo - becoming has clinging as a cause

bhavūpanisā jāti - birth has becoming as a cause

jātūpanisaṃ dukkhaṃ - suffering has birth as a cause

dukkhūpanisā saddhā - confidence has suffering as a cause

saddhūpanisaṃ pāmojjaṃ - delight has confidence as a cause

pāmojjūpanisā pīti - rapture has delight as a cause

pītūpanisā passaddhi - tranquillity has rapture as a cause

passaddhūpanisaṃ sukhaṃ - happiness has tranquillity as a cause

sukhūpaniso samādhi - concentration has happiness as a cause

samādhūpanisaṃ yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṃ - knowledge and vision of things as they are has concentration as a cause

yathābhūtañāṇadassanūpanisā nibbidā - disenchantment has knowledge and vision of things as they are as a cause

nibbidūpaniso virāgo - dispassion has disenchantment as a cause

virāgūpanisā vimutti - freedom has dispassion as a cause

vimuttūpanisaṃ khayeñāṇaṃ - knowledge of destruction (of the taints) has freedom as a cause.

-- Upanisa Sutta (SN 12.23)

Balava vipassana refers to nibbida. The lokuttara magga and phala cittas are equated with viraaga and vimutti respectively.


Bodhisattva wisdom vs. Arhat Wisdom This answer says that:

  in terms of wisdom, a Hinayana arhat is more powerful than a
  bodhisattva before the 8th bhumi, because he abandoned afflictive
  obscurations while the bodhisattva abandons them from the 8th ground.

Is there a sutra (if not, a commentary) where I can read more about this?

The following quotes come from Shantideva's Bodhisattvacaryavatara as well as Maitreya's text on Buddha nature, and commentaries from Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen.

In his commentary to Shantideva, verse 1, Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen says:

  Compared with an arhat (foe destryer) the omniscience of a buddha is
  higher. This is because only the mind of a buddha has the ability to
  perceive the two truths (conventional truth and ultimate truth)
  simultaneously. The mind of a Hinayana arhat does not have that
  capacity.

In Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum: The Essence of a One Gone Thus, with Commentary by Gyaltsap Darma Rinchen, it says:

  The definition of a Sangha Jewel is an arya being endowed with any of
  the 8 qualities of knowledge and freedom, such as the knowledge of the
  mode of phenomena.

Geshe Gyaltsen commentary reads:

  We do not need all eight to be a Sangha Jewel. The last set of three
  are qualities of true cessation and an arya bodhisattva on the first
  uninterrupted path of the path of seeing doesn’t yet have true
  cessations in his continuum and therefore not those last four
  qualities related to freedom. The arya bodhisattva mentioned in the
  Uttaratantra is of the eighth ground/bumi upwards and this arya has
  abandoned all afflicted obstructions so they have the freedom of those
  afflictive obstructions but not of the knowledge obstructions, since
  only a buddha is free from them, but they are still called a Sangha
  Jewel. Therefore it is mentioned: any of those eight qualities.

With respect to the verse 72, "Qualities of the non-returner", the commentary is:

  The bodhisattva who is a non-returner goes to complete enlightenment
  with no return—it is irreversible. This is the bodhisattva from the
  eighth bumi on, and includes the ninth and tenth bumis.

And:

  The Sangha free from afflictive obstructions are the bodhisattvas from
  the eighth bhumi onwards. Before the eighth ground bodhisattvas still
  have the afflictive obstructions. This presentation is from the
  Prasangika Madhyamika point of view, who say that only from the eighth
  ground onwards the afflictive obstructions have been abandoned.

And:

  Why do the Hinayana arhats not have the indivisible four qualities of
  the Buddha, the non-abiding or ultimate, final nirvana? It is because
  they do not have the causes or the bases to achieve the ultimate
  nirvana that are produced at the time of the three pure bumis. Without
  producing causes, no results arise and therefore these Hinayana arhats
  are said to be far from the final nirvana. And: The Hinayana arhats
  have some level of purity but no perfection of purity and even the
  bodhisattva from eighth ground up still has the obstructions of
  omniscience and therefore the purity is not complete. To attain that
  perfection of purity of a buddha we first need the devotion to the
  Mahayana because only by way of the Mahayana path we can abandon both
  obstructions. A Hinayana practitioner with only renunciation [and no
  bodhicitta] who follows the Hinayana path will only abandon among the
  two types of obstructions the afflictive obstructions and will not
  attain the purity free from both obstructions.

In addition, Madhyamika Prasangika posit that the two vehicles are not differentiated in terms of wisdom because they both realize the same object. At times, we say that the wisdom of a bodhisattva has a greater capacity because (1) it realized emptiness by way of relying on countless reasonings while that of so-called Hinayana do not, and (2) it is conjoined with bodhicitta, whih makes it more powerful. We say that the wisdom is like an axe, and bodhicitta like a strong arm. Without a strong arm, one cannot uproot a tree even if he possesses the axe.


Symbolic meanings in Dogen's Fugen zazengi What is the symbolic meaning behind "the tiger takes to the mountain" in Dogen's Fugen zazengi?

The tiger is in his home in the mountains (in the Eastern imagination), dropping off body and mind you return to the natural state.


What kind of life is required for practicing Metta? Here's the quote from Karaniya Metta Sutta:

  "This is to be done by one skilled in aims who wants to break
  through to the state of peace: Be capable, upright, &
  straightforward, easy to instruct, gentle, & not conceited,
  content & easy to support,
  with few duties, living lightly, with peaceful faculties, masterful, modest, & no greed for supporters."

So one should be content and easy to support, unburdened with duties and living lightly. According to this standard, what is the best lifestyle for practicing Metta? How can one practice Metta in this [predominantly] materialistic world? Is Metta best practiced as a monk?

"content & easy to support" is Santussako ca subharo ca.

There's a fairly long description of that, with sutta references, in this definition of asantuṭṭhitā.

