What is the way to motivate myself for Vipasana meditation Practice daily? I am a college student and practice of Vipasana from last year but sometimes I feel laziness and during meditation I feel uncomfortable and I leave meditation at that time.I want to ask, what is way that can motivate me for doing meditation properly with complete dedication ?

thanks !

An individual desirous of mediation very often asks “What shall we do? How do we do it?” In such instances, what have we got to explain to them? How can we motivate him? The proper answer to such questions, that is in keeping with the Dahamma, is that we should practise four activities: Listening to Dhamma, participation in Dhamma discussion, Samatha and Vipassana. Only the individual who practises these four activities together develops his/her  mind and develops the motivation to continue further.

Therefore one should direct one’s mind to all these four aspects. Listening to Dhamma and participating in Dhamma discussions help us gain a good knowledge of Dhamma. From Samatha and Vipassana we develop concentration. In short we need the knowledge of Dhamma and also simultaneously practice meditation.

Some of us want to start meditating after studying the Dhamma. Some others think of studying the Dhamma after completing meditation. This is incorrect. We should select both. They should be done at the correct time.

Also you have to be clear about your intentions, mature about admitting when you have some unskillful intentions in the mind, and honest about the results that come when you act on unskillful intentions. Only by observing that, again and again, can you finally overcome them. When you really see that there’s a connection between unskillful intentions and needless suffering, you become genuinely motivated to find the escape from that suffering. This is the only way you can do it.

When it comes to specially Samatha & Vipassana Meditation, it is not an easy thing to get into as this Mind has been defiled for a Long Time. The word meditation (bhavana) is used so often that we believe it is something very easy to do. In our normal life when we study a subject, all we have to do is to listen, write and then memorize it. But, meditation is not an easy subject, as such. Meditation has to be viewed in the right context. Our minds are obsessed with facts and thoughts. Indeed, it is very difficult for us to turn away from habitual ways of thought and conduct. The practice of mindfulness is a difficult task. Mind is the core of our existence and for a long time it has been defiled. So we should firstly understand that the mind is defiled by delusion and obsessed with all kinds of useless things.

We have constructed our world either by seeing a visible object with the eye, hearing a sound with the ear, smelling an odor with the nose, tasting a flavor with the tongue, touching a tangible object with the body, or cognizing a mind-object with the mind.

Virtue (sila) is the stepping stone. It is the foundation for mental development. For this purpose, the sense organs must be controlled. This is very important. If after reflecting on an object, unwholesome thoughts associated with desire, hatred and delusion arise in our minds, we should be fully aware of this. Then, we should consider the disadvantages of the unwholesome thoughts in this way: ‘These thoughts of mind are unwholesome and bring painful consequences to me and others’.
With determination, those unwholesome thoughts should then be removed. By the removal of unwholesome thoughts, the mind stands firm and becomes calm. t is essential for us to discipline ourselves and make a strong foundation before we undertake the difficult task of training our mind through meditation.


How does Buddhism define abortion? Abortion is a much-debated topic, and religion frequently plays a role in any such discussion.

How does abortion fit into Buddhist faith?

Is it considered negative karma by definition, or perhaps negative karma, depending upon the situation (e.g. in a family that cannot afford to properly support and raise a new child, or in the case of an abortion to save the life of the mother)?

Are there definitions of when human life begins tied with Buddhism?

In Buddhism, life starts at the moment of conception. So abortion breaks the 1st precept and causes bad Karma no matter how you try to justify it. Even if the husband's intention is to save the wife(mother), it still causes bad Karma. To give you an analogy, let's say a bear captured your wife and is about to kill her. Say you have a gun with you. You can shoot the bear and save your wife, but it still breaks the 1st precept and causes bad Karma.


Can personal experience generate buddhistic insight outside of meditation? This is a question formed from an anecdotal experience, if this means that it is unsuitable for this format, I have no problem with it being removed.

Specifically, after seeing the news about a mass shooter, shooting out of jealousy; I felt a temporarily release from any jealousy I had myself. Can this be actual insight according to Theravada sources?

It's similar to going to a funeral, seeing the dead body and realizing that your turn is coming too. Jealousy is a subset of aversion. Aversion is 1 of the 3 evil roots that causes suffering. So if you realized that and got rid of your jealousy, that's inline with Buddhist insight.


Is my guilt natural? I find this troubling. My poor relationship with my adult children causes me distress. Logic and the dharma would suggest that severing ties with them would be a positive for both sides. But I cannot get over the feelings for neglect and guilt. Plus I may be causing them some current discomfort. They neglect me because they don't understand me seeking the jewel so I try to respect that BUT how do I get past this guilt and sadness?

Buddha-Dhamma & Western families are often a problematic combination. Even in Asia, some families object to their members pursing the Dhamma. Even when a person's life is transformed so much for the better by Buddhist practise, often family members struggle to attribute appreciation towards Buddhism due to their own prejudices, misunderstandings &/or lack of spiritual values.

Ways to overcome sadness & guilt in respect to his situation is:

Reflect on the correctness of the Buddhist path.
Properly attribute causes or 'blame' to the other rather than to yourself.
Keep being nice & hopefully they will change via appreciation.


Feedback - Are spaced-repetition cards useful for learning core Dhamma? I've created an Anki deck (still WIP, link here: https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/414202630), drawing on the translations available here in SuttaCentral (with direct links to those pages).  My thinking is that using spaced-repetition might be a helpful way for beginners and intermediate practitioners to grasp the core Dhamma teachings, based on the Early Buddhist texts and extracts (excluding Abhidhamma, later Mahayana teachings, etc., but focusing on the common core across the different traditions.)

Right now, I've just included the Four Truths and the Eightfold Path. This will gradually expand to include the rest of the 37 bodhipakyadhamma.

I've also included the Chinese Agama counterparts (but without English translation, so maybe less helpful unless one is bilingual in both English and Traditional Chinese).

My questions:
 1. Do you think such a tool is helpful in learning and practicing the Dhamma?
 2. Appreciate if you could try out the deck, and provide any feedback for improvement please! :)

With much metta,
PJ

Usually you have only a few words on the side of the answer, like https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/87059434.

Currently you have lots of text as the answer and this is detrimental to reading it quickly and memorizing it. So you have to do like the commentators did with their commentaries and their basic lists like here https://suttacentral.net/patthana1.1/en/agganyani

But contrary to them, you would not imagine the lists, you would just copies the words from the suttas. So it would be :

Front   What is the seventh factor of the Eightfold Path?

Back

Right mindfulness (Samma sati)
...

then a cateogry for the links, like

Links https://suttacentral.net/sn45.8/en/sujato

Then the detailed sentences in pali & english

Details

(Body mindfulness) It’s when a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.

Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ;

...


How many citta vithis are there in Abhidhamma? I need to know;How many citta vithis are described there in Abhidhamma and what are they?(ie:chakkudwara citta vithi,manodwara citta vithi, etc..)

Bhavaṅga
The bhavaṅga citta, mentioned earlier, is the primary form of mind. It flows from conception to
death except when interrupted by a stimulus through one of the sense doors. When a stimulus
enters, consciousness becomes active, launching into a thought process (citta vīthi). Thought
processes have been analysed in great detail in the Abhidhamma.
A complete thought process, occurring through the physical sense doors, is made up of
seventeen thought moments (citta khaṇa). These are:
1) A bhavaṅga that flows by in a passive state when one of the five physical sense organs
comes in contact with its object (atīta bhavaṅga).
2) A bhavaṅga that vibrates for one thought moment (bhavaṅga calana).
3) A bhavaṅga that cuts off the flow (bhavaṅga upaccheda).
10
4) A citta that turns towards the object through the sense door that has been stimulated
(pañcadvāra-vajjana).
5) The appropriate sense consciousness; in the case of the eye, for example, eye
consciousness (cakkhu viññāṇa).
6) Next a thought moment—the sampaṭicchana citta—which has the function of
receiving the object.
7) When the object has been received another thought moment, called the santīraṇa citta,
arises, performing the function of investigating the object.
8) The act (kamma) itself, especially if it was a weighty one.
9–15) The object having been determined, the most important stage from an ethical
standpoint follows. This stage, called javana, consists of seven consecutive thought
moments all having an identical nature. It is at this stage that good or evil is done,
depending on whether the cittas have wholesome or unwholesome roots. Therefore,
these javana thought moments have roots and also produce new kamma.
17) Following the seventh javana the registering stage occurs, composed of two thought
moments called tadālambana. When the second registering citta has perished, the
bhavaṅga follows, flowing on until interrupted by another thought process.

http://103.242.110.22/theravadins/English-articles/abhidhamma-in-practice.pdf


Why would existence remove my knowledge after reicarnation? Avidyā and moha which can be translated as confusion or ignorance are sources of suffering. The western term for the study of reality and knowledge is called "philosophy" which an be translated from the Greek as "the love of wisdom".
Rāga is also a term for attachment which is another source of suffering that is to say Buddhism tells you not to attach yourself to material or mental objects (including Buddhism) otherwise you will suffer and won't attain enlightenment.

If knowledge gives you a deeper understanding of reality and existence and makes you understand other beings and their need to escape suffering and knowledge makes you attain compassion, why would nature be so cruel to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation after reincarnation to make you step on the same stones again? Christian Gnostics believed that it's because this world is controlled by Satan and only holy knowledge can give you salvation. Is karma (which is a religious belief) the only answer Buddhism has to this matter?

why would nature be so cruel

"Cruel" sounds like dukkha -- as if nature were ill-willed and unkind, and we were averse to that.

So I guess that's among the many kinds of view or perception that we should overcome (in order to do away with dukkha), craving things to be other than they are -- though maybe also acknowledge whatever truth there is in it to become dispassionate about whatever is impermanent.

  "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation

I suppose you're not supposed to see them as "your" memories and "your" wisdom.

They are memories, perhaps they are wisdom, but they are, "not mine, not me, not my self".

