(Radical) pacifism and governmental force (army, police, etc.) Reading some comments on this subsite I ended up a couple of days ago reading this secular article on the topic of self defence in Buddhism and this question on the site here. Now, based on this I seem to have deduced that there are three positions:

Egocentric pacifism: You may hurt and maybe even kill others if it is to defend yourself, provided it's not out of hatred or similar emotions. E.g. stopping an intruder forcefully is fine.
Radical pacifism: You may not hurt others, even if you're "being rendered limb from limb".
Utilitarianism: You may hurt and maybe even kill others if it's for the greater good and not out of hatred or similar emotions.

Now, historically I only know of a few groups that practiced radical pacifism, and one of the most famous groups (the anabaptists/Mennonites) concluded that it was impossible for a Christian to be a worldly ruler (ignoring the radical anabaptists and the mess in Münster).

This got me wondering:

In countries like Cambodia (97% Buddhists) and Thailand (93% Buddhists) does radical pacifism have any consequences at all at the government level?
Or is (radical) pacifism just an insignificant minority position in Buddhism?

In other words, what I am mostly just asking is how Buddhism approaches issues of the power of governments to wield a mighty sword (army, police) versus the pacifism that is often taught by Buddhists.

I think this would take a political scientist to answer but I'll try to give a few thoughts on this.

I listened to a podcast a while ago where Owen Flanagan was arguing that Buddhism was ill suited to form part of any political philosophy. Whereas a country may be Buddhist from a democratic perspective when it comes to the political sphere that country will operate with a different political philosophy such as monarchy, oligarchy etc... So whether a Buddhist does or doesn't subscribe to radical pacifism would be irrelevant in Buddhist countries as the political philosophy isn't actual based on Buddhism. I'm not agreeing or diagreeing with this - my knowledge of global political structures isn't strong enough to support that stance. However it was an interesting assertion and relevant here I think.

Also for many people the Dalai Lama is the Buddhist political leader that they are most familiar with and his attitude to political force is complex. For instance he has given messages of support to the armed forces - while that not directly advocating violence it isn't radical pacifism either.

In short although I do think that radical pacifism is a valid Buddhist position I don't believe it is a position that political figures hold whether in Buddhist countries or being Buddhist themselves. Very happy to be proved wrong on this of course.


Did the Buddha have special instructions to deal with masturbation? Did he teach special ways to handle those sexual lusts, did he prohibit it, or just not paying any attention to it? If so what were they?

he didn't prohibit it for secular people, it's not even subsumed under sexual misconduct
but since it's a lustful urge and act it is unwholesome and unskillful, and those need to be handled using the Right effort

[i]"There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
[iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort."

Maggavibhanga Sutta (SN 45.8)
Four Right Exertions
avoid situations and sensory stimuli which may provoke sexual desire, at that guarding of the sense doors is helpful
when and if it still arises think of the drawbacks which giving in to the urge may bring, contemplate its impermanence, develop understanding that it's going to eventually subside anyway, so that it loses a degree of its attractiveness and immediacy


Right Speech & Precepts Couple of questions:

According to the Dhamma, is it allowed to critisize someone in a constructive manner?
If someone gossips about me how do I deal with it? Compassion and kindness aside, sometimes it is necessary to be assertive. One can only be compassionate if one is healthy inside in that moment in time.
Intention is a little bit more important than the act itself,
(isnt it- at least in Buddhism) (only in a few instances is the act more important than the intention for example stealing is wrong even if one's family is poor), however, if for example I slice my bread in the supermarket and I see remaining pieces of bread in the machine and I take them with me because no one did I then so no reason why I would largely violete the "not taking what is not given". Sure, it wasn't given but if my attention or thought is: "Well, if I don't take it it will be wasted" then that should rather influence my kamma, right? So it's largely about my intention. If I  hurt someone out of compassion because he attacks someone and injures them severely I have better results because my intention was to safe others, correct?

You can criticize if it is beneficial to you and/or others, but you should not get angry.
You can advice the person not to do so, if you think he will listen. In any case, be mindful of the concern about your ego. You cannot really stop people from talking whatever they like behind your back. Be mindful of the anger arising in you. Do either Metta or Satipattana meditation to deal with anger.
Intention takes precedence always. It's never the act. Stealing is wrong because it is caused by greed and delusion. Regarding sliced bread, taking something is ok if the owner does not mind you taking it. It does not break the precept. You can prevent someone from hurting another by blocking his path or holding him tight. But hurting intentionally usually involves aversion. It's up to you to check if hate/aversion creeps in.


What is the consequence to living life with self realism behavior? It is very typical to live life with self realism behavior and aware every time with our daily routine. When i sit and think about my past life i just found, there was a time which has been gone and never will come back, things has been happening and passing from our eyes, we are just going, going and keep continuing. I am just feeling sad about passing time, where am i going and where will i reach. We just follow daily routines as per humanity following. I  want to know what should we our work, which could give us a full flicit and after following that way, there should not be any sadness and should be full of awareness.

Any seed's highest behaviour is to blossom into a full-fledged state which is fruit, flower etc similarly Humans can be full-fledged beings which are in the state of Blissfulness and other pleasant states if he/she gives proper attention to achieve this.

I must tell you this when you are thinking about the past there is only one moment which the moment we are living now there is no other moment cause past and future are just a phrase one can never go to future (and yes we should prepare for future) or the past so it's just in our mind only.

If you are aware enough then there should not be any thoughts come into your mind about sadness you just feel joyful about being alive. Most of the humans unconsciously think they are immortal but once you know or understand that you are mortal, you will do things only which are precious or important to you in life.

Thanks for reading.


How to practise without having aversion towards life? Before I started studying Buddhism I had desire for life and desires for more in life. That eventually led me to inevitable and immense suffering and eventually to Buddhism.
Now as I practise Buddhism and as I study sutta and all I understand that rebirth is something we need to avoid by practising dhamma. We have to end this cycle of Life and Death and eventually suffering. Buddhism is a  soteriological practise and philosophy which guides us out of samsara. Also lot of Buddhist suttas mention suffering as inherent and innate.
Now this has led me to other end of thought spectrum of aversion towards life. As I learnt and understood 'craving for non existance' is also a craving and should be avoided. But how can one think otherwise. Its either I want life or I dont want life and undertake an arduous journey towards Nirvana. How can one not feel aversion towards life if one desires and practises towards Nirvana.
My question is how do I think or train mind to not have either desire or aversion towards life?

Case 57 of the Blue Rock Collection I alone am holy
Case A monastic said to Zhaozhou, "It is said, 'The Great Way is not difficult. It only abhors choice and attachment.' Now, what are
nonchoice and nonattachment?" Zhaozhou said, "I alone am holy
throughout heaven and earth." The monastic said, "It is still choice
and attachment." Zhaozhou said, "You country bumpkin! Where are choice
and attachment?" The monastic was speechless.

How much better off we'd all be if we discarded love and hate.  As it says in the Hsin Hsin Ming, "to set up what you like against what you dislike is," indeed, "the disease of the mind."  There is a road the runs the valley between the cliffs of this and that, of right and wrong.  It alone is holy throughout heaven and earth.  What is the mind that knows no discrimination?  Where is it found?
Craving and aversion set the world at arm's length.  We can never be fully intimate with the way things really are when we are pushing and pulling on existence.  When we do that, we only know our pushing and pulling.  Instead, let yourself be pulled, allow yourself to be pushed.  Meet both existence and non-existence, samsara and Buddha, enlightenment and non-enlightenment with the same open heart.  That alone is true holiness.


Did anyone equate the tathagatagarbha with the past? This question may sound strange, but in my secular frustrations, I'm thinking about "the past" as some kind of womb which has nourished and given birth to "me" now.

Do Buddhists, of any sort, have a name for the past? How does it feature in any doctrines of Buddhist salvation?

Does anyone equate the past with the womb of the Tathagata?

None identify buddha nature with the past. Generally speaking and regardless of the school of thought, buddha nature points to you having (at present) the potential to achieve buddhahood.

Cittamatrin identify buddha-nature to the mind-basis-of-all (alaya vijnana) while Madhyamika identify it to suchness with defilements, that is the emptiness of the mind of a sentient being. The Lankavatara Sutra equates tathagatagarba with mind-basis-of-all.

In his commentary to Maitreya's Sublime Continuum, Gyaltsab Je (Madhyamika-Prasangika) writes:

  Suchness with defilement is the basic element not liberated from the
  obscurations of mental afflictions, and is known as tathagata essence (Skt. tathagatagarbha).