I think that "easy to support" is one of the things that the Buddha said that monks ought to be.

It's a formula, a phrase that's used in several suttas (I imagine it's in the Vinaya too).

The commentary says that the Karaniya Metta Sutta was addressed to a group of all/only monks.


What is Buddhist debate and how do I get started? It appears in ancient India there was a style of debate that became associated with Buddhism and is still a part of at least Gulugpa Tibetan Buddhism.

What is it and how would I get started?

In the suttas a debate usually takes the form:

I hold such and such to be the case.

the response:

I hold such and such a different case to be the case.

There is no confrontation. No dealing with the other persons argument. You accept or do not accept. You are held to be capable of understanding both arguments and hold the wrong one only because you have not heard the correct one before. Argument concerning cases is held to be 'thinking out loud' and is not done. Again, you are held to be capable of reasoning through all the arguments yourself. The original statement can be made up to three times with the same response being made up to three times. Then a deadlock is declared and the issue is submitted to an authority both can trust.

Here is one example:
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/05_fives/an05.166.hare.pts.htm

A later form of debate, not found in the suttas, but found in the controversies that arose around the second Council, involved directly dealing with the substance of the opponant's argument.

You say such and such, but here it is understood that this is the case. Do you agree that here it is understood that this is the case?
If so you must agree that your argument is defeated.

I agree that such and such is understood to be the case, but it does not apply in the case I bring up for such and such reasons.

More or less the way a reasonable dialogue would be conducted today, but at an essentially lower level than the earlier form.

There is never any reference to the individual involved, only the issues are discussed.


Budhist monastery rituals I am not sure if I should ask this on this site and I apologise if I shouldn't. Just let me know and will be out of your hear. :D

I am going to go to South East Asia at the end of December and will stay there for about 5 months. I am really interested to see buddist ceremonies/festivals. I am from Romania (not a buddhist country) and there, in each region, monasteries have certain rituals which apply only for their region. I was wondering if there is anything like this in SEA as well? Or which are the rituals you would definitely want to go to? I would also like to go to monasteries where maybe you can join the muns for meditation for a day before moving on. I know you are supposed to do at least 7 days, but my partner is not really that into this type of things although he would have the patience of trying it for a day here and there. I am trying to ease him into it. :D

Please let me know what you think and again, if it was inaproprite for me to ask this here, I apologise.

I believe Singapore can be a good stop to visit many Buddhist Temples from different regions. There are

Thai Buddhist Temple
Burmese Buddhist Temple
Sri Lanka Buddhist temple
Buddha Tooth Relic Temple and Museum at ChinaTown

For meditation, it might be quite difficult as you might need to join a group to mediate in a specific place or find a quiet place inside the temple to meditate.

If you are visiting Yangon in Myanmar/Burma Country, you should definitely visit Shwedagon Pagoda. You can find a lot quite place to meditate and you might also see a large crowd celebrating Buddhist festival at Full-Moon day.


How does one cultivate uplifted energy (paggaha)? In the sutta quoted here the Buddha recommends cultivating in equal measure concentration, equanimity and uplifted energy.

As far as I know, in order to develop concentration one focuses the mind on an immobile object like a kasina, and for developing equanimity one observes the rise and fall of the breath.

Similarly, what practice can one perform in order to cultivate uplifted energy? Would shraddha (pious faith) and belief in the dhamma qualify? Or does it refer to moment to moment mindfulness?

Is there a specific meditation practice recommended?

  "A monk intent on heightened mind should attend periodically to three themes: He should attend periodically to the theme of concentration; he should attend periodically to the theme of uplifted energy; he should attend periodically to the theme of equanimity. If the monk intent on heightened mind were to attend solely to the theme of concentration, it is possible that his mind would tend to laziness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of uplifted energy, it is possible that his mind would tend to restlessness. If he were to attend solely to the theme of equanimity, it is possible that his mind would not be rightly concentrated for the ending of the fermentations. But when he attends periodically to the theme of concentration, attends periodically to the theme of uplifted energy, attends periodically to the theme of equanimity, his mind is pliant, malleable, luminous, & not brittle. It is rightly centered for the stopping of the fermentations.

SOURCE: Nimitta Sutta: Themes - AN 3.100 (xi-xv) PTS: A i 255 Thai 3.103

From your quote, it sounds like the lack of uplifted energy is the hindrance of sloth and torpor, one of the five hindrances to practice. To quote Ajahn Brahmavamso:

  Sloth and torpor refers to that heaviness of body and dullness of mind
  which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression. The
  Lord Buddha compared it to being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell,
  unable to move freely in the bright sunshine outside. In meditation,
  it causes weak and intermittent mindfulness which can even lead to
  falling asleep in meditation without even realising it!

  Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were.
  Setting a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at
  hand. A young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy,
  because its world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's
  life, or one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see
  ever new angles and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from
  sloth and torpor, alive and energetic. Similarly, one can develop
  delight in whatever one is doing by training one's perception to see
  the beautiful in the ordinary, thereby generating the interest
  which avoids the half-death that is sloth and torpor.

  The mind has two main functions, 'doing' and 'knowing'. The way of
  meditation is to calm the 'doing' to complete tranquillity while
  maintaining the 'knowing'. Sloth and torpor occur when one carelessly
  calms both the 'doing' and the 'knowing', unable to distinguish
  between them.

  Sloth and torpor is a common problem which can creep up and smother
  one slowly. A skilful meditator keeps a sharp look-out for the
  first signs of sloth and torpor and is thus able to spot its approach
  and take evasive action before it's too late. Like coming to a fork in
  a road, one can take that mental path leading away from sloth and
  torpor. Sloth and torpor is an unpleasant state of body and mind, too
  stiff to leap into the bliss of Jhana and too blinded to spot any
  insights. In short, it is a complete waste of precious time.