To some extent wisdom isn't removed -- from the world -- by death, in that the Dhamma continues to exist. I think that's similar to the view that there's a dharmakaya.


How can I overcome the causes of anger? When I get angry with someone, I can usually calm this feeling after some time through meditation practices.

But I'm wondering how can I overcome the causes of this 'anger' in a way that I don't get angry anymore with something?

Excellent that you are interested in this! You are motivated to attain Arhatship! Permanent uprooting of the poisons is achievement of Theravedin Enlightenment/Arhatship.

I will summarize the pathway in a recursive way that you can not only use for any of the three poisons (anger, greed, delusion)... but you will find will be permanently valuable for the entire path!

1st training: restrain your action by following the Eightfold path. Force yourself to follow Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood no matter what!
2nd training: use anything you would use for the 2nd training, concentration. This can be a contemplation that fixates your attention away from the anger (breathing, brahmavihara, etc.)
3rd training: vipassana. Be clearly nakedly aware of the emotion as a sensation. It will dissolve.

The 3rd training is hard to do without proper advancement in 2nd training.
The 2nd training is hard to do without proper advancement in the 1st training.

The 1st training you must do or else you will sink into a lower form of existence in the next life.

Rmemember that the above method may seem like a lot in words but it's main success is in the lifestyle path you choose (animal-killers or prostitutes are not Right Livelihood and will experience more poisons than others always) and being mindful in the moment (#2 and #3), transforming the emotion. This can be a matter of a split second.

I have not referenced any lengthy suttas in this text but these are all true things said by the Buddha. I would recommend seeing the chapter on the Three Trainings within the free book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha for more info and read the entire book.
Super big secrets.


How to pronounce Ksana? It's 刹那 in Chinese, is the smallest unit of time, from Sanskrit.

My question: How to pronounce Ksana in Sanskrit ?

Please leave phonetic symbol or click here.

www.spokensanskrit.de says,

क्षण    kṣaṇa   m. n.   moment


I saw a cat killing a mouse. Could have stopped it, but didn't I saw a cat chasing a mouse outside of my house and kill it. I could have chased the cat away and saved the mouse's life but I just watched and didn't do anything. Not that I was enjoying what I saw but this made me think whether what I did was a sin or not. I just think I would have interfered with nature had I stopped the cat from killing. One side there is the food chain and on the other karma. I am confused. Is it a sin to not stop a predator from catching its prey?

"Chethanaham Bikkhawe Kammam Wadami" - volition is Karma

Did you not prevent it because mice are usually an annoyance and 1 less mouse makes your life better? If so, it's bad Karma. Later you may make up an excuse like "not wanting to interfere with nature". But what matters is the intention at the time.  If you were wishing for the mouse to escape, it is good Karma. If you actually saved the mouse, it's more good Karma. If you were neutral based on Upekkha(contemplating on Karma and Vipaka), it's good Karma. If you were neutral based on indifference born of ignorance, it is bad Karma.


Can Buddhism help me escape the difficulties in my life? I am tired of the rat race, working a job I hate to buy things that I don't need.

I am tired of technology and the grasp it has on everybody in the western world.

Is there a feasible way, within Buddhist practice, for the average westerner to escape it all in exchange for a simple and pure life?

Of course. Realizing that you don't need things or that those things aren't going to make you happy is the beginning of awareness that the worldly world is not as great as you thought it was!

Fortunately, the Buddha laid the grounds for understanding exactly this sort of suffering and how to remedy it with the Four Noble Truths.

No need to be like everyone else in your society/community. Change your lifestyle in any way you see fit to give you time to study, practice, and explore that which leads to true happiness. No need to live in a cave to do this either; unless you want to. But people can live incredibly simple lifestyles anywhere as long as they aren't trying to fit in with those around them. Best wishes in your journey to true happiness. :)


If kamma is not everything, then what is that? Kamma is one of the thing that is not ponderable.
We experience many things in life, if a fatal accident is often understood as a result of kamma then what about other relatively small things such as forget to turn off the stove, not preparing oneself well enough before attending a job interview, etc..

Is everything not kamma until it becomes a big event?
What are they if they are not kamma?

The idea that everything that happens is a result of kamma is a common enough wrong view to have a name in Pāḷi: Pubbekata-hetu-diṭṭhi (literally "the with-past-actions-as-cause view"). For a canonical discussion of this you could try the Devadaha Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya 101). It's a long and complex argument that is difficult to summarise, the Buddha works through a range of combinations and shows that most of them, including the view that everything that one experiences is a result of past actions, are illogical.

The main result of accumulated karma is usually rebirth, although some karma may ripen as vedanā "sensations". Karma was not, at least originally, intended to describe every little thing that happens, it was intended to explain how mental states drive the cycles of rebirth. At least one sutta, Karajakāyasuttaṃ (AN 10.219; v.299-301), argues that rebirth wipes the slate clean, but most karma theories allow for karma to ripen many lifetimes hence.

At least one text describes many different kinds of causes for misfortunes. In the Sīvaka Sutta (SN 36.21) eight different causes are summarised in a verse:

  Pittaṃ semhañca vāto ca, sannipātā utūni ca;
   Visamaṃ opakkamikaṃ, kammavipākena aṭṭhamī ti.

  Bile, phlegm, wind, combinations of them, and regular processes;
  Something disagreeable, sudden pains, and kamma as eighth.

Regular processes (utu) might be seasons, but it can also refer, for example, to the menstrual cycle. In this view a fatal car accident is not necessarily to do with karma, though where you are reborn afterwards is. Note that Bhikkhu Thanissaro has argued against this interpretation of the Sīvaka Sutta.

  The point here is that old and new kamma do not override other causal factors operating in the universe — such as those recognized by the physical sciences — but instead find their expression within those factors."

However this "everything happens for a reason" (teleological) argument is weak by modern philosophical standards. It's a kin to the Christian claim that "God moves in mysterious ways" - there is a reason, but mere mortals cannot understand it. It only works in Buddhism because on the whole the conditions for an event are said to be in a past life and therefore unknown to us (until we begin to develop the three mystical skills or tevijjā, one of which is knowledge of former lives).

Karma is a very changeable doctrine. So that many modern traditions teach something different. Many Tibetan schools, for example, say that karma is responsible for everything that happens. The car accident would be the result of some action or actions in the past. I personally do not find this teaching compelling, and it has many philosophical problems.

The standard view of karma is that it determines which of the five "realms" (Hell, gods & asuras, humans, animals, hungry ghosts) you are born into, and perhaps the original circumstances of your birth. After that things unfold in their own way according to the nature of the realm and the choices one makes.


What are the differences between the Yogacarin & Brahma Net Sutra Boddhisatva Precepts? This google books link indicates that there is a version of the Bodhisattva Precepts with 4 major and 43 minor (as compared to 10 major and 48 minor in the BNS Bodhisattva Precepts). Does anyone know what these are?

I will also provide a link to google to demonstrate that google does not provide an answer since that seems to be a common answer here.

I take it you know the BNS precepts already, so you're asking about the Yogacara tradition.

I wonder whether this might be close to what you'e looking for (4 major and 41 minor precepts).

  The Four Major Precepts

  Great Ones, the following four parājikas [grave sins] are in the
  mātṛkā [collection of treatises] written by Bodhisattvas.

  Praising Oneself and Criticizing Others
  If a Bodhisattva, out of his greed for benefits, praises his own virtues and criticizes others, it is called the first parājika.
  Begrudging Possessions or the Dharma
  Suppose a Bodhisattva is well-to-do but stingy by nature. If he fails to invoke compassion and give poor people—who have nothing to
  depend on—the things they ask for, or refuses to teach them when they
  ask to hear the Dharma, it is called the second parājika.
  Refusing to Accept Repentance
  If a Bodhisattva, out of harming and terrifying anger, refuses to accept his offender’s repentance, uses abusive speech and, not feeling
  satisfied, hits him with hands, clubs, or stones, it is called the
  third parājika.
  Maligning or Adulterating the True Dharma
  If a Bodhisattva maligns Bodhisattva teachings, or pronounces supposedly similar dharmas and pretentiously establishes himself on
  such dharmas, which come from his own or someone else’s understanding,
  it is called the fourth parājika.

These precepts are in addition to the four grave prohibitions:

  The eight major precepts are the “four grave prohibitions” in the glossary, and the four major precepts in the Book of Bodhisattva Precepts (Sūtra 31).

This link says that's Yogācāra:

  What specifically are your concerns? I just looked at Rulu's translation of The Book of Bodhisattva Precepts and the four parājikas are the same as what is given in the Bodhisattvabhūmi of the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra.


What is the substantial cause of an instance of consciousness? Context: I'm considered a skeptic of rebirth in my tradition which is the Gelug branch of Tibetan Buddhism. I'm asking this question to help me understand what other traditions think. In my tradition it is believed that rebirth is a semi-obscure phenomena the truth of which can be fully known through reasoning alone. I have a hard time understanding how and do not find any line of reasoning I've heard to be particularly convincing.

The strongest reasoning I've seen others in my tradition give for rebirth is that each instance of consciousness must have a substantial cause. And that brain/matter cannot be that substantial cause because brain and consciousness are fundamentally of two different natures. Therefore, each instance must have been proceeded by a previous instance as its substantial cause leading to an infinite regress/progress back/forward in time.

Here is an excerpt from His Holiness the Dalai Lama's book - Kindness, Clarity and Insight - where he briefly summarizes this reasoning:

  "... the nature of
  the mind is mere luminosity and knowing. Mind is something that has
  the capacity of appearing in the aspect of whatsoever object through
  the force of the object’s casting its aspect to it and is an entity of
  mere clarity and cognition, with a nature of experience. It
  disintegrates moment by moment. However, among its many
  causes—classified into substantial cause and cooperative conditions—it
  must, as an entity of conscious experience, have as its substantial
  cause an immediately preceding cause which is a former moment of consciousness. It is not
  possible for an entity with the character of luminosity and knowing to
  be produced from external material elements as its substantial cause.
  Similarly, an internal mind cannot act as the substantial cause of
  external elements. Since each moment of consciousness requires a
  former moment of consciousness as its substantial cause, there is no
  way but to posit that the basic continuum of mind is beginningless.
  Some specific types of minds [such as desire for an automobile] have a
  beginning and end, whereas other types [such as the ignorance
  conceiving inherent existence] have, in terms of their continuum, no
  beginning but an end. However, neither a beginning nor an end can be
  posited to the mind of luminosity and knowing. Therefore, although
  mind disintegrates moment by moment, its continuum is beginningless."