Madhyamika-Svatantrika speak of emptiness of true existence while Madhyamika-Prasangika speak of emptiness of inherent existence. The Madhyamika idea is basically that if your mind was not empty, it would not be dependent, no change could occur in it, it could not be subject to transformation, it could not be separated from the obscuring factors, it could not come to be endowed with the two purities, would not be suitable to transform into the bodies of a buddha, and so forth.


Does hell exist in Buddhism? I understand that hell is being used for keeping the order of our society. Does hell really exist in Buddhism?  As it creates fears instead of freeing one's mind from suffering. It also creates a mechanism of punishment for not believing in the religion as well.

If it is written in Tipitaka, how do we know that it wasn't added later by someone that wanted to use it as a  rule for making people behave themselves?

Does hell exist in Buddism?

Yes it does. It is a destination in which you mental state is painful and also painful mental states are sometimes called hell. Hell is mentioned in Bala Pandita Sutta. Painful mental states are compared to hell in Patala Sutta

  It also creats a machanism of punishment for not believing in the religion as well.

Buddhism is universal hence there is no notion of punishment. If a Hindu, Muslim, Christian does good then good results follow.

But having said that holding into wrong views does have consequences regardless if you consider yourself a Buddhist or not.

    For one with wrong view, Lohicca, there is either of two destinies, I say, that is, hell or the animal womb.

Source: (Sāla,vatikā) Lohicca Sutta

  It also creats a machanism of punishment for not believing in the religion as well.

If you look at the Abhidhamma associated the right view is belief in Karmic repercussions. Even Hindus can have it. Also to a certain extent people of other faiths if you believe an action has repercussions. This is not aimed at keeping you believing. Also right view does have shades and purity. The ultimate would be the experiential understanding but at a conceptual level the best understanding you can get is by reading Samma,ditthi Sutta.

Also Buddhism is not about any belief but experiencing the realities pertaining to our existance hence understanding the arising of stress and sorrow through whereby you can find a way out of it. You have to have some faith in the techniques as you would have to have in a doctor and his treatment to follow through with it.

  If it is written in Tipitaka, how do we know that it wasn't added later by someone that wanted to use it as a rule for making people behave themselves?

Vimanavatthu and Petavatthu was preached to make people understand reciprocation of Karma hence behave themselves. This also is not to keep someone tied to believe in the teaching. Also I do not believe this was added later.


Does Human Evolution Disprove a Kamma Based Rebirth? I've started my practice as a Buddhist.  Currently, I've read a few books about Buddhism particularly the Theravāda lineage for myself it seems more appropriate. While reading about kamma one thing started to bug me.

It is said rebirth is conditioned by kamma. Which implies my good deeds may lead me to be born as human for example, while bad ones as mosquito. Homo Sapiens are on Earth for circa 200 000 years. Does that mean more than 1 million years ago no one could reach Nibbana, since there were no modern humans?

No, evolution does not do that. But this is a hard question to answer succinctly, because of the layers of concepts involved. I'll have a try.

First, consider one of the core notions in Buddhism: that our normal view of reality suffers from three illusory aspects. We don't normally see that the thing we usually call "real" -- tables, chairs, electrons, our brains, the evolving of species of organisms through natural selection, etc -- are impermanent, do not satisfy our desire to be free of suffering, and do not comprise that entity we call "self". A major point of Buddhism is to get to understand and experience the "true" nature of reality.

OK, so far so enigmatic. The point is, according to Buddhism what we see (feel, smell, etc) "out there" is not "real" -- it is merely the way whatever it is that is real appears to us. A well-used but very good analogy is the movie The Matrix. We are, in a very true way, in a Matrix. There actually is a "reality", but what we experience is not It. What we experience is just how It appears. And that idea isn't unique to Buddhism or even to religion.

Now within that set of experiences -- the things inside our Matrix -- are matter, energy, time, and so on; in other words, all the things of which a materialist scientist would say "that's all there is to reality". But in Buddhism, the insight is, no, that's not "all there is".

So to your specific question. The reason evolution -- and 200,000 years of the homo genus -- doesn't disprove kamma is because evolution is a concept inside the Matrix. Kamma, on the other hand, sits outside it.

Here's another analogy. Imagine you're a player of an online video game, like Call of Duty. Within each specific match, you can increase your score, gain points, get better weapons. Those are all like evolution. They happen inside one specific match. But you also have an overall ranking, or "experience points score" (I forget if that's what CoD actually calls it, but the idea is accurate) that lasts from game to game. That's like kamma. So asking if evolution disproves kamma is like asking if the fact that the current match has only been running for 5 minutes proves that no one can have a total "experience point score" of 10,000. The answer is, no, of course not. One is a concept within a game-match/samsaric-existence-instance; the other is a concept outside or "across" game-matches/samsaric-existence-instances.

One last way of thinking. Modern physics allows the possibility of multiple universes within a multiverse. So our current universe's 200,000 years worth of humans-able-to-attain-nibbana may be only one of billions of examples of such instances of human species across the multiverse, and maybe rebirth happens across universes.

So, again, no. The fact that we have a localized phenomenon called Darwinian evolution (which I accept, as far as it goes) really says nothing about the "global" (all-of-reality-scale) nature of things.

(See, I told you I'd find it hard to be succinct!)


Preventing to enhance one's sense of self Which are the best meditation practices to prevent enhancing one's sense of self?

Vippassanna's really good because it breaks down the sense of self.
Samatha might require a sense of self at first but it gets released in jhana.
Metta is also good because it breaks down the boundaries between you and others.


I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that? In this Reddit post Is Buddhism about cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology?, I am advised that practice is far more important than intellectualizing. I understand that the core teaching of Buddhism is to stop clinging on dharma, and I would miss the main point of it if I don't practice it, but I'm not sure if intellect is less important than it. Sure, after you get to the opposite shore, you want to left your raft behind, but when you are still paddling in the middle of the river, you should take care of it.

But after I explain my point, it seems that it goes into one ear and out another. Why is that? Is it actually bad to use intellect? Telling me to not using intellect sounds like asking me to think about the shore when the job is to paddle. I just want to find a way to paddle more efficiently.

I am reading Nagarjuna's Middle Way if that matters.

Related:
• intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism
• How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
• Why does Buddhism seem to have an anti-thought bias?

Here's a very suitable sutta for this question. Self-explanatory.

From Dhammaviharin Sutta (AN 5.73):

  Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
  bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
  the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
  Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
  dwells in the Dhamma?"

  "Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
  answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
  dwells in the Dhamma.

  "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
  day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
  himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
  who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.

  "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
  Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
  internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
  on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.

  "Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
  his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
  dwells in the Dhamma.

  "Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
  answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
  neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.

  "Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
  who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
  who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
  Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
  out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
  the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
  Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
  to you."


Is emptiness interdependence and interrelationship? Emptiness is described in a number of ways however i am interpreting it as interdependence and interrelationships. Is this an appropriate understanding?

I would say yes, it is a [seemingly] valid understanding.

Usually, from a Madhyamika-Prasangika point of view, it is stated that:

  The meaning of emptiness is dependent-arising; and the meaning of dependent-arising is emptiness.

See Tsongkhapa's Ocean of Reasoning, page 501... Geshe Lhundrup Sopa's Steps on the Path to Enlightenment, page 138, and so forth.

A simple example is as follows: the person is merely imputed in dependence upon any of its aggregates. The person is neither intrinsically one with her body (or any other aggregate), nor intrinsically different from it, but is labeled in dependence upon it. When I see John's body, I say "I see John", when I hear John's voice, I say "I hear John", when John's body is in the garden, I say "John is in the garden", and because his body is ugly, I say "John is quiet ugly". This is because John is imputed (and exists) in dependence upon that which he is not (he is not his body, he is not his voice, and so forth) but without which he would not exist. The meaning of emptiness [of inherent existence], according to Madyhamika-Prasangika, is that if you look for it with a mind analyzing the ultimate, you will not find it.

In Nagarjuna's Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning, it says:

  It is said to be by the supreme knowledge of suchness, The seeing of
  dependent-arising, that what Is dependently produced is not
  [inherently] produced.

Dependent arising is called 'the king of reasoning' because it leads to a correct understanding of emptiness and avoids the two extremes.

According  to Prasangika, they are three types of  dependent-arising. It is a tenet unique to Prasangika.

Causal dependence. Example: a seed and a sprout.
Dependence in relation to parts. Example: short and long.
Dependence on name. The meaning of which I explained in relation to John.


Role of suicide in the context of Dalai Lama's birthday and inevitable deathday His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama recently celebrated his 80th birthday!

I've read that he is very conscious of the fact that after his death, there will be much turmoil, and it's something he thinks about often. "When I pass away, when I die, of course a setback. Very serious setback," he said in an interview. I have read/heard, though I cannot at present time point to the source (I can research further later and add citation, if necessary), that he is aware that many, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands, will commit suicide after he dies.