Karma and Contact with Dharma I'm wondering whether the knowledge of the Buddhist path and participating in it would be the fruition of good karma? I mean, since following this path implies virtue and further good karma, even if done temporarily, I would assume good karma is necessary to attain it.

I also wonder whether the adherence to the path -- e.g. stream entry, Bodhisattva bhumis -- occur as well from the accumulation of karma. In other words, does accumulating a certain level of good karma promote or even ensure that rebirths will generate good karma as well?

Thank you

I'm wondering whether the knowledge of the Buddhist path and participating in it would be the fruition of good karma.

First of all, it takes a lot of good Karma to attain human life, it is through human life only that one can work on oneself to attain Nibbana. Human life is a rare occurring. Then, of course, it takes a huge amount of intelligence, maturity and millions of lives of good karma to arrive at the true Dhamma and to arrive at the understanding that, 'desire is the root cause of sorrow'.

In other words, does accumulating a certain level of good karma promote or even ensure that rebirths will generate good karma as well?

This is something circumstantial. You might be reborn in brahma realm and you might do bad karma and then reborn in lower realms. There is no guarantee of rebirths generating good karma.


Is the reputation system counterproductive to Buddhist practice? Are we sure that the search for credit and for approval does not infect the ego of the users of this site?

I think the credit and approval system does what it's supposed to do: highlight the best answers to a question. The fact that it inflates the ego of some vain people is not the problem of the moderation system: it's the problem of the people's vanity. In the same way we don't blame on cars the fact that some people drive dangerously.

You cannot blame a tool for what people make of it. A tool is not good or bad, it's just suitable or not.


What is the Buddhist Perspective on Dreaming? I met my family who has already died in my dream. He told me something bad about my partner.
Should I believe him?

According to the Milindapañha there are six causes of dreams:

vātiko supinaṃ passati - one with winds sees a dream
pittiko supinaṃ - one with bile sees a dream
semhiko supinaṃ passati - one with phlegm sees a dream
devatūpasaṃhārato supinaṃ passati - one possessed by a devata sees a dream
samudāciṇṇato supinaṃ passati - I don't know what this one means, maybe something to do with memories?
pubbanimittato supinaṃ passati - one sees a dream as a prophetic vision

  tatra, mahārāja, yaṃ pubbanimittato supinaṃ passati, taṃ yeva saccaṃ, avasesaṃ micchā”ti.

Of these six, only the last type is true, the rest are false.

I think it is possible that possession by a devata could lead to dreams containing truth, but it is just as likely to be misleading. How would you know if your were being deceived? Much better to rely on waking experience. Nagasena says mostly dreams occur when one is kapiniddāpareta - afflicted with monkey sleep.

Source: milindapañha, anumānapañho, vessantaravaggo, supinapañho


What's the sutta/source for Devadatta's attempt to kill the Buddha with the drunken war elephant Nalagiri? Is there Sutta reference for Devadatta's third attempt to kill the Buddha with drunken elephant Nalagiri as mentioned in Life of the Buddha?
https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_5lbud.htm

Now at that time there was a fierce elephant in Rājagaha, a man-slayer, called Nālāgiri. Then Devadatta, having entered Rājagaha, having gone to the elephant stable, spoke thus to the mahouts: “We, my good fellows, are relations of the king. We are competent to put in a high position one occupying a lowly position and to bring about an increase in food and wages. Well now, good fellows, when the recluse Gotama is coming along this carriage road, then, having let loose this elephant, Nālāgiri, bring him down this carriage road.”

https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-kd17/en/horner-brahmali


What caused the Golden Bowl to go upstream? After finishing the last meal before attaining enlightenment, the Ascetic Gautama threw the golden bowl into the river and said:

  "If I am to succeed in becoming a Buddha today, let this bowl go
  upstream, but if not, let it go downstream." (source)

Gautama was not yet a Buddha and I don't think he had psychic powers to make the bowl go upstream. Even if he had the power, it seems he was not doing it by himself.

Was Gautama expecting some divine being to answer his request?

Did a Deva or god make the bowl go upstream? If not, how did the Golden Bowl go upstream?

It's called Saccakiriya. It basically uses the power of true speech. But it has to be something strong.

ex:

I have never lied in my life! If that is true, may this happen!

I have never stolen in my life! If that is true, may this happen!

I have never killed in my life! If that is true, may this happen!

Once the Buddha instructed Venerable Angulimala to invoke his Saccakiriya to help a pregnant lady. This is what he said: "Since I was born of Aryan birth, O sister, I am not aware of having intentionally deprived any living being of his life. By this asseveration of Truth may you be well! May thy unborn child be well!"

In this scenario it's a true statement about the future. There was no Deva involved.


How does our inactions contribute to Karma?... For eg:How can you justify act of your cook killing an animal for your non buddhist guest? I came to know His Holiness Dalai Lama serves his guests meat at his residency.... Is it dharma to ask your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest or further is it not your dharma to ask your cook to not kill an animal?..
So as to avoid confusion.. My main question is how will inactions contribute to our karma as much as our actions?.. Like here for eg. Our inaction of not stopping an animal being killed...

Is it dharma to ask your cook to kill an animal to serve your guest

If Dalai Lama asks the cook to kill an animal, he violates the 1st precept and commits bad karma.
If he asks the cook to just prepare meat without intending him to kill, he does not violate the 1st precept. He will get good Karma for arranging a meal for the guest.


Attachment and the three poisons Is there any dependence between these? My understanding is that ignorance is the main cause for samsara (the first of the 12 links of dependent origination). Ignorance meaning not recognizing our true condition. But is attachment a necessary condition for anger? For greed?

Ignorance meaning not recognizing our true condition.

More particularly:

  And what, bhikshus, is ignorance (avijjā)?

  Not knowing suffering,
  not knowing the arising of suffering,
  not knowing the ending of suffering,
  not
  knowing the path leading to the ending of suffering.

  This is called ignorance.