I believe this reasoning is basically equivalent to Chalmer's Hard Problem of Consciousness. To be clear, I think it is a hard problem for scientific reductionists who believe that consciousness can be reduced to physical matter and energy arranged in a specific way.

On the other hand, it is also equivalent in a different formulation to another famously hard problem: Descarte's famous mind/body problem which assumes the dichotomy of mind/body above and then asks if these are of such fundamentally different natures, then how do they interact? It would seem that positing any mechanism of interaction would betray the original assumption: that they are so fundamentally different that one could never give rise to the other... that they could never touch if you will.

Which leads to the question: what is the substantial cause of an instance of consciousness?

Mind
Matter
Both
Neither
Pineal gland did it!

Would prefer answers with reasoning to help me understand.

In his commentary to Kamalashila's Stages of Meditation, His Holiness the Dalaï-Lama lists 5 types of causes:

  All those phenomena that  are produced at some times but not others
  depend on causes and conditions, and they are of various types. Causes
  are of different types, such as (1) substantial cause, (2) direct
  cause, (3) indirect cause, (4) cause of equal state, (5) concomitant
  cause, and so forth.

He gives a definition of substantial cause:

  [A substantial cause is] A cause that primarily produces its result as its
  substantial continuity; e.g., production of a sprout from a seed.

In 'Kindness, clarity and insight', HHDL says:

  It is not possible for consciousness to be produced from matter as its
  substantial cause. Once consciousness is produced from a former moment
  of consciousness, a beginning to the continuum of consciousness cannot
  be posited.

In addition, in 'Consciousness at the Crossroards', HHDL gives an interesting line of reasoning establishing that matter (form) is not the substantial cause of awareness:

  Specifically, the awareness must have a substantial cause. Now if the
  substantial cause of awareness is matter, then why is it that some
  things have no consciousness, and other things, such as animals, have
  consciousness?

In Pali and Sanskrit, 'substantial cause' is Upādāna. Regardless of contexts where it refers to specifics, literally it translates fuel. The Tibetan for substantial cause is nyer len.

In 'Buddhist Philosophy: Losang Gönchok’s Short Commentary to Jamyang Shayba’s Root Text on Tenets, by Daniel Cozort and Craig Preston, Jamyang Shayba says:

  Because of being a mind, it is established that [another mind]
  precedes it.

And Losang Gönchok comments:

  The subject, a knower [i.e., a mind] just after conception, is
  preceded by a mind that is its substantial cause because of being a
  knower. The subject, the final mind of death of a common being, is
  able to generate the mind that is its impelled object because of being
  a knower having desire, such as a prior main consciousness.

With respect to the ancillary topic (rebirth) it says:

  Because of movement [to activities immediately after birth] and memory
  [of former lives] also, [the existence of former lives is
  established]. Moreover, since a calf who has just been born seeks the
  milk of the teat and since with respect to animals, etc., the mind
  moves to activities of eating grass and engaging in desire without
  being taught, one can understand that this is done due to the
  conditioning of previous lifetimes. Also, memories of former lifetimes
  exist, and matter cannot act as a substantial cause to produce
  consciousness.


Buddha is a God or different God's level misconception in Buddhism System Subject refers, many people from other religions might think Buddha is a God or Buddhist is serving the lord of Buddhism (God alike) whom is the Buddha. This is creating discomfort feeling from them, i think somebody from Christian or Muslim background will understand this. Or they will think i am challenging /against what is written in Bible/Muslim Quran that they believe is written truths.
I am seeking for an "short/wisdom or effective answer" to purify their feeling. Longer explanation will trigger the discomfort/challenging/anxiety feeling from them.
These actions below may trigger discomfort where it has nothing to do with religion base on personal common sense and they will think i am serving God of Buddhism.

Practicing vegetarian -> A way of compassion practicing and just simply being healthy?

Yoga/Acupuncture has history relationship with Buddhism/Taoism -> This is just simply a good health exercise but they will think this is a gateway to the opponent religions from them self. Well, many Christian has also allowed even performing Yoga in Church but some had banned it.

Visit a Doctor with strong Buddhism belief --> they will think this is a gateway to the opponent religions.

They might have all these misconception from the link below?
https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/4-ways-christians-can-respond-to-a-satanic-statue
Well, i answered Mr. Gautama is not God, a human being like us and just a superior teacher? Mr Gautama doesn't need my service or "worship". I would rather think Mr. Gautama served me more than i serve him as i always used to go temple to eat free vegetarian or getting smart answer/solution (i.e. this forum) --> correct my statement if i am making un-wise or false statement.
Or can i call him Doctor Gautama? Sound better to others? Or Something more purifying?

You can portray Gautama Buddha as an ordinary man who lived 2500 years ago, who found the way to end suffering and attain true happiness.
He discovered that suffering is mostly a mental condition. Thus, Gautama Buddha became history's most illustrious psychologist.
To support this claim, you can quote the first 6 verses of the Dhammapada. Part of these verses sound similar to Jesus' turning the other cheek, thus making Gautama Buddha appear compatible with Jesus in just this way.
Also, statues of Gautama Buddha are just for inspirational purposes, similar to statues of Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi.


How can I build up to being able to get into the full lotus position? When I meditate, I usually sit in what is referred to in the United States as Indian style.  The problem with this position is twofold: 1) It isn't very stable and 2) after ~15 minutes I find myself straining to keep upright.  I have been told that the full lotus position is more stable since the legs are symmetric and both knees are on the ground.  I've tried to get myself into the position, but I am not even flexible enough to get into the half lotus position (one foot on the other knee).

My question is: If I am willing to work at it daily; what is the best way to get my legs flexible enough to sit in the full lotus position?

*Picture from "Tanumânasî en Meditacion Loto Padmasana" by Jesús Bonilla (Tanumânasî) - Retiros de yoga. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

Yoga is very helpful, especially aspects that deal with opening the hips and stretching the legs. It is best not to force it or you could hurt the body.
A cushion or zafu under the tail bone and buttocks can elevate the body sufficiently so crosslegged is more comfortable.
Some people sit Japanese style with legs folded under sitting on your heels and or supported by a zafu.
Sitting in a chair with a straight back and feet on the ground is a valid method of meditating. The position will open up and be comfortable over years as the practice opens up the locked up sections of the body.

Here is a youtube video that especially works on opening for beginners. Adrienne has many yoga videos. She seems like a meditator as she encourages mindfulness expecially in 2nd video. She is conservatively dressed and friendly in her approach. I find her a helpful teacher that does not provide unneeded distractions.

20 minutes complete beginners - very doable sequence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYKMP6rOE

40 minute longer more meditative from the preview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ6NfFIr2jw&list=PLqkIhuaKSFbuaG3i9cBpO7E0dAKnd-MAu

Accepting where you are is important. You are right where you need to be. You are opening in a very natural way. Namaste.


What is the minimum amount of time needed for a productive meditation sit? This question leads on from the comments on this post

What is the minimum amount of time that one could productively sit in meditation? For instance if I only had five minutes to sit should I do it or would the time be so short that I should just not delude myself with the pretense of a 5 minute meditation. What about 10 minutes does this change it? Or the other extreme could I sit for a minute - would it be worth it?

I would be interested if anyone could give references from established teachers past or present on recommended guidelines, practices around this.

My answer is based on oral transmission from Vajrayana teachers and thus I am unable to provide references.

I've been told that every meditation, however short, will bring about positive results and the only worthless meditation is the one you never did. Imagine that over a period of a month one could sit only for one minute a day but never did thinking that it is worthless. If they actually sat down, they would have done 30 minutes of meditation in total, which, admittedly, is nothing particular, but they would also form a great habit by doing one thing 30 days in a row. It means that 30 times they stopped doing their worldly activities and sat down to change something in their life.

Keeping a meditation session short is actually a common advice for beginners. Meditation should not be perceived as a difficult duty but rather as the best gift one can give to oneself. If one starts off too ambitiously, after a week they would connect 'meditation' with 'sore back', 'confusion', 'uncontrollable thoughts', 'drowsiness' etc. To prevent this, it's better to sit for a few minutes and finish the session while still feeling fresh. Then one will form positive connotations about meditation and will willingly sit down next time and possibly won't be bothered too much with prolonging the sessions step by step.

In Buddhism, one is not interested in immediate results as following Buddha's teachings is a long journey and many lifetimes might pass before one reaches enlightenment. One should do whatever is possible in the current situation and everything that is done with the motivation to follow Buddha's path should be considered productive.

Practising meditation is a very individual issue and coming up with a universal minimum value wouldn't help anyone. Everyone meditates as much as they can and want. If one can only do one minute a day due to a busy schedule, all they can do is to possibly make wishes that soon their conditions will change and they will be able to find more time. There are cases, however, that the reason why people meditate only a little lies elsewhere. They are again busy, but this time with things like browsing Internet, meaningless chatting, gossiping, napping etc. My point is that there is no use making a hard rule about meditation time, rather one might reflect on why they meditate that amount of time and not any more. Checking one's motivation and contemplating on impermanence might help in deciding whether one wants to meditate more.


If everyting comes from emptyness than what is energy Buddha tells that everything originates from nothingness, emptyness, sunyata. but how can that be possible. how can something come from nothing. what is logical meaning of this? he says that space, time and matter/energy is just and illusion because everything originates from sunyata by our conciousness, what is that?

Emptiness doesn't mean 'vacuum' or 'nothingness' (this view is refered to as nihilism sometimes in Buddhism). It means empty of self, or 'self-existence'.