I believe the Dalai Lama has voiced opposition to suiciding for protests, that it violates Buddhist ethics—

"In the past, he has condemned self-immolations, which many Buddhists
believe are contrary to their faith, but has until now kept a low
profile over the recent wave of protests."

And he is quoted as saying:

  "Some people commit suicide; they seem to think that there is
  suffering simply because there is the human life, and that by cutting
  off the life there will be nothing... But, according to the Buddhist
  viewpoint, that's not the case; your consciousness will continue. Even
  if you take your own life, this life, you will have to take another
  body that again will be the basis of suffering. If you really want to
  get rid of all your suffering, all the difficulties you experience in
  your life, you have to get rid of the fundamental cause (greed, hatred
  and delusion) that gives rise to the aggregates that are the basis of
  all suffering. Killing yourself isn't going to solve your problems."

—so my question is: If in fact many plan to suicide when he dies, why will they act in a way that is antithetical to their teachings, specifically the beliefs of their religious leader? It seems to this Westerner a totally illogical reaction. My perception, not criticism or judgment, is that it's especially irrational considering Dalai Lama's objection to suicide, Buddha notwithstanding: "If one knows how to treasure oneself, one should protect oneself well."—The Buddha (Dhammapada)

Can light be shed on this question? If I have been misled about the intentions of many followers to terminate their existence as a result of his passing, then my question should be deleted. Also, this is not the same question as "What are the consequences of the 14th Dalai Lama being the last one?" because it's not about the order of things but rather about the contradiction of ethics and action which I am unable to reconcile, hence the question, which I realize hinges completely on the report of planned suicides following his death, and I'm currently scouring for sources (I think it was an NPR radio program, perhaps).

History of martyrdom in Buddhism

The Burning monk of Saigon, Thích Quảng Đức is perhaps the most famous of monks in recent times who self immolated for a cause, however he is hardly the first, in fact he follows a very ancient precedent set since before the beginning of history in Buddhism. The Buddha in his life just preceding his Buddhahood offered himself to a hungry tiger in keeping with his Bodhisattva vow of placing others before the self.

Also see, Benn, James A. (2007), Burning for the Buddha: self-immolation in Chinese Buddhism, University of Hawaii Press, 9-10.

Taking the Bodhisattva precept of protecting others can mean sometimes, usually very senior monks, will set themselves alight, or feed themselves to insects or abandon their body in other ways for a worthy cause.

Often the miraculously unburned tongue or heart is enshrined as a holy relic as a mark of the Bodhisattva's faith.

Technically, this isn't suicide but heroic martyrdom of the non-violent kind.

Specific case of Tibet

As a monk, the Dalai Lama is bound by the pattimokha (monastic rules) to not praise the desirability of death. Any monk who praises death, commits a Pārājika (very grave) (literal translation: defeated one) offence, and entails expulsion from the Sangha.

The Dalai Lama is not any ordinary monk, he knows his word carries enormous weight. If he were to even hint that martyrdom would be appropriate, tens of thousands would self immolate, or destroy themselves without a second's hesitation.

Therefore he is perfectly correct on both humanitarian and monastic grounds to insist vehemently that suicide is not an option.

Last, but not least, it is also tactically wise, since the Chinese would wait for just such an opportunity where a nuanced but confusing utterance can be turned into a controversy. He has to be very careful as a leader of a people, in issuing fool proof statements that cannot be misinterpreted.

However, Buddhism is first and foremost about personal responsibility. As rational beings, Buddhists can weigh the odds and decide for themselves if martyrdom is worthy. Certainly there is room for violating the mundane order of things, when one operates on a rather high level of attainment.

Thus, they are not disobeying the Dalai Lama, as much as respecting their inner conscience and spiritual path.

Often times such acts of martyrdom arise from pure Bodhisattva nature, however sometimes it is a copy-cat act done under peer pressure. Hopefully the Dalai Lama's objections will dissuade the latter kind.


Having difficulty logically understanding how clinging leads to becoming I am having difficultly logically understanding how clinging leads to becoming. Can anyone elaborate on this link of dependent orgination?

The Pali suttas define three types of 'becoming', as follows:

  And what is becoming? There are three kinds of becoming: sensual becoming, fine-material becoming & immaterial becoming. This is called
  becoming. ~ SN 12.2 ~

In AN 3.76, ‘becoming’ (bhava) is defined  as the mind "established" in a sense object:

  “the consciousness of beings (sattānaṃ), hindered by ignorance and bound by craving, that is established (patiṭṭhitaṃ) in the sensuality,
  materiality or immateriality element/sphere”

Therefore, these three types of becoming simply reflect the levels of sustained & continued attachment to: (i) the physical body and its sensations; (ii) attachment to fine-material states of meditative absorption (rupa jhana); and (iii) attachment to the immaterial states of meditative absorption (arupa jhana).

For example, the mind of a man sees (has sense contact with) a certain woman (sense object) and due to pleasant feelings & craving/lust towards the woman, the male mind gets stuck on or "picks up"/"carries" the sense object in his mind & starts thinking about the woman. This beginning to be mentally pre-occupied with the woman is attachment or grasping (upadana). The male mind then becomes fixated or obsessed with the woman, falling in love, thinking about the woman all the time & dreaming about how they will live romantically forever. This continued establishing & transforming of the mind in relation to the sense object is "becoming". Then the man & woman have a marriage ceremony and the man "becomes" the woman's husband and the woman "becomes" the man's wife. The marriage ceremony is "becoming" and the finality of actually being a "husband" or being a "wife" is called "birth" ("jati").

"Jati" ("birth") is defined as the mental creation of the ideas or social conventions of "beings" & the "various orders of beings", such as "man", "woman", "husband", "wife", "lawyer", "doctor", "me", "you" etc.

Therefore, in summary, 'becoming' is just the continuation of 'attachment', however more intensely, to the point that the mind 'transforms' itself into something different to what is was previously.


In Mahayana Buddhism, do they expect everyone to become a Buddha? If so how can any Buddha help anyone to attain enlightenment? In Mahayana Buddhism, do they expect everyone to become a Buddha? If so, how can any Buddha help anyone attain enlightenment? Isn't the whole point of becoming a Buddha to help others to attain enlightenment?

It's like asking everyone in the country to become kings. Then there won't be any countrymen left to rule.

To give another analogy, imagine patients refusing to follow doctor advice saying that they want to become doctors first to help cure others. Then those future patients they are hoping to help would also have to refuse their help to try to become doctors themselves. At the end of the day, no patient makes use of any doctor and no doctor cures any patient. So why become a doctor in the first place?:)

In Mahayana Buddhism, they assume that everyone is already a Buddha. Enlightenment (bodhi) is self-existing, it is our natural state. It is our true nature, our primordial face. The only problem is, we got alienated from it, lost connection with it - but only at the superficial level. Deep inside we are always enlightened, all we need is to connect the layers and remember.

So when someone attains enlightenment, they see everyone as enlightened already. They also see the confusion, or the illusion of confusion. And that's what they help the others to overcome.

It's like, you wanted to become free from slavery and you thought the only way to do that is to become a king. But then you realize that this sort of thinking is still a slavery thinking. You realize that in fact we're all already free, that slavery was a lie that we believed in only because of ignorance. But as you go around on your white horse helping others get this, some may mistake you for a king. And then it's up to you to either tell them the truth, or to play a king for their benefit, like an adult playing Santa for the sake of kids.


What is Meant by Inner and Outer Meditation? I am attending a class in Vipassana meditation.  It's a series of three courses.  The second course is almost over.  The third course starts May 5.  The instructor says the third course will teach "Inner meditation" and "Outer meditation".  He won't say what that means yet.

The instructor told me he learned meditation from taking the Sarah Powers course.   I noticed you have a video called 'Insight Yoga with Sarah Powers".  A reviewer on Amazon says you explain  "Inner meditation" and "Outer meditation"

Can you give me at least  a brief explanation of what that means as I am trying to decide whether or not I want to move on with the next course

Frames of Reference

'The mind inside' refers to a state exclusively in the heart unrelated to any outer preoccupations.
'The mind outside' refers to its interaction with such outer preoccupations as sights, sounds, etc.

"The mind inside" consists of the mental states of desire, aversion and ignorance.
"The mind outside" consists of these same mental states but now they have attached to something outside of ourselves.
For example, being angry would be an internal mind state. Being angry at something would be an external mind state.