(Paṭicca,samuppada) Vibhanga Sutta

My understanding is that ignorance is the main cause for samsara

Ignorance sets the ball rolling. Ignorance is one prace you can break Dependent Origination by understanding the 4 Noble Truths at the experiential level. Hence it is one condition for the samsaric existence.

Other place DO can be broken is but not letting craving arise which results from your reaction to sensations due to contact.

Is there any dependence between these?

  (1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;

  (2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;

  (3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings.

Pahāna Sutta

But is attachment a necessary condition for anger? For greed?

Attachment or it's flavours are necessary conditions for greed. Anger is a form of grief hence you can include anger also.

  From endearment springs grief, from endearment springs fear. For one who is wholly free from endearment there is no grief, whence then fear?
  From affection springs grief, from affection springs fear. For one who is wholly free from affection there is no grief, whence then fear?
  From attachment springs grief, from attachment springs fear. For one who is wholly free from attachment there is no grief, whence then fear?
  From lust springs grief, from lust springs fear. For one who is wholly free from craving there is no grief; whence then fear?
  From craving springs grief, from craving springs fear. For one who is wholly free from craving there is no grief; whence then fear?

Dhammapada - Piyavagga


How does Buddhism reconcile evolution with reincarnation? If everyone in Tibet or Earth even for instance quit reproducing then how could a Lama reincarnate when his reincarnation depends on the freewill of the people who are reproducing?

It's important to keep in mind the true pupose of a reincarnated Teacher: "As long as sentient being remain, may I too remain and dispel the miseries of the world". If there was no one left, then the teacher's job would've been completed and there would be no further need to come back to this world. From a bigger cosmos perspective, there're uncountable other places for sentient existence, so if our planet will no longer be habitable to sentient beings in the future, a great teacher will just simply move on to other places to dispel the miseries of those "other worlds".


Submission in Buddhist teachings / practices I have heard people, Buddhists I guess you would say, mention submitting to a higher power. It was just in passing, but I wondered if that sort of thing had any role to play in the theory or practice of Buddhism.

I think I would like to "submit", and can do so without losing my mind etc.. Well, I don't know if that makes any sense, but thanks for any guidance.

The idea of surrender in Buddhism in general can vary very, very widely, depending on the particular ideology. Some ideologies believe you need to submit totally to a Guru to be enlightened, others do not. It depends on how people have set the system up in the first place. Pureland Buddhism is particularly strong about this point, and I encourage you to look it up.

That being said, it is important to mention that Buddhism is not, at its core, about believing in something or submitting to an ideology.. it is about The Dialectic or Conversation that happens when you try something, find out it is not quite as described, then ask a question about your personal experience and get a clarifying answer, or engage in a debate. That is the dynamic. Discovery through experience, discussion and debate.

So, submission and dominance fall then to the status of Dualistic Thinking, and are no different than black and white, cold and hot, or back and front. Both are illusory... Maya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)).

Surrender in the Buddhist sense, on the other hand, is about letting go of any fixed notion of self, the universe or any other idea, and trusting in experience to guide you to truth. It doesn't mean that you give up.. it means you let go of the strong attachment you have to particular ideas about the world and yourself, and allow mind and body to take you to places where you can experience truth.


Buddhism and Procrastination I have two simple questions.

1) What is the Buddhist view on procrastination, and its solution ?

2) What is the solution to a specific lack of motivation, e.g. school work ? Something not related to an overarching goal, or even linked with spiritual values. In other words, how does one prime oneself to do something ?

You get a lot of support and nobody has an inherent duty to give that suppot. All is given by others. It's a matter gratidute at least to care about you duties timely.

To say "oh it's not of great value" is fine, but than one should also stop to receive for that paticula task. And it's for sure not so, that at times one does not work on "low" duties, one is actually practicing for the higher.

If not able to manage simply tasks which are given with generous exchange of all requisites for life-maintaines, even including certain sensual pleasure, if that lazy, if lacking that much on persistance, how would you like to be able to master the Dhamma?

Those high and noble aims require people with effort who master the hindrances. If not able to master them even on this level, being busy with doubt, sensuality, lazyness, ill will... all this "spiritual-monster-ego"-things, how to master anything?

It would be certainly good to get known the sacrifies need to be done, which are done, by one self and others, to get the value of that understood.

There is for sure no problem in living a live of a "beggar" but are you sure that you might receive enough to maintain a life for higher purpose? Would a live of required arosen persistance, effort and no wordily rewards at all be possible to be lived by one constantly giving improper attention to feelings, thought... what ever leads to be astray?

It's good to be very honest to one self and do not misuse high truth for low aims and leave a lane build on defilements cheating.

As for the case that one really takes on the "burdens" of a special beggar, is really willing, than there are always aims.

Don't become one in big debts, don't be or become a so called "(derogative) welfare parasite". It brings joy if free of debts. It is a "hopeless" way if just accumulating debts. So work where you are and what's you duty for now and even a little more.

Having, having enjoyed rightly gained wealth it not only a joy to share it but also to let go of it later, out of wisdom, without any remorse and not based on possible excusses.

See: "AN 4.62: Anana Sutta — Debtless" for more on that.

"(only skillful) labor makes free", and only if done Voluntary.

So good to stop certain "ego-trip" and start to work at the actually state and place where one is, because:

  "These two are fools. Which two? The one who takes up a burden that hasn't fallen to him, and the one who doesn't take up a burden that has. These two are fools. (AN 2.98)

On procrastination and delay:

What ever is not done at proper time, what ever has not been made suddenly, one will later be very sad having not done this merits. What is gone, chances, are gone... just think of how less beings have that much "luck" you have and now, what do you do with that?

See also (especially the later part of the topic: Delayed deeds

"In the youth not managed whealth, in the age not renounced, such is indeed a wasted life", which does not mean that it's not even the best to renounce the fist part in the youth, if honestly. Today many accumulate debts by pseudo-renouncing and feeding on given in the youth and when older they have become really burdened slaves.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other low wordily gain by trade an exchange with it.]