In other words things are what they appear to be, and nothing else. The names you give to things, the thoughts, opinions you have about them, woven by your desires, fears, speculations etc. are transitory fabrications of your mind.

These fabrications are useful for remembering where you left your car keys, but become troublesome if you begin to believe in them as reality. So the Buddha reminds us that everything is in fact empty.


Role of food as an allowed monastic luxury Whenever the Buddha and his retinue were invited to the palace of a great King or a big merchant, the suttas don't forget to mention the feast was delicious and rich.

  Then King Prasenajit, for the sake of his father, the late king,
  arranged on the day of mourning a vegetarian feast and invited the
  Buddha to the side rooms of the palace. He welcomed the Tathagata in
  person with a vast array of superb delicacies of unsurpassed wonderful
  flavors and himself invited the great Bodhisattvas. SS 1:121

Of course the Buddha was never attached to such things, as we are told he ate grass meant to feed horses offered by a stablehand with the same beatific smile as he ate palace delicacies.

Yet, how is it that when high beds, and perfumes and all manner of luxuries are disallowed, throwing a feast or banquet is actually encouraged as a means of merit making for the lay follower? Especially when one considers how this sets apart the poor lay follower who can only afford to feed the occasional monk on his alms rounds.

A casual analysis of monastic accounts over the ages reveals to me a general tendency for monks to even look forward to such feasts. I can imagine there are good reasons for this loophole - after all, a feast probably was a good source of much needed calories while living in the forest.

Still it is one of those odd things - who in their right mind could think they could honor the Buddha with a feast? If anything, he probably favored the simple flavors of fruits of the forest over puddings and rich food.

Actually, high beds and seats are not disallowed; making them is. It's not really so cut and dried, and the Buddha seems to have allowed for the fact that (some) luxury is not the problem; attachment is.

  throwing a feast or banquet is actually encouraged as a means of merit making for the lay follower?

Not in the texts, it isn't. It is actually stated rather simply as "refined food both hard and soft". If anything, the point is to make mention of the rich people putting care and sincerity into their gift, which is very important for cultivating wholesome mind states.

  Especially when one considers how this sets apart the poor lay follower who can only afford to feed the occasional monk on his alms rounds.

The texts often make mention of the greatness of poor people giving coarse fare according to or beyond their means. The important point is one's quality of mind.

  who in their right mind could think they could honor the Buddha with a feast? If anything, he probably favored the simple flavors of fruits of the forest over puddings and rich food.

Not according to the Buddha; he was raised as a prince and his palate was quite refined; when he first went on alms as a bodhisatta, he said that it felt like his stomach was going to come out of his throat in protest of the coarse fare. I think it is unfair, though, to suggest that the Buddha favoured any type of fare. He did praise a monk who  separated his food into wholesome and unwholesome once, though, so there is that.


Punishments for breaking vinaya rules Are there any punishments if a monk breaks vinaya rule on purpose..? ,if there is punishment ,then who would administer that punishment..?.How does buddhism deal with vinaya rule breakers..?

In theory the Pāṭimokkha Rules: Intro | Bhikkhus' | Bhikkhunis' is the basic code of monastic discipline, consisting of 227 rules for monks (bhikkhus) and 311 for nuns. It lays down offences and punishments leading to a maximum of expulsion from the order. The punishment is typically decided by the Sangha, but the presiding abbot may decide on occasion when it is not feasible to assemble the sangha.

http://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/buddhist-monastic-discipline/d/doc4046.html

  The code of the Pātimokkha itself, in its details of disciplinary
  procedure, recommends certain forms of penalties for the categories of
  major offences. The Pārājika, being the gravest of the monastic
  offences, admits of no remedies or atonements. The penalty for
  Pārājika offences being complete ex-communication and loss of monastic
  status, it is spontaneously brought about by the commission of the
  crime.

  All offences other than the Prājika are remediable in that every
  offender, barring one who is guilty of a Pārājika offence, who submits
  himself to the specified penalties and punishments and behaves himself
  in accordance with the law is considered as being purged of his guilt.
  The Saṇghādisesas include a host of offences for which specified
  penalties are to be imposed by the Saṇgha, taking into consideration
  the circumstances attendant on the commission of the crime.

In practice, it appears to vary depending on the monastery/monastic order, the country and the culture - barring the grave offences, there appears to be a lot of leeway in how the offences are viewed.

Some countries like Thailand have in the past got involved in the disciplining of monks because the monastic order itself wasn't doing enough, or because the state was outraged by certain infamous incidents.

While it appears that punishments are generally very rare in most Buddhist countries, Japanese Zen monasteries are famous for offering very tough disciplinary punishments for the smallest of offences, often decided solely by the abbot. So obviously culture has a large role to play in all this.

A strict reading of the Pāṭimokkha would make cooking an offence worthy of confession. However, monks have to adapt to new cultures and times - for example the monks and nuns of the Plum Village order in France under the tradition of Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh do their own cooking and even cook for lay people  because it is nearly impossible to go on alms rounds in the countryside where they live.

The Buddha was rather pragmatic about the rules it would appear,

  AN 3.83: Vajjiputta Sutta — The Vajjian Monk {A i 230; Thai 3.85} [Thanissaro]. A monk who is having difficulty following all the Pāṭimokkha training rules can boil them all down to these three: the training in heightened virtue, the training in heightened mind, the training in heightened discernment.


Understanding Mindfulness through outwardly qualities Is absent-mindedness, the opposite of Mindfulness? If someone forgets to buy grocery on the way home despite having planned, does it necessarily mean he is very less mindful?

Do these qualities somehow affect each other?

More generally, Is there a way to notice in practical aspects of life how mindful someone is? If some one is sharp, is he necessarily mindful? If contemplative?

Does any out worldly character indicate mindful nature or the lack there of?

I believe you asked this exact question on our monk radio broadcast last week. Here's the answer, for reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwDVIzD3O00


What would Buddhists do to get rid of the feeling of insecurity in relationships? Sometimes I feel insecure and worry about my current relationship. I try to live with mindfulness each day, but it seems very hard because I still cannot forget my bad past experience. What should I do ?

Insecurity is caused by wanting permanence, is it not? We feel fear and insecurity when we are anxious about the root anchors of our life being unstable.

In truth, one who understands anicca knows nothing is permanent. At a very deep level we must see that resting on inherently unstable emotional platforms and expecting stability is folly.

There is no easy cure for this. We must  at the very least learn to dissociate our identity and sense of self from worldly factors such as a job, a relationship, a degree, a house, a bank balance etc. This can be done through any of the several forms of vipassana.

In the end, we must lose all sense of self by seeing its illusory nature.

What helps me is to take time out to go on a retreat and try to solve a sticky problem in my life through better understanding of anicca, anatta and dukkha.

ULTIMATELY, there can be no perfect relationship where no one hurts the other, or misunderstands. If there were such perfection possible, then that would replace the dhamma, and everyone would aspire for the perfect parent or partner. These imperfections in relationships are our teachers, helping us realize the futility of chasing happiness in relatives and family. Every pleasure carries with it a tragedy - pleasure and pain cannot be separated. One can only go beyond both.

Update: (This was part of my original answer but because of a bug in the mobile client of StackExchange it didn't get posted.)

Here is a short meditation mindfulness exercise by Thich Nhat Hanh to deal with anxiety in the immediate moment.

  Sit comfortably. Close your eyes if possible. Gently focus your
  attention on your breathing. Don’t worry about deepening or
  controlling it in any way…just notice.

  As your breathe in, say to yourself “I am breathing in.”

  As you breathe out, say to yourself “I am breathing out.”

  Continue for one minute.

  The effects are cumulative, so the more often you do it, the faster
  your overall level of calm increases.

  “Breathing in, I calm body and mind. Breathing out, I smile. Dwelling
  in the present moment I know this is the only moment.” – Thich Nhat
  Hanh


Is our surroundings affecting our ability to concentrate the mind? I heard about some ascetics who were incapable of concentrating their minds. After changing their environment, the Jhanas were realized easier.

Natural surroundings such as forests or jungles or the like might be more conducieve to meditation practice due to their natural tranquility. In Asia a lot of temples are purposely build in such places due to e.g. the calming effect they have on the mind.
Natural surroundings also limit external reality and sense-inputs which is conducieve to introspection.

It might be more difficult (depending on the skill-level of the meditator) to cultivate Jhanas in a busy and hectic city environment or in a place that is torn apart by war and conflict.


Why my Mind told me to Sleep? I have observed one thing, when i meditated first time Vipassana last week, i saw vibrations in my body, but after that day its been many days i have not seen them, in-fact i can not sit for long  (only 15-20 minutes), its not that my legs hurt,

But its my mind, it says “Why are you doing this, lets sleep, when i tell it no, it says its more comfortable to meditate in sleep”.
and then i sleep, How do i control it, am i missing something ?

i saw vibrations in my body, but after that day its been many days i have not seen them

When you experience something like vibration you should understand this is also not permanent. You should not crave to experience it again.

This craving can also lead to arising of hindrances.

  But its my mind, it says “Why are you doing this, lets sleep, when i tell it no, it says its more comfortable to meditate in sleep”. and then i sleep, How do i control it, am i missing something ?

This can be either you being merely lazy and trying to find and excuse to doze off or sloth and torpor taking its hold. Whenever, you experience something like vibration this stirs up deep rooted Saṅkhāra which might manifest itself like aches and pains or hindrances.

Sloth and torpor is nourished  by unwise attention, you should denourish it by wise attention and exertion. Also see The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Selected Texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries compiled and translated by Nyanaponika Thera and also Pacalā Sutta which deals with dozing off. Also there are many answers, which I have given, which deal with Pacalā Sutta which which are listed here and relevant to this context and also this answer. Also more content may be tagged meditation-hindrances and five-hindrances which are also relevant. Content I have created under the above tags are found here and here which might be less noisy and more relevant. Also Nīvaraṇa, Thīna,middha by Piya Tan might be useful.