Is Satori the same as Enlightenment? Is the Zen term Satori the same as enlightenment or does it have different nuances or emphasis over what is commonly meant by enlightenment in non-Zen texts. If it is the same then why is used at all. Is its usage just a cultural thing and enlightenment could equally be substituted?

No, satori is not complete enlightenment, it is an a-ha moment when the practitioner finally realizes "how things are":

  Seeing his own original nature, he discovers that the ground of this
  nature is innately free of defilement, and that he himself is
  originally endowed with the non‐outflow wisdom‐nature which is not a
  hair's breadth different from that of all the Buddhas.

From this moment on, one's practice stops being guesswork or imitation and becomes informed by real understanding. In Zen this is known as "sudden awakening, gradual cultivation":

  Although he has awakened to the fact that his original nature is no
  different from that of the Buddhas, the beginningless habit‐energies
  are extremely difficult to remove suddenly and so he must continue to
  cultivate while relying on this awakening. Through this gradual
  permeation, his endeavors reach completion. He constantly nurtures the
  sacred embryo, and after a long time he becomes a saint. Hence it is
  called gradual cultivation.  This process can be compared to the
  maturation of a child. From the day of its birth, a baby is endowed
  with all the sense organs just like everyone else, but its strength is
  not yet fully developed. It is only after many months and years that
  it will finally become an adult. (from Secrets on Cultivating the Mind  by Bojo Jinul)

Chogyam Trungpa also speaks about it:

  Having received transmission and having had some kind of realization,
  you have to follow it up; you have to become liberated. Some people
  think realization is liberation, but in our case, it is not. When you
  realize something, you have to practice that realization, and then you
  are liberated. So realization does not mean you are liberated; it
  means that you have just touched on the possibility of liberation. Realization is like seeing the first rays of sunshine on the horizon -- you know that the sun is in the sky.


Does consensual sex break the five precepts? Is it considered breaking the five precepts under these circumstances:

Both are in a relationship, unmarried and it's purely consensual.
Both are single and it's purely consensual.

There are four conditions for wrong conduct in sexual pleasures.

i) There must be a man or woman with whom it is improper to
have sexual intercourse.

ii) There must be intention to have sexual intercourse with such a
person.

iii) Action must be taken to have such an intercourse.

iv) There must be enjoyment from contact of the sexual organs.

With reference to the first condition, there are twenty kinds of
women with whom men should have no sexual relations. They can
be divided into three groups, namely: women under the
guardianship of parents, family members, relatives and authorities
charged with their care; married or betrothed women; bhikkhunis
and religious women observing the Holy Life. For all women, a
man forbidden by tradition or under religious rules is prohibited
as a partner. For any unwilling partner who is drugged or forced to
have sexual intercourse under threat of violence or coercion,
conditions (ii) & (iv) exclude them from violation of the precept.

Causes of Sexual Misconduct

The root cause of sexual misconduct is always greed or lust,
accompanied by delusion.
Factors affecting the Gravity of Sexual Misconduct
The gravity of the offence is determined by the degree of lust
motivating the action and the qualities of the person against whom
the transgression is committed. When the lust is very strong, even
incest and rape can be committed, the most serious being the rape of
a female Arahant.

So to answer your questions,
consensuality is actually a requirement to break the 3rd precept. If a girl gets raped, she's not breaking the precept, but the man is.

Case #1: Yes, if it violates the 1st condition

Case #2: Yes, if it violates the 1st condition

Whether it's a long term relationship or just a one night stand is irrelevant to violating the 3rd precept. Lust is the root cause in both cases.


Benefits of "Mental Noting" during positive events? I've been using Mental Noting to improve my handling of anxious thoughts and emotions but I ran into a strange situation today. Most of my thoughts have been neutral or negative, and mentally noting such thoughts has allowed me to disassociate myself with any such passing clouds in my mind so that I can continue about my day.

However, after a physically gloomy day today I saw the sun come out and light up the city. I initially felt very happy seeing the sun shine across the buildings but then my habit of noting came in the picture and I felt a distance between me and the emotion (just as I would an anxious emotion). From what I understand, this is what the practice calls for me to do in any type of event.

Is there something I'm doing wrong or missing here? It seems that long-term noting will cause me to put a distance between pleasurable moments just as it would with negative ones? Why would I want this? I enjoy such emotions and whatever pain I experience from them being so fleeting is worth it. I'd rather maintain the duration by which I experience such moments, not shorten it with noting. I'm not sure what perspective to have in such cases and whether there is some greater benefit to continuing to do this for all situations?

I spoke before about the power of narratives. Narratives is how our mental world is shaped, narratives is one of the main ways to control the sukha/dukha mechanism described in the Four Noble Truths.

In this case, mental noting is a special case of narrative. By looking at thoughts and emotions in a certain way ("in and off themselves" as Buddha said in Satipatthana) we create a special philosophical narrative in which the thoughts are things of a different order than they are in our regular everyday context. We look at them neutrally, philosophically. Hence the dissociation effect.

However, mental noting is just one way to do narrative. The idea is to be the master of your thoughts (via control of the context / frame of reference) instead of being driven by your thoughts (being locked in a certain context). So don't fall in the same trap with your positive experiences, you don't have to shape it in a way that does not induce positive states of mind. You are totally free to create any sort of narrative (assuming it is true, not harmful, and does not go contrary to Dharma) - as long as it drives you up. In fact the whole point of the First Jhana is to learn to control your mood via narratives (and then directly, in the Second Jhana).


Emptiness and physical pain How can an understanding of emptiness help when experiencing physical pain, i have some understanding of emptiness from a mental viewpoint, and I understand that I can direct my mind to perceive the physical pain as karma ripening or that I have a choice of perception of my physical pain, I don't have to experience it as something to have aversion to. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

Pain is just pain, it is empty of a self, it isn't a self; does not belong to a self; is empty of an owner

Seen as being empty of the quality of self or belonging to a self; there does not come to be an 'I am' in regards to the pain; there being no 'I am' in regards to the pain there is no 'I am experiencing pain'; there being no 'i am experiencing pain' there is no 'i am bad because i am experiencing pain'; there being no 'i am bad because i am experiencing pain ' there is no 'may i not be experiencing pain'

Understanding emptiness in this sense removes the basis for aversion that could arise in regards to a painful feeling


Moderation in meditation for lay people Vipassana-style meditation has been adapted to treat patients to prevent recurrence of depression and anxiety through MBCT, and to treat chronic pain and stress through MBSR. More info on this can found in this answer.

On the other hand, there have been some reported cases (see here) of people who attended the 10-day Goenka vipassana retreats and became psychotic and suicidal.

I have also heard that such negative effects may be a normal part of a meditator's progress, called the "dark night" or "death of the ego" (according to this answer). These could be part of the sixteen stages of insight (according to this page), namely bhaya nana or "knowledge of the appearance as terror" and adinava nana or "knowledge of the contemplation of disadvantages".

Questions:

Are episodes of psychosis resulting from 10-day vipassana retreats the result of something not right (e.g. pre-existing mental conditions, the side effect of combining other techniques such as mantra or tantra with vipassana), or is it a normal part of progress in vipassana meditation? If the two are different, then what is the difference?
For lay people, are the Goenka retreats considered too intense and thus out-of-moderation? Is it better for lay people to attend weekly sessions and spend less than an hour daily in meditation, rather than the intense and rigorous Goenka retreats?
Is it better for lay people to practise in such a way that they will not reach the "dark night" stages because these stages are more suited for monks?
Is it required for lay people to find a teacher who can determine what is moderate for them, or can they just follow generic instructions?

Daniel Ingram writes a lot about the 'dark night' and working through it. In an interview (Buddhist Geeks I think - sorry no exact reference) he said that dark night will be encountered by

Intense meditators who really go for it - many hours a day over months
Committed but steady meditators who meditate every day for around 30 minutes and maybe go on a week's retreat once a year. Then after 20 years - bang - they are in the dark night

So according to Daniel you don't need to be a intensive meditator to get the dark night effects. You just need to be reasonable committed and practise over a long enough period. So advising lay people to moderate probably wouldn't be effective - at some point they are going to hit something unpleasant. Perhaps the best thing would be to make them aware and give them tools to cope. That approach is one of the major themes in Daniel Ingram;s book.

On a personal note - My practice is firmly in the second category but I have banged up again some crappy stuff. Not "dark night" but crippling doubt and inability to move forward for extended periods. I think it just happens.


Breathing Meditation and Repression I've engaged for a while in breathing meditation, yet I've had concerns that since I'm a person with a tendency for avoidance, that meditation for me involves repressing emotions or experience.
I'm not consciously attempting to deny my experience, or push things away; however, I sometimes feel that's the outcome of my breathing meditation.
I wonder: is there anything else than the breath I could focus on? Will breathing meditation help or hinder with emotional regulation? Is it normal that I experience less thoughts and emotions while focusing on the breath, and should I just keep going?