(Possible extended and modified answer, als well as place for discussion and questions here: [Q&A] Delayed speech as right speech (delay of skillful deeds))


How to refute the idea that Buddhism might be actually "too extreme"? I actually had a lot of respect for Buddhism, and studied it a few years ago.

But it made me feel that it might be too extreme (and it could be that most religions are too extreme, because they tend to think what they believe is right, and the other beliefs are wrong).  I say that because, for example, it tend to teach self-sacrifice and letting go, and that do not hold onto anything, and to the point that do not marry and do not have any children -- what the deep believers -- monks -- do.

Let's say if this is the appropriate thing to do, and everybody in the world does that, then the world, in 100 years or 200 years, will not have human beings any more (because if no marriage and no children, then there will be no new life on earth, while the existing people pass away).  I can't say that it will be "good" if on earth, there is no more human beings, but lions, wolves, foxes, rabbits, and other animals remain on earth.

Could somebody present a calm and rational argument to suggest otherwise?  I am open to any idea, as I am, like many of us, always learning new things along our life time.

It's kinda funny to see how we westerners stereotypically misunderstand Dharma as postulating some kind of globally applicable set of absolute unconditional prescriptions. Is this not taking it to the extreme? :) Buddha's teaching should not be taken out of context and unwittingly extrapolated.

Did Buddha say lay people should "not marry and do not have any children"? No, he said they should avoid sexual misconduct.

Did Buddha say all lay people should become monks? No, in fact he suggested that monks should not work and are instead to live in dependence on lay community (begging, accepting donations).

Did Buddha teach "self-sacrifice"? No, he taught middle-way: by looking after ourselves we look after others, by looking after others we look after ourselves.

Did Buddha teach radical ascetic rejection of everything? No, what he taught was letting go of obsessions, preconceptions, biases, overgeneralizations, irrational expectations; he taught not to assign too much importance to petty stuff that does not deserve it; he taught to be analytical; he taught to be practical and flexible and wise.

Buddha said, tanha (thirst, craving) is the source of dukkha (troubled mind, emotional suffering). This means, whenever you crave for things to be different than they are, right now, you suffer. This does not mean you should not participate in life, this means if we fully accept what we have, and work with it, instead of wishing it were otherwise, we will not generate emotional suffering.

Is this not the most rational doctrine ever?


Mental Illness and the bardo and rebirth I'm wondering if mental illness is carried over into the space between lives and then subsequently to the next birth?

Wrong view can cause long repetition of bad existences, yes. So look always to straighten right view. to learn about what is right view and to stop ponder around about kamma, since such is one cause of getting "crazy". Beest right here and now!

(Its not given for your trades, stacks and to maintain exchanges, but as a tiny emergency exit out of the wheel you are, in if wishing so.)


Did the Buddha ever refute the view of "extreme metaphysical nihilism" e.g. a view that "nothing is real"? Important note: I am only using the word "real" only in the sense of meaning "exists and is not an illusion".

I am defining "extreme metaphysical nihilism" as the belief that "nothing is real".

I do not know if the belief that "nothing is real" is (also) called something else but if it is then please tell me.

I consider the view that "nothing is real" as being false.

A refutation of the view that "nothing is real" is that consciousness is observably real in the ability to understand "real or unreal". Mental suffering may be verified as real by observing that it exists in reality as what it is deemed to be.

Did the Buddha ever refute the view of "extreme metaphysical nihilism" i.e. a view that "nothing is real"?

The Lump of Foam Sutta  states:

  Form is like a lump of foam,
  Feeling like a water bubble;
  Perception is like a mirage,
  Volitions like a plantain trunk,
  And consciousness like an illusion,
  So explained the Kinsman of the Sun.

  “However one may ponder it.
  And carefully investigate it,
  It appears but hollow and void
  When one views it carefully.

Some people use this sutta to claim that nothing is real. However, the commentaries state that this refers to the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness) being empty of a self. That's consistent with the Empty Sutta. The sutta also implies that the five aggregates are impermanent, conditioned and changing.

From Piya Tan's commentary on this sutta, for which he refers to other sources also:

  2.1.1 Just as a lump of froth is unsubstantial, so too form is
  unsubstantial due to its lack of any abiding entity, permanent
  substance or self-essence. The froth cannot be used to make such
  physical things as  a bowl or a saucer, but it merely breaks up.  Even
  so, form cannot be taken as permanent or lasting, or as “I” or as
  “mine.” It is merely a lump of froth, impermanent, unsatisfactory, not
  self and foul.

  2.1.4 But a lump of froth ever breaks up as soon as it has arisen, and even if it lasts for a while, on reaching the sea, it always breaks
  up. Even so, this body is continually breaking up and changing, but
  breaks up finally within a century, and after death, it disintegrates
  into tiny fragments.

Commentary on the other metaphors can be read from the link.

This means that the self is ultimately an illusion, and an emergent phenomena. The self as a standalone independent core of a being, is unreal. But other things like trees and chairs are not unreal, despite being conditioned, compounded and impermanent.

Nagarjuna taught in his Madhyamaka (Mahayana) philosophy that not just the self, rather, all things are empty of inherent essence. Some people claim this means nothing is real. However this and the concept of papanca in Theravada actually means that things don't exist the way we think they do, not that they don't exist or are unreal.

For e.g. we look at something and objectify it as cooked meat and classify it as delicious food. To a vegan, it may be repulsive. To a honey bee, it's just a lump of dirt because that's not its food.

This means that the cooked meat dish exists but not like how we imagine it to be. How we imagine it to be, is relative to our self. This is how we objectify and classify everything in the world according to our self bias - how is something related to me? It is this inherent essence that is unreal.