The Vipassana method, as in the Pacalā Sutta, is as follow:

    “Nothing is worth clinging to”

    When this was said, the venerable Mahā Moggallāna said this to the Blessed One:
    “In what way, bhante, in brief, is a monk freed through the destruction of craving, that is, one who has reached total perfection, the total security from bondage, the total holy life, the total consummation, the highest amongst gods and humans?”

    “Here, Moggallāna, the monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to.
    And, Moggallāna, a monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things [he directly knows the nature of the all].
    Having directly known the nature of all things, he fully understands all
    things.

    Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether pleasant, painful or neither painful nor pleasant.

    As regards to those feelings, [Section on Disillusionment and Revulsion (Nibbida) follows]

    he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;

    he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;

    he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;

    he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).

    When he dwells contemplating impermanence in them, contemplating dispassion in them, contemplating ending in them, contemplating letting go, he does not cling to anything in the world.
    Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.


Is vipassana practice the same as insight practice? Is vipassana practice the same as insight practice? Are the terms completely interchangeable? I know there is the vipassana movement but this appears to be Theravadin so it makes me think that vipassana only applies to Theravadin Buddhism? However I'm sure it's broader than that - our vipassana wiki says it is if that is anything to go by.

They are synonymous. Insight is in fact the word that is used to translate the word Vipassana.

All schools of Buddhism that talk about meditation talk about Samatha and Vipassana (but of course they'll use the sanskrit names Shamatha and Vipashyana, or their translated terms 止 観 (Chinese Zhi and Guan, Japanese Shi and Kan) or in Tibetan shiné and lhatong. They understand the meanings of these somewhat differently but no one has a monopoly on any of them.

The Vipassana movement is a particular trend of Buddhist meditation that started in Burma in the 1800's and encompases several traditions (Mahasi Sayadaw, Goenka, Pa Auk Sayadaw, etc..) and they are called the Vipassana movement just because that is their primary emphasis. But other traditions have it too, even though they might very well use very different sounding language to talk about it and have different meditation methods.


What are the sub divisions of the Tripitaka and what do these areas cover? Is it possible to list out the section of the Tripitaka summarizing what areas they cover.

Since I don't know how deep in the Tipiṭaka's structure you want the answer, I'll try to give the most in-depth answer. I'll present the structure in a tree chart and, beneath it, I'll refer to an article with an in-depth analysis of the canon which provides the summaries.

Structure

(Click to enlarge)

Summaries

Summaries are provided in "Chapter I: Textual Analysis of the article "An Analysis of the Pāḷi Canon" by Russell Webb. It also contains an excellent index of the canon, and an extensive bibliography.


What is the true meaning of The Middle Way All the teachers and people I have read, talked with and listened to, emphazises that Buddhism is the Middle Way.

Is this the right way to see it? If so, what is the most important or central aspect of The Middle Way?

In Buddha's time there was hedonistic indulgence and extreme ascetic practices. The ascetic practices was to exhausting bad Karma though inflicting pain.

Seeking pleasure creates fabrication through attachments hence resulting in present and future dukka.

Though through experiencing Karma (Sañcetanika Sutta) karma looses its potent this is cannot be achived through inflicting pain as Karma acts when it ripens (you cannot hasten or force the result) while artificially inflicting pain leads to metal instability and other new fabrications.

The middle path is restrain in morality thus abandoning one source of grave unwholesome Karma (reducing store of fabrications) thus cultivating a conducive environment to develop collected mind (due to non remorse - (Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta, and Karmic calamities) to finally gain wisdom and release. (See comments [section 1.3] in (Ānanda) Subha Sutta for relationships moral virtue, mastery over the mind and wisdom.) Any experiences that arises should be used to eradicate metal influxes casing future becoming, i.e., not creating new fabrication due to past karmic and other experiaces. (Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2) This is systematised as the Noble Eightfold Path initially in Dhamma,cakka Pavattana Sutta which was the Buddha's 1st disclosure. More thought explanation is found in the: Samma,ditthi Sutta


Meditating to feel calm I have often read that you shouldn't meditate to try and have a pleasant experience because meditation is about "letting go" and cultivating equanimity etc and not about trying to feel something else.  But then what is samatha?  It's tranquility ie a calm pleasant experience so therefore if you do that kind of meditation then aren't you trying to have an experience?

Undertaking the practice of Samatha meditation, should be done for the sake of the practice itself - not for seeking out pleasant experiences. The minute one is thinking about achieving and gaining pleasant experiences, one has fallen into the hindrances. As a result of that, one has moved away from the primary object of meditation and thus are not cultivating concentration any longer.

It comes down to ones intentions for doing the practice.

Its a good idea to regularly clarify and affirm ones intentions for practicing - especially with Samatha meditation, that is very important. Its easy to become attached to the pleasant sensations this type of meditation practice can result in.

One should ask oneself why one takes on this practice. A wholesome intention is essential. Wholesome intentions for engaging in Samatha meditation could be:

Collecting the scattered mind (e.g. to be used later for Vipassana meditation)
Deepening serenity
Purification of the mind stream
Cultivating a high level of concentration (e.g. to be used later for Vipassana meditation)


How does kamma create a new set of aggregates for a rebirth; how do the mechanics of this process work? In the booklet "A Discourse on the Bhāra Sutta", by The Venerable Mahāsi Sayādaw, I read the following:

"As we make great efforts to fulfil desire, kamma and mental formations are brought into play. They create new aggregates. So, after one life we go over to another in a new groups of five aggregates, by virtue of the craving prompted by delusion. As a result, we are left with the burden of aggregates to carry." Please refer to Part II (Table of Contents), Threefold Craving (Section), Sensual Craving (Subsection)

Is this process to be learned or understood during the course of vipassana meditation, or taken on faith in the course of instruction?

The workings of kamma is actually one of The Four Imponderables (acinteyya), i.e. questions that the Buddha deliberately did not answer. These questions can only be understood by a fully enlightened Buddha. If one is not a fully enlightened Buddha then thinking about these questions will only leave the mind distressed and agitated, i.e. unfit for meditational practice.

By doing insight meditation one can verify for oneself that phenomena can spawn new phenomena thereby leading to further becomming. This also occurs at the break up of the physical body. The defilements do not "die". Only the physical body breaks up but the defilements find a new body to arise in.

Don't take my word for it or any other persons word. Not even the Buddha's word. He taught that we should not blindly believe what he said but instead go and test these things for ourselves through experimentation on reality, i.e. by doing insight meditation.

Hope this helps. If you have any questions to what i wrote let me know.


Question about metta Does metta mean that we should not ignore people?
Is it possible to forcefully and assertively tell people their wrong doings? What about scolding?
My reservation: If one always remains kind it's likely that people will do whatever they want with you which will result in more problems or not stating one's concerns sufficiently

Human are emotional beings and they usually change if you forcefully and again repeatedly tell them a new way of behaving.

People can also be (or learn to be) bullies -- and unless you are able and willing to be the biggest bully on the block, I suggest that trying to persuade people using "force" is the wrong way to go about it.

To be honest, i.e. to avoid concealing a fact that appears to contradict my thesis, the suttas describe the Buddha has having a "lion's roar" ... and being like a bull among men ...  but,

Perhaps (I'm not sure) that's not relevant to use of force -- for example:

  The Pali Commentaries explain that there are two kinds of lion's roar: that of the Buddha himself and that of his disciples. The former is sounded when the Buddha extols his own attainments or proclaims the potency of the doctrine he has realized; the latter, when accomplished disciples testify to their own achievement of the final goal, the fruit of arahantship.

See also Did the Buddha ever 'thunder' during a Fire Sermon?
The Buddha can be trusted to know when what and how is appropriate -- for example:

  In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

What about scolding?

I don't know (exactly what "scolding" is), according to the dictionary it's "an angry rebuke or reprimand".

So that seems to get into the question of whether and when anger is appropriate.

There was a topic What is a wrathful Buddha? from Vajrayana where an answer describes that as being like a parent pretending to be angry with their children in order to protect them -- and/or transmuting the energy of anger in a skillful way.

I'm not convinced that everyone is able to be so skillful, though; I think of anger as associated with a loss of skill (like a regression to one's infancy), and generally something to steer clear of. The Dhammapada:

  Na hi verena verani
  sammantidha kudacanam
  averena ca sammanti
  esa dhammo sanantano.

  Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.

Another possibility might be that "scolding" implies telling someone something repeatedly or endlessly. I'm not sure that's effective though -- if it were effective, ought you need to repeat it?

Or let us take life threatening situations

I think you might go to the police, or the courts, or use physical force yourself (though this may not have been true everywhere, my personal experience of police leaves me admiring their ability to arrest a person "with overwhelming force" and yet still "without violence" -- like you might restrain a young child near something dangerous).

Or consider a drug addict, for example, asking you to help them to continue their habit.
I think you'd be within your rights to reply, "No, I won't. It's not good for you." (though I'm sympathetic to the fact that people do help addicts).

And I think that when you say "No" like that it doesn't have to be forceful (though it may need to be repeated), nor unkind -- the kinder the better, in my opinion. The kindness may be an even more important part of the message than the "no" (the "no" closing a door but the kindness opening one).

There's also an expression that I thought might be relevant -- i.e., "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog" -- that might help to explain how larger people can be bullied by smaller.

My experience of dogs tells me that's superficially true, e.g. that to deter a cowardly dog attacking a smaller dog, I may to need to be loud and explosive i.e. bark and not remain silent myself: to show it that I have a bigger bark than it does -- that there is (contrary to first appearances) a 'big dog' in me (or "in the fight"), i.e. that I'm the bigger dog.

Among humans, though, it may be more a matter of perseverance than intensity -- unless you can (and are willing to) sustain anger for hours, days, years, you may lose an anger-based competition -- anger is unreliable as a motive (but may fuel your opponent's opposition).

And so, I don't recommend it, I think it's the wrong avenue to pursue or to set off on.