Ideally, I'd like a technique that generates more contact with emotion, more ability to feel and let go emotions, but especially feel them.

Thanks for any thoughts.

EDIT: Would it be beneficial to sit for a certain amount of time no matter what meditative technique is used? E.g. sit--regardless of meditation type--40 min a day?

You can use mindfulness of the actual sensations of the breath as your "anchor" meditation object but when there is a distraction then the distraction itself, as it is, becomes the meditation object until it falls or it is appropriate to go back to the anchor object that is usually the breath (although it could be any aspect of experience depending on who is teaching or what the technique is).

The distractions are not judged (if they are then that very  judging or partiality is a distraction that can be the next object focused on, as it is,  in the present moment).

We have all kinds of emotional feelings like anger, impartiality, sadness, disgust, disliking, liking, euphoria, delight, happiness, partiality and so on

We also have perceptions, thoughts and more or less solid opinions.

We have physical sensations that can often give us a clue to how we're feeling. Like tension in the neck and shoulders or a wonderful warm fuzzy feeling in the heart or it can just be an itch, pain, warmth, cold, shock, ache and so on.

We have all kinds of emotional feelings like anger, impartiality, sadness, disgust, disliking, liking, euphoria, delight, happiness and partiality.

These are examples of the kinds of experiences that arise through the senses and the mind all the time, if wee notice them or if we don't notice them.

When we really get into this kind of meditation, we will see how one thing leads to another and we start seeing more and more subtly in our own experience. We will often see how subtly partial we are with every experience we focus on. The idea is to have equanimity or full impartiality at even the most  subtle level. This kind of meditation with morality and concentration* will slowly show us how to let go and accept reality as it is so we can...
 ...understand how to live
 ...be ready when we get sick
 ...be ready and in harmony with death

*Some techniques have the concentration part built into the meditation such as the Mahasi Technique.

There are many techniques but all I know how to tell people about adequately is the one I do myself -- two links to the full on step by step Mahasi technique (insight meditation):

Sayadaw U Pandita: How to Practice Vipassana Insight Meditation
Bhante Yuttadhammo: How To Meditate: A Beginner's Guide to Peace


buddha and me (my will to accept all from buddism) I am looking for something unknown, not known to me very clearly. Maybe it is ultimate peace or harmony or empathy or sympathy or state of nirvana or supermundane advantage or all of these. Somehow I feel that I can get all of them by following the rules stated in Buddhism. So I want to know what kind of relation I should accept between me and Buddha? Who I am, a student or a master, and if death is somehow the only end then where, or at which level, do I need to be awakened?

I personally wouldn't worry about such details and labels of who is who and what status everyone is. I would recommend you read, " The Noble Eightfold Path"( conceptual understanding) accompanied with Vipassana meditation (experiential realization). Work your way through the teachings of the NEP, and you will remove your own ignorance.

I would still recommend asking monks for detailed help, but what i have mentioned above, that will be a very good starting point for you, if you are serious about the practice!

I hope i have helped!

Metta


Do doctors waste their chance? Instead of dwelling on the true nature of the body right in front of their eyes, Doctors have become PROBLEM SOLVERS. Doctors see birth, aging, sickness and death on a daily basis but have somehow become deaf,dumb and blind to all that they see and hear inside a ward. It is all just an addition subtraction formula where drugs/treatment are prescribed for easing a patient's suffering, while maybe giving a patient reassurance if needed.

How can a medical student or a doctor get across this barrier, and not be deconditioned to being blind to the truth, and how can he/she be strong and balanced enough mentally to cope up with the evergrowing needs/obligations that a doctor is cursed with?

Do doctors waster their chance as you put it? They are human beings and so we could surmise most do and some don't. Do they have a privileged position to exercise their humanity?

  Doctors see birth, aging, sickness and death on a daily basis but have somehow become deaf,dumb and blind to all that they see and hear inside a ward.

I totally agree with you! I recently watched Alive Inside, a brilliant documentary about the plight of the elderly in America who are struggling with dementia and other related diseases. The documentary clearly illustrates that the root cause of the problem is not that the care givers and doctors are inhuman but that the system in which they find themselves, conditions them to think of the elderly under their care as 'patients' not human beings. Until they are 'cured' we must hide them away in institutions.

Science is great at solving problems but, in the medical profession, it has been taken too far and patients are seen as puzzles to solve, dials to turn and control rather than as HUMAN BEINGS. So what's missing is COMPASSION.

The modern Hypocratic Oath states:

  I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. Wikipedia

How much of this warmth, sympathy and understanding is taught in medical school? Very little. It's all science - diagnosis and treatment of symptoms. Symptoms that present themselves in a biological machine not in a human being. Without the balance of a basic compassionate view, failure to cure every patient, will eventually take its emotional toll on the doctor. From a basic view of compassion there is no failure only a desire to help, to support and care for.

In ayurvedic medicine, doctors ask the following four questions upon seeing their patients: 1) Is there a disease? If so, what is it? 2) What is the cause of the disease? 3) Is there a cure for the disease? 4) If there is a cure, what is the treatment?

Sounds like the Four Noble Truths right? Buddha must have been exposed to Ayurveda in India and re-framed these questions to diagnose the human condition. Buddha could have kept quiet about his great liberation under the Bodhi tree and just live out the rest of his life in bliss and happiness ... but he chose to teach and share with others out of COMPASSION.

So I think my answer is clear ;)

  How can a medical student or a doctor get across this barrier, and not be deconditioned to being blind to the truth, and how can he/she be strong and balanced enough mentally to cope up with the evergrowing needs/obligations that a doctor is cursed with?

COMPASSION :)


What happens if a Person spent money on good things which are earned from bad ways Think That , a person is selling liquor or weapons , Now he has done the business some time and now he is a very rich person .

According to Buddhism Selling liquor and weapons are bad businesses .

Now he is spending money for good things ;)

Ex:- doing lots of charity work .

So now what will happen .

If he did more good things more  no harm will come for him ?

Can you explain me this :) Thanks in advance.

There is no problem at all. It will have mixed result (if casue is really mixed) or each action will have it's own result (selling liquor - bad, generosity - good). Amount of the result is not just lineraly depend on the amount of action, it's also depend on the level of development of mind of the performer. There is more factors to play in the ripening of karma.


Four noble truths, any single being of mankind can invent, find the new truth other than that? Gautama Buddha found the traditional path of previous Buddhas and spoke about "The four noble truths". Nowadays, people cannot talk about/discuss the truth or falsehood of idea/notion/philosophical/religious entity. Did the current generation lose the ability to judge/determine/conclude the truth or falsehood of idea/notion/philosophical/religious entity? Or do we universally accept the idea that not a single living being be able to find/invent/prove that the new truth about the entities? Do we really have to remove the words truth and false from our dictionaries since we are not allowed to use in anywhere else?

If you will study in-depth, the Four Truths are a complete system in themselves.

Asking if there is a 5th truth to be invented is like saying if there is an additional step to the scientific method... i.e. such a person does not understand the scientific method in the first place.


Why are so many Buddhists in the west hostile to academic analyses of the religion? Why are some Buddhists in the west hostile to academic analyses of the religion?

You have strayed from the direct path free from [reified concept of] intrinsic being, and wandered down the wrong path of strict rationalism. And as you apply yourself to the labors of your own imagination, the obstructions to the correct path mount ever higher. What do you derive from this constant accumulation of words?

~Candrakirti, as quoted in "The Emptiness of Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Madhyamika" by C. W. Huntington & Geshe Namgyal Wangchen


Is a Theravada Buddhist permitted/able to take a Bodhisattva vow? This is a sister question to this one.

Suppose a Theravada practitioner decided they wanted to take a Bodhisattva vow, could they (and remain Theravadin)? I guess there are a few of components to this question:

Does Theravada have scope for individuals to even make the Bodhisattva choice at all when the time comes?
Even if it does, does it then allow for individuals to make a promise, in advance -- i.e. to vow -- that they will make that choice at that time?
Finally, even if Theravada sees both choice and vow as being possible, does it regard people who make that vow as remaining as Theravada practitioners, or would they be seen has having moved into Mahayana?

The term theravāda means "doctrine" (vāda) of the elders (thera). It generally refers to the teachings found in the Pali Canon, commentaries, and sub-commentaries. Anything laid down as doctrine in this large body of literature should be considered as theravada.

Does Theravada have scope for individuals to even make the Bodhisattva choice at all when the time comes?