Another view from Mahayana Buddhism comes from Thich Nhat Hanh's essay The Fullness of Emptiness. According to this, all things like trees are not independent. They depend on other things. They are made up of things. They are connected to other things. They are constantly changing and not permanent. This is one way to say that it is empty of inherent essence. Not that it's unreal. That means there's no standalone independent object.


Is the Buddhist path one of 'selfless offering' or 'inner kindness'? Just expanding on this answer is the Buddhist path one of 'selfless offering of oneself and efforts' or of 'inner kindness' i.e. kindness to oneself. Or is it both or neither. I've come across both themes and both seem right but to me they contradict.

Of course Buddhist is about many other things including outer kindness (to all beings) but right now I'm interested in these two aspects.

Many thanks as always

The two contradict only to a "confused" (=normal) mind - in which "self" and "others" are two separate things. To the enlightened mind, what's good for one is good for the other, because they dependently-co-emerge.

Even in a regular worldly sense, if you think about it, it's impossible to 100% neglect one and only care about the other. If you attempted to completely stop taking care of yourself and only help others, you'd die - and how do you help then? If you attempted to only take care of yourself at the expense of the others you'd soon run into problems with society and the law, and with the nature at the bigger scale.

Sedaka Sutta SN 47.19:

  Looking after oneself, one looks after others.
  Looking after others, one looks after oneself.

  And how does one look after others by looking after oneself?
  By practicing, by developing, by doing a lot.
  And how does one look after oneself by looking after others?
  By patience, by non-harming, by loving kindness, by caring.
  (Thus) looking after oneself, one looks after others;
  and looking after others, one looks after oneself.


What's the value or harm of a literal belief in rebirth? Whenever I examine the concept of rebirth in Buddhism, I cannot help it but feel great skepticism.

To put it in my own clumsy words, we have many fears and one of the greatest is to cease to exist. The solution that I have found in Buddhist teachings is to outgrow that fear in particular and fear as whole, while you're at it.

In contrast to that, religions commonly introduce some concept of life after death. Which I think is a just a very comfortable delusion, self-induced to cope with this primordial fear and with the loss of loved ones.

What strikes me is that "Buddhists" talk quite a lot about rebirth and will actually give extremely precise and concrete responses to questions on rebirth, that can quite obviously not be challenged by the examining mind. It is my (limited) understanding though at its very core (if such a thing exists) Buddhism generally denies to answer any questions that cannot actually be challenged and particularly denies to answer this question.

I feel that much is to be gained from the concept of rebirth if explored as a metaphor, but it is my impression that believing it literally is diverting attention from the here and now and more practical aspects of Buddhist practice, thus ultimately being harmful. It seems to me like failure to remove the poisoned arrow.

At the same time it makes me nervous that I cannot see any truth in more physical and concrete notions of rebirth, because it's far more likely that I am just blind, rather than everybody else being deluded. So: what is it that I am missing? What do I gain if I embrace the belief that "I" will roam this world in a new body once this one dies?

I think you're right to question the importance of rebirth; the Buddha himself didn't seem to dwell on the concept, though remembering one's past lives does have obvious practical benefits - lots more experience to draw upon :)

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote a couple of things about the subject you might find interesting:

Dhamma Without Rebirth?
Does Rebirth Make Sense?

As he says in the first link,

  If we suspend our own predilections for the moment and instead go directly to our sources, we come upon the indisputable fact that the Buddha himself taught rebirth and taught it as a basic tenet of his teaching. Viewed in their totality, the Buddha's discourses show us that far from being a mere concession to the outlook prevalent in his time or an Asiatic cultural contrivance, the doctrine of rebirth has tremendous implications for the entire course of Dhamma practice, affecting both the aim with which the practice is taken up and the motivation with which it is followed through to completion.

I've talked about the subject before myself, and the conclusion I make is that it's not that Buddhists believe in rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death - the latter being merely a concept referring to the change from one set of experiences to another. True death only occurs either at every moment or at the experience of nibbana.

In any case, as useful as rebirth may be in reminding us of what's really at stake in our dhamma practice, far more useful is an understanding of the present moment, something that really has little to do with past or future lives.


Are Therevada's cosmology and the Mahanaya's sutras physically impossible? Are Therevada's cosmology and the Mahanaya's sutras physically, rather than only psychologically, plasusible?

I read about the former in the abhidharmakosabhasyam, about all the hells and heavens that await us. And the Mahayana sutras often include reference to e.g. celestial bodhisattvas.

I'm skeptical that these things have physical, rather than psychological, truth, empirical (we've this heaven) or otherwise (we have evidence that these heavens exist). As with with classical georgraphy, and history. My specific question is:

do we have good reason to believe that physics will end up allowing a Buddhist timeline of events?

Buddhism is a definite, and it is the same Dhamma preached by all Buddhas. Popular science is always changing with new theory replacing old ones. But having said this some similar theories have emerged:

Parallel universe - Multiverse
Multiple worlds - Planetary habitability
Cyclical universe - Cyclic model, One Big Bang, or were there many?, Multiple Big Bang theory could bring 'Copernican revolution' says Astronomer Royal

Also might be of interest:

Loka: The Buddha’s Formulation of the Universe by Richard R. Crutcher
Parallel universes by Piya Tan


Without an enduring quid between lifes, how to explain past life recalling? How a being (be it a Buddha) can remember its past lives, if there is no "quid"/soul/self enduring for more time?

A self wouldn't help in this case; a self is an untenable entity - it is permanent yet able to change to know multiple objects, an illogical paradox.

The very idea that a memory can be stored isn't tenable, because memories don't exist, just as "information" doesn't exist. The "information" stored in the brain or on a floppy disk isn't information, it's just echos of experience. When one remembers, ostensibly it entails a convergence of many factors to contribute to the "memory"; given that precognition seems possible, even future events can contribute to "memories".