Watching the flow or flow? I had this moment , when I was engaged in conversation of topic with my friend, which we both reveled. I enjoyed the talk and we discussed without inhibition as it was natural. My question is whether I should flow with the events in my natural state of mind/body or just watch the flow of events without engaging fully (because doing and watching are two separate activities,and I can't be doing both at the same time without loss of concentration). When I watch, this creates duality, am I the doer or watching the doer, who is also me. Who is real me?

My opinion, that feeling of "I, me, mine, or even you etc" is part of high fetters (Sanyojana).  specifically, Māna which English translation is related to conceit.   This fetter is for people with high paying grade (none-returner) to deal with.  As for myself, low fetters, especially the 5 sensual pleasures are handful to resolve already.  But many have the ability and strength to deal with all 10 fetters simultaneously, and they have been successful too.  My observation, Buddha gave many target specific suttas regarding lower fetters and what to deal with them (perhaps in 100+ suttas), but he gave very general instruction on higher fetters. Basically to see them as 3 marks for existence (subject to destruction, changing, and none-self).


Citta Vithi in Abhidhamma There is a chapter under citta vithi in Abhidhammattha Sangaha. In which of the seven books in Abhidhamma this concept appear?

As you mentioned, Chapter IV of the Sangaha describes citta vithi. The Visuddhimagga includes many partial references (look under "cognitive series" in the index) but no complete analysis. Clearly, the material in the Sangaha is a later development of what is found in the Visuddhimagga (perhaps 500 years earlier). The material in the Visuddhimagga is a later development of sporadic references found in the Patthana (Conditional Relations). For example, on page 72 of PTS Conditional Relations Vol II, it says, "advertance (avajjana) is related to five-fold consciousness through proximity condition". On page 74, it says, "Life-continuum (bhavanga) without applied thought but with sustained thought is related to advertance by proximity condition." Proximity condition (and contiguity condition) imply a process. In summary, the fully-worked-out version found in the Sangaha was developed from fragments found in the Visuddhimagga (and commentaries) and these were developed from even earlier (and much more primitive) fragments found in the Patthana.


What is Metta-Bhavana and how does one practice it? I can't find much information on Metta-Bhavana and I want to know:

what it is. What is the purpose of this type of meditation?
details concerning its practice. How does one practice this meditation?

'Metta' is good-will & non-hatred. It is wanting other people to be happy. This does not mean to "save" or transform other people into inherently happy people but to abide with non-conflict with other people. The meditation method is below:

  Whatever living beings there may be;  Whether they are weak or strong,
  omitting none, The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,   The
  seen and the unseen, Those living near and far away,  Those born and
  to-be-born. Wishing: In gladness and in safety — May all beings be at ease/be happy! (sabbe sattā bhavantu sukhitattā)

  Let none deceive another,     Or despise any being in any state. Let none
  through anger or ill-will     Wish harm upon another. Even as a mother
  protects with her life    Her child, her only child, So with a boundless
  heart     Should one cherish all living beings.

  Radiating kindness over the entire world:     Spreading upwards to the
  skies, And downwards to the depths;   Outwards and unbounded, Freed
  from hatred and ill-will.     Whether standing or walking, seated or
  lying down Free from drowsiness,  One should sustain this
  recollection. This is said to be the sublime abiding.     By not holding
  to fixed views, The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, freed from all sense desires.

  Karaniya Metta Sutta


all EBT sutta references to thina middha / sloth & torpor & drowsiness I'm looking to collect all the major sutta references on the 3rd hindrance.
Help me complete the collection:
http://lucid24.org/sted/5niv/5niv3/index.html
What I have so far:
AN 5.78 5 future dangers
AN 5.193 saṅgārava: similes of looking at reflection in bowl of water, 3. Sloth-torpor like water with moss and aquatic plants
AN 7.46 seeing suffering in impermanence
AN 7.61 Pacalāyana: Buddha advises Moggallana with 7 ways to cope: You should have 7 memorized and recite daily.
MN 62 mudita to counter listlessness
MN 70 let only my skin and bones remain... : using vigor to counteract sloth
MN 131 today the effort must be made...: using maraṇa-s-sati
SN 46.51 Nourishment and starving of Sloth and Torpor
SN 46.53 balancing 7sb☀ factors
SN 46.55 simile of water covered with moss
Let's restrict the discussion to EBT (early buddhist text, pali, chinese agama, sanskrit, etc.) for now. I'll open up a thread later for Non EBT strategies to deal with sloth later.
Suttas with similes of the 5 hindrances
AN 3.101 simile of 3 levels of gold impurities preventing samadhi and 6ab ⚡☸. 5niv are the 2nd level moderate impurities.
AN 5.23 simile of gold impurities (instead of 'nivarana' calls 5niv 'cittassa upakkilesā') preventing samadhi and 6ab ⚡☸. Also uses keywords from j4 āneñja⚡.
AN 5.51 simile of river split into 5.
DN 2 similes 1. in debt, 2. ill, 3. imprisoned, 4. slave, 5. crossing desert
MN 140 references goldsmith removing impurities, similar to AN 3.101 and AN 3.102, but doesn't call out 5 elements of 5niv by names.
SN 46.33 5 impurities of gold (copper, tin, silver...) make gold (samadhi mind) brittle and unworkable.
SN 46.55 similes for not seeing one's reflection in bowl of water: 1. water is colored with dyes, 2. heated by fire, boiling and bubbling, 3. overgrown with moss, 4. stirred by the wind, 5. murky, muddy

The commentaries follow the Dhammasaṅgaṇī in treating both as mental: thīna as sluggishness of citta, middha as sluggishness of cetasikas. But this is in the context of bhāvanā, in connection with the hindrances. Where the terms are used in non-technical everyday contexts the state may be physical, mental, both or unspecified. I think unspecified is probably the most common.
The word "hīna" is a past participle that's been made into a noun. The rules for forming past participles would allow both thīna and thina as the pp. of the verb thīyati.
As for vīriya vs viriya, it's not that they were once two different words that are now taken to be the same, but that they've always been variant forms of the past participle of the same verb, just as 'dreamed' and 'dreamt' have always been variant past participles of 'dream'.
Note that the sutta doesn't identify the nutriment of thīnamiddha with the five items themselves, but rather with frequent unwise attention (ayonisomanasikāra-bahulīkāro) to them. And so the immediate cause is wholly mental.
But as to the five, this is how the Vibhaṅga defines them:

Tattha katamā arati? Pantesu vā senāsanesu aññataraññataresu vā adhikusalesu dhammesu arati aratitā anabhirati anabhiramaṇā ukkaṇṭhitā
paritassitā: ayaṃ vuccati “arati”. Therein what is “tedium”? Tedium,
having tedium, displeasure, being displeased, dissatisfaction, dread
of remote abodes or certain higher skilful dhammas. This is called
tedium.

Tattha katamā tandī? Yā tandī tandiyanā tandimanakatā ālasyaṃ ālasyāyanā ālasyāyitattaṃ: ayaṃ vuccati “tandī”. Therein what is
“apathy”? That which is apathy, being apathetic, mental lethargy,
idleness, being idle, state of being idle. This is called apathy.

Tattha katamā vijambhitā? Yā kāyassa jambhanā vijambhanā ānamanā vinamanā sannamanā paṇamanā byādhiyakaṃ: ayaṃ vuccati “vijambhitā”.
Therein what is “stretching”? That which is twitching, stretching,
bending forward, bending backward, twisting, stretching upwards,
fidgeting of the body. This is called stretching.

Tattha katamo bhattasammado? Yā bhuttāvissa bhattamucchā bhattakilamatho bhattapariḷāho kāyaduṭṭhullaṃ: ayaṃ vuccati
“bhattasammado”. Therein what is “after meal drowsiness”? That which
in one who has eaten is dizziness because of food, fatigue because of
food, feverishness because of food, bodily unfitness. This is called
after meal drowsiness.

Tattha katamaṃ cetaso ca līnattaṃ? Yā cittassa akalyatā akammaññatā olīyanā sallīyanā līnaṃ līyanā līyitattaṃ thinaṃ thīyanā thīyitattaṃ
cittassa: idaṃ vuccati “cetaso ca līnattaṃ”. Therein what is “mental
sluggishness”? That which is indisposition of consciousness,
unwieldiness, drooping, sagging, sluggishness, being sluggish, state
of being sluggish, sloth, being slothful, state of consciousness being
slothful. This is called mental sluggishness. (Vibh. 17:10:1. U
Thittila's translation, with 'restlessness' changed to 'stretching' as
the translation of vijambhitā)

https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/vb17

And from the Dispeller of Delusion:

The arising of stiffness and torpor comes about through unwise
bringing to mind in regard to boredom (arati) and so on. "Boredom" is
a name for dissatisfaction; "languor" (tandi) is a name for bodily
laziness; "stretching" (vijambhitā) is a name for bending of the body;
"faintness after meals" (bhattasammada) is a name for giddiness after
meals and feverishness after meals. And mental lassitude" (cetaso
līnattaṃ) is a name for the sluggish state of the mind.
Because of employing unwise bringing to mind much in regard to these
[states] beginning with boredom, stiffness and torpor arise.
(Dispeller of Delusion I 335)

So, it seems that arati is wholly mental; tandī is both bodily and mental (the Dispeller of Delusion later defines it as "bodily idleness due to defilement"); likewise vijambhitā, which is later defined as "bodily shifting due to defilement"; bhattasammada is wholly bodily; and cetaso līnattaṃ wholly mental.


How did Buddhism and Hinduism differ in their approaches to sex work I'm writing a paper on religion and the different attitudes and approaches to prostitution and I can't quite find anything that indicates the major differences in how Buddhism and Hinduism regards sex workers, prostitution itself and how it translated into laws. If possible I'd also like to know if different Buddhist and Hinduist tendencies  differ in their approaches.