The Buddha did not, as far as the theravada goes (and as far as I'm aware), teach his followers to become Buddhas, since his focus was on leading beings to freedom from suffering as soon as possible. It is acknowledged as a valid path, however, since that is obviously the only way a Buddha can arise. In many places the Buddha talked about how great was the arising of a Buddha in the world, for the benefit of many.

Even if it does, does it then allow for individuals to make a promise, in advance -- i.e. to vow -- that they will make that choice at that time?

Again, there is no doctrinal teaching on the matter; the closest you'll get is in the Jataka commentary, translated in Buddhism in Translations, which talks about the perfections and characteristics of a Bodhisatta.

Finally, even if Theravada sees both choice and vow as being possible, does it regard people who make that vow as remaining as Theravada practitioners, or would they be seen has having moved into Mahayana?

The theravada doesn't recognize the term "Mahayana"; it recognizes three paths:

sammā-sambuddha - one who becomes enlightened by themselves and is able to teach others to become enlightened due to their limitless knowledge.
pacceka-buddha - one who becomes enlightened by themselves but is unable to teach others to become enlightened due to their limited knowledge.
sāvaka-buddha one who becomes enlightened through the teaching of a sammā-sambuddha.

  While thus I lay upon the ground, Arose within me many thoughts:
  "To-day, if such were my desire, I my corruptions might
  consume.

  "But why thus in an unknown guise Should I the Doctrine's fruit
  secure? Omniscience first will I achieve, And be a Buddha in
  the world.

  "Or why should I, a valorous man, The ocean seek to cross alone?
  Omniscience first will I achieve, And men and gods convey
  across.

  "Since now I make this earnest wish, In presence of this Best of
  Men, Omniscience sometime I'll achieve, And multitudes
  convey across.

  "I'll rebirth's circling stream arrest, Destroy existence's three
  modes; I'll climb the sides of Doctrine's ship, And men and
  gods convey across.

  -- The Story of Sumedha


Devas: offerings and merit sharing In Jāṇussoṇi sutta (AN 10.177) the brahmin asks the Buddha whether offers to departed relatives and family members benefit them. The Buddha says that "on the right occasion, brahmin, it can be of benefit not on a wrong occasion", and later on, he says about someone who is reborn in the deva's world that "this is a wrong occasion, when the gift is not of benefit to one living there".
At the same time, we find in suttas such as Ratana Sutta and quite a few others, references not only to devas desiring offerings, humans making offerings to them, and even sharing merits with them.
Of course, it's a fact known that the many (if not all?) traditions, specially in the Theravada countries support the practice of offerings and merit sharing with devas.
My questions then are:
a) Does any literature (eg. commentaries) deal with this seemingly conflict?
b) Are there any known explanations by elders of any tradition commenting on this sutta?

The  Jāṇussoṇi Sutta is about merit or benefit accruing to the receiver of the gift.
The Ratana Sutta is probably about merit or benefit accruing to the giver of the gift.
Is so, there appears to be no conflict.

In the Janussonin Sutta, the Buddha states that food offerings to the dead cannot reach them if they are reborn in hell, as animal, as human or as devas (heavanly beings). However, food offerings to the dead would reach them or other ancestors who are born as hungry ghosts or petas.
This is because a human or god does not need the gift, which is why the gift does not accrue to them. For example, a virtuous (human) parent gains merit from giving to its children. When a child gives a gift to its parents, this gift is only a trivial or amusing thing to the parent (rather than something that changes the parent's merit). Or when a rich person (a god) is given a gift, it does not change the rich person. For example, my rich friend returned home from overseas recently and when I visited him after many years I sensed I was not really appreciated by him because he has become very important & rich. But 15 years ago when he was having relationship problems & I helped him, he appreciated me because he was a hungry ghost then, wanting a successful relationship.
Similarly, for beings trapped in hell or animal mind, a gift does not accrue to them because of their chronic state. For example, when people are chronically depressed due to a deep loss (which is 'hell'), giving a gift does not help them. Similarly, an animal, such as a sexual predator, does not respond to gifts because they do not have the disposition for loving others. For example, I know a man who is a sexual predator, who is bitter & twisted. I helped him once for many hours set up & learn to use his new computer but he is never friendly when he sees me. He hates everyone. He is incapable of gratitude because his mind is animal mind, every morning & every afternoon on the same beat looking for tourist women to have sex with.
But for a hungry ghost, a person who is lonely or searching for love, a gift accrues to them because the hungry ghost is searching for love or gifts. The hungry ghost wants to be reborn in a human relationship & they respond very positively to receiving gifts.

In the same way, a family member who has not done enough merit to be human (enlightened) or a god & is also not an animal or hell being but is separated from their family & misses their family will accrue from a gift from their family. This is what the hungry ghost is here, namely, the needy & unenlightened family member who misses their family.
Its like my mother, who I see for one or two weeks per year. My giving gifts to her does not change the enormous merit she has made as a mother. Therefore, my gifts to her are essentially worthless, apart from a token gesture to show I think about her. However, my small token gesture is important to the 'hungry ghost' element in my mother; namely, her need to know her children think about her on her birthday, mothers day, Xmas, etc. Just a small gift or phone call is enough to keep this hungry ghost element in my mother satisfied. I am not required to give an enormous gift to my mother.

The above analysis is supported by the traditional depiction of the Wheel of Life (below), where the antidote, solution or practice for each realm given by the Buddha is depicted as follows:

humane - renunciation

godly - beauty

animal - morality

hungry ghost - generosity

hell - 'the book' - the Four Noble Truths


Why is meditation pleasurable? It strikes me that it is very fortunate that meditation can be pleasurable. If there was no fairly immediate rewards then surely hardly anyone would make any kind of progress towards enlightenment. It almost like it is designed to have little pleasant staging posts where the practitioner can rest before continuing onward with the journey.

But why is meditation pleasurable? Could it be insightful but barren or is there something inherent in the practice that is pleasant and the pleasant quality of meditation is a necessary quality? What do the texts say about the pleasant qualities of meditation? Is there any accounts about why it is pleasant perhaps mythic accounts or explanations?

When I took the course Buddhism and Modern Psychology, the lecture delved into the neurobiology behind meditation. Material was presented that breaks up the conscious mind into 8 centers competing to be at the forefront of awareness. When meditating, the Default Mode Network(DMN) in the mind shows less activity in fMRI scans in studies led by Judson Brewer who himself used meditation as a coping mechanism during medical school.

The DMN is the center of the mind thought to be responsible for daydreaming. The exact mechanism between meditation and pleasure in the mind is not known, but I speculate that a sort of rhythm develops between these competing centers and other parts of the brain that leads to decreased levels of cortisol and increase in pleasure neurotransmitters such as dopamine.

A point to note: Suzuki Roshi mentions in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, that the purpose of meditation is not too feel good or become a better person rather the purpose of meditation is to meditate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_mode_network

https://www.coursera.org/course/psychbuddhism

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/05/the-healing-art-of-meditation/


A Creation Story in Buddhism? Some major religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have a Creation Story, which describes how God created the universe. These stories describe how a deity created the earth and then the first man and woman, who are regarded as the father and mother of all mankind.

Does Buddhism also have a similar Creation Story?

The creation or non-creation of the universe is among of the unanswered questions of the Buddha i.e.

Is the world eternal?
...or not?
...or both?
...or neither?

The answer is not to concern yourself with such matters. The Buddha teaches one thing and that thing is liberation.

BUT

Interestingly there is a creation myth in the Aggañña Sutta. But it don't think it should be taken too seriously as I believe it is a satire on the caste system.


What's the role of mother-day in regard of a blessed life? Being broad celebrated mothers-day today, my person thought to give this question space so that many might share reflections on it and pissible give others good inspirations:

What role does a day like mothersday play for a blessed life, for a follower of the Buddhas Dhamma, and how would it be good spend by mind words and bodily deeds?

(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds here, but for escape from this wheel)

I would like to paraphrase Luang Por Viradhammo, who cared for about 10 years for his elderly mother, in saying that it is good to have formal ways of bringing up and maintaining gratitude for ones mother lest we become complacent and let the importance they have in our being here fade from our minds.

With that in mind, I would say that exactly how you would internally use the formal occasion of mother's day is something only yourself can piece together. I hope the two links I am sharing can help give you a good starting point for reflection.

Dhamma talk by Luang Por Sumedho about gratitude to parents

Article by Ajahn Amaro


Why does MN 117 refer to a dirty defiled (กิเลส) right view of bondage? MN 117 states:

  And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is
  given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and
  result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other
  world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn
  spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and
  brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and
  declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected
  by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.