This doesn't answer your question; I suspect the question is unanswerable, just as "what causes gravity" is unanswerable. The universe isn't responsible for giving us answers to all our questions, but it does reveal the basic mechanics to us if we take the time to investigate.


Have all human beings got the capacity for compassion? According to Buddhist doctrine and Buddhist scriptures, have all human beings got the capacity for compassion or are some humans born without the ability to feel compassion. I appreciate that this question may have a particular answer from a scientific point of view but I'm interested what the Buddha or Buddhist teachers have to say.

As i have understood it from a theravada buddhist perspective then all human beings consist of the five aggregates and in here is the 2th aggregate of sensations. As far as i know the feeling of compassion falls under either this aggregate or the 4th aggregate of mental formations since compassion is also one of the 25 beautiful cetasikas. Or maybe it falls under both aggregates.

So in that sense all human beings have the capability to feel compassion.

When that is said i can imagine some occassions where the surroundings might not "allow" for circumstances to be created in where the feeling of compassion could arise. As all the aggregates are subject to the three signs of existence the feeling of compassion is dependent upon causes in order to arise. If these causes cannot arise due to the human being existing in such a poor, dangerous or violent environment e.g. a prison or extreme poverty then the feeling of compassion might not arise.

Also there is the factor of how much spiritual work the human being has done in this life and past lives which might affect in what degree there can be created causes that leads to the feeling of compassion.

This is my own view on it based on my understanding of the buddhist doctrine. I might not be right about this so feel free to correct me if im wrong so i can also learn from it.


During Anapana, why does the breathing become slower and slower as we progress? I've been practicing mindfulness of breath (Anapanasati) lately and noticed this phenomena. During the initial few minutes, the breathing is generally short, but as the mind starts concentrating and gets still, the breathing becomes slower and slower. In fact, some times, I feel like one in/outer breath is taking like minutes. What actually causes this phenomena?

At least two things cause this phenomena: (1) the mind not desiring & not thinking, which results in the restless energy of desire & thinking not making the breathing restless & agitated; and (2) what Buddhism calls the 'Nirvana element' ('nirodha dhatu'), i.e., what science calls 'homeostasis', which, like the force of 'gravity', moves the breath towards the equilibrium or peace/stillness of Nirvana.

Whenever the mind is free from craving, clinging & desiring, the mind & the breath will enter into the 'stream' to Nirvana. It is the same as when a drug addict enters into 'cold turkey'. Natural forces purge the body of the drug addict of its toxins. Similarly, the 'cold turkey' of meditation dissolves the agitations of conditioned mental formations stored in the mind, body & breath, making the breath more calm & pure.


Can anyone please list important books on Buddhism? What all are the important books, that are part of Buddhism, other than Dhammapada?

This depends on which Buddhist school or tradition you are referring to.

For the Theravada school, the main scripture is the Pali Canon or the Tipitaka, in the Pali language. Tipitaka means the three baskets. The three are the Sutta Pitaka which is the basket on the teachings of the Buddha and his disciples, the Vinaya Pitaka which is the basket on the monastic rules, and the Abhidhamma Pitaka which is the basket of philosophical analysis.

Here's one view of it below. The Dhammapada is only one book of the 15 books of the Khuddaka Nikaya, which is part of the Sutta Pitaka.

You can find it online at AccessToInsight or SuttaCentral.

There are also the commentaries to the Tipitaka and other supplementary writings, such as the Visuddhimagga.

Also see Chronological or other sequence for beginners, Recommendation for Suttas and How to Study the Suttas?.

Other Buddhist scripture for Mahayana Buddhism are either in Sanskrit, Chinese or Tibetan. The Vajrayana school is part of Mahayana.


Does Buddhism focus on suffering too much? The core of the Buddhist teachings are the four noble truths which talks about the existence of suffering. Other religions criticize Buddhism telling that this focusing on suffering makes the followers to be aware of the existence suffering and to feel more suffering instead of trying to enjoy the good things life can give us.

One answer Buddhism gives to this review is that, yes suffering exists and we are in a suffering situation but the four noble truths continues and tells us that it's possible to stop suffering.

On the other hand, suffering is stopped when enlightenment is achieved and yes, it is possible to stop suffering but also very unlikely even for monks and for an average person that would be even more difficult.

Does it means Buddhism will make the average follower to feel more suffering?

Does Buddhism focus on suffering too much?

Buddhsim doesn't focus on suffering, it only tells that suffering is essential part of life.

  Other religions criticize Buddhism

Because they haven't understood Buddhism. They may think that Buddhism makes person to think life is full of suffering and lets person feel bad by making them think this things. But what Buddha told is only that suffering is essential part of life but it also can be removed, that's all. And he started to search for a way from which this remaining of suffering can also be removed. As a result he understood the four noble truths i.e:

Suffering is always coming in your life not life is suffering. All the suffering has some reason. all the upcoming suffering and unhappiness and negative experience can be stopped/decreased. and finally the 8 methods which if any human being follows he will feel no suffering in future. That's all. simple. Its just a simple psychology of human mind. Because Buddha himself was just a master scientist/psychologist who have carefully observed and examined everything related to mind. Surprisingly he also discovered that everything what we call universe is just part of mind and other unbelievable things related to parapsychology which truth seekers may find interested. But he also found that involving in other fruits of meditation ignoring the main goal is only stupid thing. So it can be see that what other religious people say about Buddhism is total 100% ignorance and lack of understanding of Buddhism.

  ... but also very unlikely even for monks and for an average person that would be even more difficult.

  Does it means Buddhism will make the average follower to feel more suffering?

It only means that those who are practicing the 8 noble paths: i.e

will start to feel less suffering than other normal people. Because those people who are practicing Buddhism will realize that what they were thinking as suffering, loss and unhappiness were only their thoughts created by their own mind and nothing else.  It should be noted that anyone who knowingly or unknowingly follow this natural laws, not Buddhas teaching he will live more happier life.