Any help would be wonderful and I give thanks in advance

In Buddhism, any activity based in only "lust" is unwholesome, as follows:

  And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed (lust) is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome. MN 9

  Dhammapada
   202. There is no fire like lust

In Buddhism, no prostitute ever gained enlightenment. Instead, only "ex-prostitutes" (e.g. Vimala) gained enlightenment. Buddhism states a fully enlightened being is incapable of performing the sexual act (AN 9.7).

Any action that harms oneself or another is unwholesome in Buddhism (MN 61). References to prostitution in Buddhism generally include harming, for example:

  Unsatisfied with his own wife, with others’ wives he’s seen in tow,
  corrupted too with prostitutes— that’s the way to disaster’s woe

  Snp 1.6

  As they grow, the defilements possess many people; They play with
  fools, I believe, like demons with the mad.

  In medicine they are like doctors, in business like householders, in
  decoration like prostitutes, in sovereignty like lords.

  Cheats, frauds, false witnesses, sly: using multiple plans, they enjoy
  material things.

  Thag 16.10

(I may add more to this answer at a later time).


Is "doing according to one's best understanding" a protection from wrong-doing? A common belief is that, if one conducts himself "as best he can" (in the best ways he understands and knows), then would be a protection from -- or an excuse for -- wrong-doing.

For example, "I answer with best effort and understanding..."

Under the context of truth, the Dhamma, is this just a naive thought of foolish people? Or can such be rightly justified as something an Awakened would approve?

[Not at all given for trade or keep people caught in corruption]

Doing the best that you can, is not a protection against wrong-doing.

Why? Ignorance, or the lack of Right View and wisdom, may cause you to commit wrong-doing, despite doing "the best that you can".

Hence, gaining Right View, and gradually improving Right View and wisdom over time, through insight, will push the boundaries of your "best effort".

In the Salt Crystal Sutta (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu), the Buddha taught:

  'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e.,
  painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in
  discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the
  immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

And there you have it. For protection from wrong-doing, one should be developed in body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment and dwelling in the immeasurable.

The same paragraph translated by Bhikkhu Sujato here:

  What kind of person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it
  in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a
  lot? A person who has developed their physical endurance, ethics,
  mind, and wisdom. They’re not small-minded, but are big-hearted,
  living without limits. That kind of person does the same trivial bad
  deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left
  over, not to speak of a lot.


Did Buddha told anything about if we can travel to the end of the cosmos? Did the Buddha tell us anything about reaching the end of the cosmos or time-travel through the means of experiencing all the Jhanas in meditation?

We know of no sutra directly bearing on the subject of time travel, although space travel to the akasha deva loka ("space world of shining ones") is frequently met with in both directions, Sakka to Earth and the Buddha and monastics to many "celestial" worlds [like the Buddha, Maha Moggallana, and other disciples going into near Earth orbit and battling a reptilian or naga named Nandopananda). But there is one oddity we never stop pointing out:

During WW II the Germans developed a time travel "bell" (Die Glocke), which just happens to look exactly like the strange hollow stupas, reliquary mounds or "bells" housing Buddha figures at the largest Buddhist site in the world -- Borobudur, Central Java, Indonesia -- with its massive, pyramid-like platforms. The structure is the size of a mountain in what is now an Islamic.

So marvelous and inexplicable to the Muslims was this site that they tried to destroy it but could not. Nor could they build anything to rival it; they simply did not have the technology. Instead, they buried it in a massive pile of mud. More than a century later, when the British archeologists were surveying the site, one realized that there was no way there could be a "mountain" there. He had his workers dig, and he is credited with rediscovering a Buddhist temple complex larger than the massive pieces in Bamiyan, Afghanistan (although the unexcavated Mes Aynak site may rival Borobudur, but if Chinese mining interests have their way, it will be destroyed first) and Angkor Wat, Cambodia.

The Germans were given off-planet instructions on how to construct a transporter, which they dubbed "The Bell" (Die Glocke), and tested it. They sent it into the future and retrieved, weather beaten a short time later. What else they did is kept top secret by the OSI, CIA, NASA, and other American organizations which inherited and protected German scientists after the war, such as Robert Oppenheimer and Nazi Wernher von Braun.

[Edited]. In Buddhism philosophy there is also Kalachakra Mandala which also look like Borobudur Temple.

Meaning of Kalachakra Mandala : The word kalachakra means cycles of time, and the Kalachakra system presents three such cycles – external, internal and alternative. The external and internal cycles deal with time as we normally know it, while the alternative cycles are practices for gaining liberation from these two.
What is the Kalachakra?.

Many articles are there explained about Kalachakra Manadala.
There also explained about cosmos and about five strings of attachments.

[Edited].

  Once the Blessed One [the Buddha, who was known as the Teacher of Devas and Humans] was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, at Anathapindika's monastery. Then the male deva Rohitassa, late at night, with his splendid radiance lighting up the entire grove, went to the Blessed One, bowed, respectfully stood to one side, and asked:

    "Venerable sir, is it possible by traveling to know or see or reach the far end of the universe where one does not undergo rebirth, aging, dying, passing away, or reappearing?"

    "I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach the far end of the universe where one does not undergo rebirth, aging, dying, passing away, or reappearing."

    "It is amazing, venerable sir, it is awe-inspiring, how well this has been said by the Blessed One! ...Once I was a seer (Indian rishi, yogi) named Rohitassa, a disciple of [the Guru] Bhoja, a powerful sky-walker. My speed was as fast as that of a strong archer -- well-trained, a practiced hand, a practiced sharp-shooter -- shooting a light arrow across the shadow of a palm tree. [This is a common idiom to illustrate extreme speed in ancient India, the time it would take a shot arrow to pass the shadow of a tree.] My stride stretched as far as the East Sea is from the West [the width of India]. To me, endowed with such speed, such a stride, there arose the desire: 'I will go traveling to the end of the universe.'

    "I with a 100 year life, a 100 year span spent 100 years traveling. And apart from the time spent eating, drinking, savoring, urinating, defecating, and sleeping to ward off weariness. But without reaching the end of the universe, I died along the way. So it is amazing, venerable sir, it is awesome, how well this has been said by the Blessed One!"

  [The Buddha replied:]

    "I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach the far end of the universe... But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of disappointment and suffering without reaching the end of the universe (world).
    It is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception and intellect, that I declare that:

    There is the universe (world),
    The origination of the universe,
    The cessation of the universe, and
    The path of practice leading to the cessation of the universe." [This is another wording of the ennobling Four Noble Truths.]

    "It is not to be reached by traveling [in space]. AND it is not without reaching the end of the universe that there is release from disappointment and suffering.

    "So truly the wise one, an expert with regard to the cosmos, a knower of the end of the cosmos, having fulfilled the holy life, calmed, knowing the cosmos' end, doesn't long for this cosmos or for any other."

  (See also AN 9.38).

So even if they found that Die Glocke were look like Borobudur temple.
Buddha said all about it is cosmos.

  "These five strings of sensuality are, in the discipline of the noble ones, called the cosmos.

  Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing; sounds cognizable via the ear... aromas cognizable via the nose... flavors cognizable via the tongue... tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. These are the five strings of sensuality that, in the discipline of the noble ones, are called the cosmos. AN 9.38


Rebirth, nibbana, and anatta Rebirth, is the continuation of anatta.. no Self can be said to transmigrate - only the statement that 'dependently originated phenomena (any conditioned and posited self) cannot have permanent properties', can be accurately put forward. Is nibbana therefore, still the continuation of anatta, but without dependent origination?

Can it be said that dependent origination - impermanent and unsatisfactory - is distinct, or at least not identical, to anatta?

Anatta isn't something which continues- it just refers to the lack of an inherent (non-dependent) self nature, which is true of everything, everywhere and always.

Contemplating dependent origination shows why anatta is true- since everything arises in dependence on something else, and extinguishes when that condition disappears, nothing can have an inherent self nature.

Nibbana is the disappearance of the conditions that cause something to arise, and so, because of dependent origination, it's also the disappearance of the thing itself.


How to manage insects in the house while adhering to the First Precept? I have a precept tracker app that is used daily to see how well I am measuring up to keeping the precepts. One question that sometimes appears has to do with insecticide and essentially asks if it was used today.

Problem is, live in an apartment in the city and despite how clean it is in here, there are occasionally roaches. Quite honestly, I can't catch them to take them outside - it's impossible, especially if there is more than one. They are small too. Can't be overrun by them by not attending to the issue as would be evicted.

So, I use roach traps, thus having to mark "yes" each day.

Are there any solutions to this? Have others come up with creative ways not to kill them or is this just something that I will have to live with thru fall and winter? Seems like such a petty issue to some, but am trying to become more sensitive to life in all forms.

Becoming sensitive/ kind to all forms of life is the sign you are walking the path :). Deeds speak louder than rhetoric, those clever minds learnt the letters only; true Dharma followers learnt the teachings of Buddha, including the teachings of Karma and Rebirth in Buddha's original meaning.

When you treat them with kindness, they return you with kindness. My place was savoured by ants when I just moved in, I didn't kill them but drove them away or let them be if not too troublesome, they started to decrease. Once I was peeling a pear near the sink the peels and some juices fell onto the worktop, immediately ants coming like people going for party and feast. Suddenly I realized our small castaway could be a treasure vault for another lifeforms... So I started to bestow my presents to ants - literally :]. I'll leave the used sugar bag on the worktop the ants will clean the leftover spotlessly, it's a great amusement and feels some accomplishment for having treating the ants. Since all these measures they seem just appearing occasionally in untroublesome way. I learnt that ants are very tidy and sanitary conscious little creatures, so I'm not disliking them.

For roaches I learnt from Chinese Buddhist sites that you can use empty mineral water bottle for example. Roll newspaper in cone shape, insert the smaller end into the bottle, inside the bottle put bit of bacon or smelly food, lay the bottle flat on floor or where they like to cross, tip the newspaper touching ground so they can crawl in. The roaches will be drawn by the smell they will enter the bottle via the wider end of newspaper; since roaches are blind they can only detect light they won't be able to find the exit, which is high in the mid-air inside the bottle. Once you collect enough of them, take them to release in appropriate environment, such as rubbish collecting point away from neighborhood. I tried once or twice it works, I caught one or two, maybe I didn't put in smelly enough food since I was trying to go against meat 1st by not buying raw meat, I didn't use bacon but certain Thai style fish favoured chips instead; also there was one or two of them only that I saw.