Why does MN 117 refer to a dirty defiled (กิเลส) right view? How can this be so? How can a right view be polluted with asava (effluents, outflows, taints, corruptions, discharge, secretions, กิเลส)?

In Pali text, it  says  sāsavā, not  asāvā.  Because there are no direct translation of both words to English that would capture meanings and differentiate them at the same time.  The translator tried his best to preserve original Pali text.  A new word in English may have to be invented.

Maybe "still a taint" is another option for sāsavā?

  ...And what, bhikkhus, is right view is still affected by the taints
  ...

  ...Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi? Sammādiṭṭhimpahaṃ
  , bhikkhave, dvāyaṃ
   vadāmi—atthi, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi sāsavā puññabhāgiyā upadhivepakkā;.....

there is no direct translation to english for sāsavā . But I understand this word as "positive attachments to mind, things of good merits", quite opposite of asava, negative attachements to mind).  However, any attachment; positive or negative is still a taint (asava)

Where further in this sutta "anāsavā lokuttarā", i understand it as positive attachments to mind that noble disciples know they need to let go.

They are 3 different key words in this sutta:

sāsavā
asava
anāsavā


What are the results of doing meththa meditation? What are the results of doing meththa meditation?

can someone point out some reference from "suttas" (A translation of a sutta)?

There are many good returns of Meththa to a practitioner.If you look at "Meththanisansa sutta" Lord Buddha had spoken of all of those in one teaching.Here's the english translation of Meththanisansa sutta

Meththanisansa sutta

I heard this way.....

Once when Lord Buddha was residing in Jethavana Monastery of noble anepidu Lord Buddha started a conversation saying fortune ate monks, The monks replied saying "yes,Fortunate one".Lord Buddha then went on to teach this.

Fortunate monks, one should expect 11 returns from a "Meththa Samadhi" which has been

Frequently practiced

Practiced like a vehicle/ship

That has been a basic goal of the mind

Which has been started well

And which has been established well in the mind.

What are these 11 returns?

Sleeping without discomfort
waking up without discomfort
Not seeing sinister dreams
Others become friendly
Non-human beings become friendly
Receives protection from "Devas"
Becomes free from any harm that comes from fire,wepons or poison
Reaches "Samadhi" Faster
Face/Appearance becomes pleasant
Die with proper consciousness
If this person fail to reach the goals of the path he/she will have the next life among Brahmas

One should expect these 11 returns from a "Meththa Samadhi" which has been

Frequently practiced

Practiced like a vehicle/ship

That has been a basic goal of the mind

Which has been started well

And which has been established well in the mind.

Lord Buddha taught this and the "Sangha**" accepted it happily.

May the power of truth in these words bring comfort to all

Explanation of marked words above.

*Meththa Samadhi** -*

Samadhi is a state of mind in which the chaotic state of the mind has been stopped by a meditation. Mettha samadhi is reaching it with Meththa meditation

*Non-human beings** -*

Non-Human beings are Brahmas,Devas,Animals,Asuras and beings in lower realms

*Die with proper consciousness** -*

This means when the person dies he/she will not be dying with fear,anger,hate,greed or any other corrupting state of mind.The person will die with the knowledge of death and will be conscious enough to revisit the learning of dhamma

*Brahmas** -*

*Brahmas are at the peak of life.They are even above the "Devas" and they are actually the highest that any normal being can reach without the help of dhamma.Birth in this realm happens only to beings with "Samadhi".They hold the highest life expectancy of all beings (Unfortunately our number system will not have a number to match it).

*Sangha** -*

The holy monks.


Doubt in Soul and sects Metta,

According to Buddhism, the soul is absent but karma is there. How it's possible without Soul, Karma would present. After the death, due to the karma of a person, he will rebirth. If the soul is absent how he will take rebirth.

2nd doubt, In Buddhism there are 2 Sects. In Hinayana - Acceptance the teaching of Buddhism. In Mahayana - Acceptance of Idol of Buddha. My question is Buddha is a God or Preacher.

Eh Ma Ho,
SURESH BABU

A person is a Dependently Arisen process. Actions [Karma] will influence the direction which the process takes [positive and negative conditioning], hence influence rebirth. There is no permanent core [soul] which is a store of Karma.

The Buddha is someone who found the truth of regarding existence and compassionately taught it so being can come out of their misery.


Cravings Arising to Consciousness I noticed that I usually think in a very abstract manner, without images, just words and ideas. When I try intentionally to think visually, only then does lustful or worry-related images pop up. And, only then can I seemingly redirect my attention from these images.

If a person thinks very abstractly, is it possible that cravings or worries don't arise in consciousness? What is going on here?

I believe Tibetan Vajrayana lays more emphasis on visualization as against abstract thinking, as a means towards final liberation. Recommend utube  discourses by Professor Robert Thurman and Lama Govinda's classic 'Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism' for starters. Its likely to be a long haul.


Are there formal mechanisms in any Buddhist institutions that explicitly reconcile Buddhist principles with science? If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
  -- Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama in "Our Faith in Science", The New York Times

This is all very well, but are there formal mechanisms in any Buddhist institutions that explicitly allow Buddhist principles to be reconciled with the findings of science?

The general claim in Buddhism, or at least in Theravada Buddhism, is that a Buddha is omniscient. That makes it difficult to question what the texts claim the Buddha himself said. In a couple of places this seems to put science and Buddhism at odds (e.g. causes of earthquakes).

The closest we have to what you are suggesting is an act of the sangha; after the Buddha passed away, we have record of a Buddhist council where they discussed whether to revoke the minor monastic rules as the Buddha had allowed them to do, and they decided as a group not to. Later sangha councils edited the canonical texts but would never have redacted something that they thought the Buddha had said in error.

I think, at the very least, unlike faith-based religions, Buddhism doesn't rely on absolute statements of truth, but rather practices that lead to self-realization; so it doesn't matter as much if statements in the canon like the causes of earthquakes and the size of the universe, etc., are accurate. What matters is if the path leads to the goal, and that is to be verified by oneself.

As a result, you find more marginalizing of problematic teachings, rather than striking them out. First of all, because the Buddha was said to be infallible, but second of all because we know that we are not. The fear of wrongly striking a teaching out of ignorance is too great. But, we can always ignore troubling passages, I guess similar to how Jewish people ignore Leviticus for the most part.

So, no, there isn't really such a mechanism, afaics.


What titles apply to non-monastic/lay Buddhists? (upasaka/upasika savaka/sravaka) Labels are illusions like all conditioned phenomena, but I have an attachment to taxonomy and being able to describe myself accurately. I'm working on that, but in the meantime, I thought this would be a good question for the stack.

How best can people describe themselves in the hierarchy/ecology of believers if they aren't living the monastic life of the Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuṇī (monk/nun), but still consider themselves as living a life driven by the dhamma?

I personally identify as Theravada/Pali canon/early Bhuddism, but an answer specifying Mahayana/Vajrayana titles is also welcome!

Ideally I'd like Pali words and their best English equivalents, but obviously including Sanskrit versions too would be polite (^_^)

BONUS POINTS: My gender is non-binary (genderqueer/agender) and thus I really need a title that can apply to me without need to specify gender. If I ever become a monastic I will really have my work cut out for me and/or a need to compromise, but for any non-monastics with non-binary gender, which titles are functional for us?

you might get a few answers but here is my thought:

Śrāvaka (Sanskrit) or Sāvaka (Pali) means "hearer" or, more generally, or"disciple", or "one who sits near", "one who lend ears"

Gender neutral and describes all level of achievements.


Isn't the act of Prince Vessantara giving his children away extreme? http://www.buddha-images.com/vessantara-jataka.asp

  It depicts the life of prince Vessantara who gives away all his possessions, including his children to become servants of an evil spirited character.

What can this say that Buddha encourages the laymen The Middle Way, while his act of donating children during the life of prince Vessantara seems quite extreme for a layperson?

  Monks, these two extremes ought not to be practiced by one who has gone forth from the household life. (What are the two?) There is addiction to indulgence of sense-pleasures, which is low, coarse, the way of ordinary people, unworthy, and unprofitable; and there is addiction to self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy, and unprofitable.

Giving away children does not come under self-mortification. Self-mortification is torturing the physical body.