So the meaning of following this path is to just increase the level of awareness, realization, happiness and joyfullness. So it doesn't means that average follower will feel more suffering. You can watch the videos made by the 10 day course meditators, they'll explain the difference in before and after experience of following this 8 fold paths.


Is there a legendary biography of Avalokitesvara/Kwan-Yin/Chenrezig? I've googled this, but can't find it. I know there is a tradition of writing legendary/mythological/fictional biographies (hagiographies) of monks in the Chinese tradition.

Just a few days ago was the celebration of Kwan Yin's going forth day, but for the life of me, I can't find any other accounts of Kwan Yin's life as a monk or nun.

Also known as Chenrezig in the Tibetan tradition, Avalokiteśvara is widely known through most Buddhist traditions.

According to legend, Chenrezig made a a vow that he would not rest
until he had liberated all the beings in all the realms of suffering.
After working diligently at this task for a very long time, he looked
out and  realized the immense number of miserable beings yet to be
saved. Seeing this, he became despondent and his head split into
thousands of pieces. Amitabha Buddha put the pieces back together as a
body with very many arms and many heads, so that Chenrezig could work
with myriad beings all at the same time. Sometimes Chenrezig is
visualized with eleven heads, and a thousand arms fanned out around
him.

He has a total of 33 forms, including the wrathful form of Mahakala
He is also considered to be the "parent" of Tara

In Tibetan Buddhism, Tara came into existence from a single tear shed
by Avalokiteśvara. When the tear fell to the ground it created a lake,
and a lotus opening in the lake revealed Tara. In another version of
this story, Tara emerges from the heart of Avalokiteśvara. In either
version, it is Avalokiteśvara's outpouring of compassion which
manifests Tara as a being

He is mentioned in the following sutras :

Lotus Sutra
Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra
Heart Sutra
Nīlakaṇṭha Dhāraṇī Sutra
Eleven-Faced Avalokitesvara Heart Dharani Sutra
Cundī Dhāraṇī Sūtra

Pictured below Avalokitesvara in his 1000 armed form and as Mahakala, and Tara


Should Buddhist parents engage in idiot compassion? If I am a Buddhist parent and a child is always messy, should I always clean up the mess they make? Are there any sutta teachings to guide parents of messy children?

When children made a "mess" or mistakes, parents could clean their "mess" every time but that would not be wise as they cannot be on their children's side forever. There will come a time when they will pass away. Instead, parents should teach their children to be independent and learn to reflect on their own actions. In Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta, Buddha once said to his seven years old son, Rahula:

"What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?"

"For reflection, sir."

"In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions are to be done with repeated reflection."

References:
"Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone" (MN 61), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html


Can binaural recordings enhance my meditative experiences? I read about binaural tones and am about to experiment with them in my meditation sessions. I read that studies show mixed results, with 7Hz frequencies improving focus and 15Hz impeding concentration. What have you read? Have you any experiences or anecdotal stories to speak of? Can you recommend for or against?

Some recent research coming out of the neurosciences reveals that brain imaging shows alterations in brainwave patterns typically only induced by meditative states. Therefore, is it logical to conclude that binaural beats can extend the powers of meditation?

Some claim the following frequencies are supposed to promote the following brain wavelengths and mental states and stages of consciousness:

0.1 - 0.4 Hz: Epsilon waves -- high-level inspiration states, spiritual insight
0.5 - 3.5 Hz: Delta waves -- pain relief, relaxation, reduced anxiety, feelings of unity, nerve cell regeneration
4 - 6.5 Hz: Theta waves -- Shamanic state of consciousness, Tibetan Buddhist chants, astral projection, increased problem solving, increased extrasensory perception
8 - 12 Hz: Alpha waves -- awareness of body imbalances, mental stability, faster learning, release of serotonin neural transmitter, centering, transitional point
13 - 29 Hz: Beta waves -- power of visualization, conceptualization, healing, mind-body unity, increased cognitive functions, calculations
30 - 40 Hz: Gamma waves -- awakening of mid-chakras, Christ consciousness

And many, many more; I'm not going to endorse these claims, but I will say this: meditation itself has been shown, now backed by science, with the advent of brain imaging technologies indicate to be connected to changes in brain activity, patterns and states, to produce extraordinary changes in the body and mind, from healing to stress reduction to endorphin release.

Before arbitrarily dismissing the possibilities (which I've observed is common when someone lacks knowledge of the facts and any practical experience with a subject): over the years I've read books by the likes of Pema Chödrön on various meditation techniques -- sound, visualization, transcendental, walking, etc. -- and am open to experimenting with any and all and prefer to diversify my techniques and practices in order to allow more "wiggle room" for the Universal to make inputs, if you will -- if prayer is talking and meditation is listening, then there are many forms of listening.

Perhaps it's not so much a question of whether these wavelengths promote these effects, or whether meditation promotes these wavelengths; rather, does one optional meditation technique combining audio technology enhance meditation?

BTW, I'm not a believer, I'm not a skeptic, I don't even identify as agnostic, I simply seek the truth and want to experience as much as I can in this physical form, if I am indeed a spiritual being just passing through....

I think this comes from a a common misapprehension of what meditation is and what it's supposed to do.  Simply sitting down on the cushion in search of a "bliss out" experience or for the purposes of changing one's consciousness is a dead end that even the Buddha wandered down early in his spiritual career (e.g. his time with Uddaka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama).

Just changing brain waves literally disembodies your practice.  It bypasses the our physical form which is perhaps our greatest ally and teacher on the path. The path meditation is a gestalt that incorporates not just changes in brain patterns, but everything from how you cope with the pain in your legs and back, the effort and resolve it takes to sit day in and day out with no immediately perceivable results, the psychological snags we have to work through etc. etc. etc. [x1,000!]

What you described may causes changes in consciousness, but these changes will ultimately prove to be superficial.  They are mere vacations from our suffering and not a complete termination of their causes.