Other passive method is to scent your home, sandalwood or cedar etc.,  those fragrant smells are toxic and repellent to most insects. Still less known way is to use Mantra, this required certain merit and ability that the practitioner accomplished, Puan Mantra is very well known for Chinese Buddhists.


How did Maitreya become so large and rich? The title is not meant to be disrespectful, but only to highlight the incongruity of the representation with what I understand of Buddhism.

Images of Maitreya in English Wikipedia are modest and comtemplative, but the Chinese page shows one familliar image with a large, well-fed body, surrounded by riches, and a big happy grin. Where I live these representations of Maitreya are everywhere.

It is understandable that as buddhism spread to different cultures certain superficial aspects might be altered to convey ideas in different ways. Here I'm just asking about history of the change.

When and where were depictions of the Maitreya buddha first changed so dramatically?

edit: The question Why is Budai often associated with the future Buddha Maitreya? suggests to me that this is not actually a representation of Maitreya at all, which conflicts with what I remember and what a google translation of the Chinese Wikipedia page at least seems to say.

 Source

In Buddhism, the Buddhist statues are essentially the artful and symbolic expressions of the Buddha teachings, with the objective to educate us the meanings and teachings of Buddhism. Therefore, we should see the statues of Buddhism as teaching aids and the cultivation of virtues we aspired to achieve. They are not meant to be statues of gods for worshiping. As we come to realize the inherent meaning of Buddhist symbolism, we will truly appreciate the sophistication and completeness of its educational values.

Maitreya Buddha, or the Laughing Buddha, or the Bu Dai monk (the historical monk figure better known in China), has widely been seen to be portrayed with immense happiness, and its statue is sculpted big in front entrance of a Buddhist temple, and is also sculpted as fat and happy with a big smile and a big belly.

The educational and metaphorical values of the happy and fat imagery of this sculpture is created with profound significance:

The Laughing Buddha is often found at front entrance of a Buddhist temple. This shows that Buddhism greets visitors with a hearty smile, welcoming anyone to come on in.
Buddhism teaches us how to get rid of sorrows and afflictions and attain happiness in our lives. The laughing statue shows visitors coming in to learn Buddhism and follow the Buddha path will attain a happy life. We should also learn to be cheerful and be courteous to all.
Buddhism teaches us to be tolerant and treating everyone fairly and equally. The big belly represents the attitude of inclusiveness, that we take in and be tolerant of anything good and bad we experience and anyone we encounter in our lives.
Some statues portrayed with riches are the artistic representations of our true inner nature of perfect, complete, and infinite treasures (metaphysically) that we all beings by Buddha-nature possess.

We can see that the above profound significance of the sculpture are actually in sync with what Buddha Sakyamuni has been teaching all of us some 2,500 years ago when he reached enlightened in this world and educated us what he is the path to enlightenment.


Is the new "Spread Mind" philosophy actually Buddhism? I recently stumbled upon a fascinating series of conversations on consciousness in the New York Review of Books by an MIT Fulbright scholar named Riccardo Manzotti. That series led me to his The Spread Mind website, his How to Locate Consciousness in the Physical World video, his Why Consciousness and World are one and the same book and two of his philosophical¹ cartoons².

Three (of many) of his ideas are as follows:

Consciousness is the object one is conscious of.
A physical entity exists if and only if it is the actual cause of something else.
The past is not defined until it produces an effect, but once it does, the past has been defined since it occurred originally.

I'm certainly not yet an expert in Buddhism but these three ideas alone seem to have a likeness to Buddhist teachings, namely: nonduality, not-self, dependent origination and cause-condition-effect. Yet, he was specifically asked in one of the NYR conversations if he was familiar with Buddhism and he indicated that he was not.

Are the above three ideas of his equivalent to, similar to, a subset of, or compatible with those of Buddhist teachings?

Any input that anyone would be kind enough to provide would be especially appreciated. Thank you.

Alright, I will take a stab at this.

(Disclaimer: unless I'm quoting a text, all of the following is my own personal understanding, based on my study of primary texts, commentaries, and practice of insight meditation, with or without guidance and confirmation of entitled lineage masters)

"Consciousness is the object one is conscious of."

In Buddhism, consciousness (vijnana) is experience of an object along with its context/background/environment. Vijnana is not a separate entity or substance cognizing an object. It is the very experience itself. Vijnana is necessarily interpretative in its nature. It involves grasping available "signs" or "features", retrieving past experiences matching the signs, and recognizing the object/situation, with experience arising as final state of this process of recognition. So far sounds pretty close to Mr. Manzotti's ideas.

A physical entity exists if and only if it is the actual cause of something else.

In Mahayana Buddhism, as explained specifically in Madhyamaka, entities do not have inherent existence. Instead, entities are considered abstractions, assembled by the mind by picking whatever criteria for identity and temporal/spatial boundaries that are useful in a particular context, with a label of name stamped on top. So from the Buddhist perspective, the actual existence underlying mind's modeling process cannot be characterized as being made of any fixed entities. Moreover, causation in Buddhism is considered a useful simplification, dependent on reification of the cause and reification of the effect. Instead, what we call "events" are in fact arbitrary points we call out in an otherwise analogue/continuous process of interaction and transformation. So from this perspective Mr. Manzotti's statement above sounds a bit superficial. I think he is hinting at his primary thesis of all existence without exception having relative nature, which Buddhism is in agreement with, but his talk about existing entities and actual causes sounds naive.

The past is not defined until it produces an effect, but once it does, the past has been defined since it occurred originally.

This seems to be the hardest of the three ideas for me to decipher. I think he is talking about determinism and free will, correct me if I'm wrong. From Buddhist perspective, the nature of the world is deterministic, as without determinism the mechanism of karma-and-its-effects would be unreliable, and it is. However, despite determinism, from the perspective of an individual being seeking Enlightenment, free will remains a real phenomena, and a useful perspective to have, since falling into fatalism would preclude skillful behavior and therefore Attainment. From the perspective of an enlightened mind, determinism and free will are not in conflict with each other as absolute and relative perspectives correspondingly. So in this sense we can say Buddhism is more or less in agreement with this statement, as in Buddhism we say that an effect of an action, once created, cannot dissipate by itself and will be experienced in a way it is to be experienced - and that at the same time, individuals have choice to act skilfully or unskillfully to create their own future.


Laws of the land, and Buddhist virtues and precepts Some laws coincide with Buddhist precepts for e.g. penalizing murder and theft.
But there are other laws like traffic rules or Covid-19 rules which have no direct equivalent in Buddhism.
However, we tend to frown upon people who disobey traffic rules and sometimes see them as immoral if they keep deliberately breaking traffic rules repeatedly.
Are breaking traffic rules deliberately and repeatedly a violation of Buddhist precepts and virtues? Is it a violation of Right Action?
If it is not a violation of Buddhist precepts, virtues and Right Action, then is it a sign of a unwholesome or unskillful mindset from a Buddhist perspective? And why?

we tend to frown upon people who disobey traffic rules
I've been taught we might "frown on" bad behaviours but needn't frown on people.
So for example I'm inclined to think, "that's bad driving", and not, "you're a bad person for driving that way".
I'd tend to frown on and stay clear of dangerous driving.
There's a saying, "Don't attribute to malice what you might attribute to incompetence"!
Double standards though: I do tend to attribute good (safe) driving to good will -- I've  admired the way in which most drivers cooperate, coordinate with each other, by all obeying the same traffic laws.
Are breaking traffic rules deliberately
I believe intention matters, and than there is some variation due to local circumstance.
For example in France the speed limit is 130 km/hour on the highway, you may in practice be fined for driving at 134, most people don't exceed the speed limit, and neither do I.
Conversely in Ontario the official limit is (or was until recently) 100 km/hr, and everyone drives as if the real speed limit were 110 -- and in that situation, I figure that insisting on sticking to the letter of the law and driving at 95 would be less safe than driving at 110, like everyone else does, except in winter.
Is it a violation of Right Action?
Following the letter of the law, SN 45.8

And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity. This is called right action.

These are three of the four Pārājika offences. So I think "Right Action" in that context is, "action which won't get you expelled from the community of monks".
And, strictly, "taking life" is a pārājika only if you're intending to kill. So, speeding, or failing to signal, resulting in an accident, presumably "doesn't count" unless you're doing it in order to kill (and not e.g. just out of carelessness).
But!! Some road accident can cause a lot grief.
is it a sign of a unwholesome or unskillful mindset from a Buddhist perspective
Again, I don't like to condemn others. I don't want to say, "if you do that then your mindset is unwholesome or unskillful". But I can tell you that when I drive or even ride a bike I'm conscious that it's potentially dangerous to other people on the road and that I can and must avoid those dangers by driving conscientiously -- and I think that's a virtue from a Buddhist perspective, mettā, ahimsa -- and may fit the definition of "skillful", in that its purpose includes "freedom from remorse".


Are there research based or scientific explanation on the working of Abhiññā / Iddhi? The following touches on the ability to know other people's thoughts at a much grosser level than developed through meditation: How we read each other's minds.

What are the research based or scientific explanation on the working of Abhiññā / Iddhi? What kind of cues do Jhāna help pick up?

Gathering of knowledge for attaining supernatural powers?

There has been a lot of research on this. During the '60's many universities in the US did various forms of paranormal research. Test subjects were collected and some filled with various kinds of experimental drugs to get results of different kinds. Some of these studies has been published for public viewing and some not. Also the Russians did research on this, but it is not known how far they got and nothing has ever been published. There are some rumors saying that they are still very active in this field.

There is an article on the subject here
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393521/obo-9780195393521-0112.xml