  “Venerable Nàgasena, do all the Bodhisattas give away their wives and
  children, or was it only Vessantara?” “All of them do.” “But do those
  wives and children consent to it?” “The wives do but the children do
  not due to their tender age.” “But was it then a meritorious deed if
  the children were terrified and cried at being given away?” “Yes it
  was. As a man desiring merit might take a cripple wherever he wanted
  to go in an ox-cart and thereby the oxen would be made to suffer; or
  as a king might levy a tax in order to perform a great meritorious
  deed; so too, giving, though it may cause anguish to some, is
  conducive to rebirth in heaven. Is there, king, any gift that should
  not be given?” “Yes, Nàgasena, there are ten kinds of gifts that
  should not be given, the giving of which leads to rebirth in states of
  woe: a gift of intoxicants, of a festival, of a woman, of a man,of
  suggestive designs, weapons, poisons, chains or instruments of
  torture, fowls and swine, or false weights and measures.” “I am not
  asking about gifts that are not approved of in the world. I am asking
  if there is any gift that should not be given when there is someone
  worthy of it.” “Then, Nàgasena, there is no gift that should not be
  given. When satisfaction in Dhamma has arisen, some people give a
  hundred thousand, or a kingdom or even their life.” “Then why do you
  criticize the gift of Vessantara so harshly? Is it not sometimes the
  case that a man in debt may sell his son or leave him as a pledge?
  Just so, Vessantara gave his son as a pledge against his future
  attainment of omniscience.” “Nevertheless, why did he not give himself
  instead?” “Because that was not what was asked for. To offer something
  else would have been ignoble. Furthermore, O king, Vessantara knew
  that the Brahmin would be unable to keep the children as slaves for
  long since he was advanced in years. Anyway, he knew their grandfather
  would pay a ransom for their return.” “Skilfully, Nàgasena, has this
  puzzle been unravelled. The net of heresy has been torn to pieces.
  Well has the letter of the scriptures been maintained while you have
  thus explained the spirit. This is so and I accept it as you say.”  - Milinda Panha


Non appearance of dhammas to note during meditation Early in my practice (Mahasi noting), I had plenty of thoughts come up to note, as taught, but lately there is only the meditation object. Is this normal or just another impermanent thing that will change with changing experience? I have meditated 5-6 months, and the last two I've had this (disappearance of outside thought) so to speak. Thanks.

The goal of the trainee level of Buddhist meditation is for the mind to be free from thought.

The Mahasi noting method is like training wheels on a child's bicycle (to be eventually discarded).


Why can't I appreciate my own life? I am young, today I turn 23, and my life is fast. I am a research student where my work is enjoyable, changing constantly and so invoking that I lose myself in it. My friends are family are fairly supportive, money is not a huge issue and I am in good health.
Even though things appear good, a life-situation that I would think is ideal, does not feel ideal, in fact it feels as empty and unforgiving as a bad life-situation.
Commonly I feel as though I am not living. When I am consumed by my research projects I am defiantly not self aware. When I am not doing research, I feel a dread that I am currently not awake, and that I am almost never awake. The only times I feel truly awake is in deep sadness; sometimes the sadness has no cause it is just weltschmerz.
Do other people feel this? Is this what being young feels like; if so, does it go away?
Would Buddhism or meditation make me feel wholesome rather than empty in moments of reflection?
Is this okay to feel?

Feeling weltschmerz, which I guess is feeling that the world and its material pleasures are ultimately not going to satisfy you, is a good thing. It hints towards the first noble truth that there is suffering.

However, focusing too much on it will make you sad and depressed, which is a negative emotion and not wholesome.

In Buddhism, there are various techniques to counter different types of unwholesome states of mind. When a car veers too much to the left, you nudge the steering wheel to the right. When a car is moving too slowly, you step on the accelerator pedal. But also the reverse is true with turning left or stepping on the brakes. Similarly, there are techniques in Buddhism to ensure that the mind stays wholesome and does not go into unwholesome states of mind.

Dhammadhatu's anapanasati (mindfulness of breathing) is one method.

However, being a young person, who should appreciate that both young and old people would not ultimately become and remain satisfied forever, from what the physical and material world offers, I suggest you to practise the Brahmavihara of metta, the meditation on loving kindness, whenever you feel the sadness of weltschmerz. It has many benefits.

Why do I suggest this? You should wish that all beings in this world, including yourself, should be happy at heart and and at ease. Yes, they may not be ultimately satisfied with what the world has to offer, but let them all be happy for this very moment and for as long as they can be. And this applies to you too.

From the Karaniya Metta Sutta:

  Think: Happy, at rest,
  may all beings be happy at heart.
  Whatever beings there may be,
  weak or strong, without exception,
  long, large, middling, short,
  subtle, blatant, seen & unseen,
  near & far, born & seeking birth:
  May all beings be happy at heart.

  Let no one deceive another
  or despise anyone anywhere,
  or through anger or irritation
  wish for another to suffer.

  As a mother would risk her life
  to protect her child, her only child,
  even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
  with regard to all beings.

  With good will for the entire cosmos,
  cultivate a limitless heart:
  Above, below, & all around, unobstructed,
  without enmity or hate.
  Whether standing, walking,
  sitting, or lying down,
  as long as one is alert,
  one should be resolved on this mindfulness.
  This is called a sublime abiding
  here & now.


Where is this budha from and would love to know any history of maker? Any information I would be grateful for. I have no idea be am very curious about this any a few other items I purchased recently.

At first I thought this could be Jigme Lingpa, who's is often depicted with this typical shape of eyebrows and this style of facial hair. But on a second look, I'm pretty sure this is obviously Padmasambhava or Guru Rinpoche, the founder of Tibetan Buddhism himself, thanks to the unmistakable hat, the dress with epaulets, as well as the ritual objects he holds.

According to a traditional iconographic description,

  ...he is white in colour with a reddish hue, one face adorned with a moustache and goatee, the right hand holds to the heart an upright gold vajra. The left hand placed in the lap holds a white skullcup filled with nectar, jewels and a long-life vase. The ornate katvanga staff of a Vajrayana mendicant decorated with streamers rests against the left shoulder. Adorned with gold earrings and necklaces, the head is covered with a lotus hat, a gift of the King of Zahor, of silk brocade topped with a half-vajra and a single vulture feather. Attired in various robes of different colours reflecting the disciplines of the Vinaya, Bodhisattva and Mantra Vehicles, he sits atop a sun and moon disc above a lotus blossom rising from the blue waters of Dhanakosha lake.

You can see the ring for the staff on your copy, while the staff itself seems to have been lost.

  Here, Padmasambhava can be seen in his most well known representation. His eyes are open in a piercing gaze; his face is wrathful and smiling, blazing magnificently with mysterious power. He cradles a khatvanga in his left arm, representing his consort Mandarava, who arouses realization of emptiness. His khatvanga is crowned with three severed heads and a trident, symbolizing Padmasambhava's liberation from the three kayas of desire, form and formlessness.

  He wears a lotus hat ornamented with a sun and moon, representing skillful means and wisdom. His hat also has a vajra top, symbolizing his unshakable samadhi, and is crowned with a vulture feather, representing his realization of the highest view. In his right hand he holds a vajra, an implement used in Tantric ritual to symbolize the union of conventional and ultimate truth. His left hand rests in his lap in the gesture of meditation (Dhyana Mudra) and holds a skull cup containing the vase of immortality. The vase is filled with the nectar of deathless wisdom and is adorned with leaves of a sacred flowering tree.


What is the practice people call "shamata practice". Where did this idea come from? I have been studying and practicing meditation for over a decade, mainly following Kamalashila's stages of meditation as a guide.  I learned that Shamata is defined as the single-mindedness which is imbued with the exceptional bliss of practiced ease due to single pointed meditation on its object.
I have just started Alan Wallace's Fall 2013 Shamatha and the Bodhisattva Way of Life (https://media.sbinstitute.com/courses/fall2013/) where he is giving instruction in "Shamatha practice".
I believe he means a meditation practice with the goal of achieving shamata. However, when I hear "shamata practice", I automatically think that someone is already able to rest in the state of Shamata and is meditating at that level.  This would be like, for instance, someone running having a "running practice" by running.  In contrast, someone aspiring to be a runner, might first begin with walking as they get in shape.  They might say, "I am walking, with the goal of running."  Do you think they would call their walking a "running practice"?
Given the definition of shamata I know, it seems many different meditation practices could potentially lead to shamata, if that was one's intention for their practice.
My first question is:  Is there something distinctive about "shamata practice"?
My second question, is where did the custom of labeling meditation "shamata practice" originate?

The custom of labeling meditation "shamata practice" probably originates from wrong or faulty practise, where excess or faulty suppression concentration causes calmness to predominate.
As for the original teachings attributed to the Buddha, 'samatha' is merely one of two results (the other being 'vipassana') of developing right concentration.

Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path... for
him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight
(samatho  ca vipassanā ca).
MN 149

If we are not clear about what right & wrong concentration are, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa offered his opinion:

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


Has anyone claimed to have reborn in Pure Land, and later returned to earth to help other beings? It is said that a person can choose to return to samsara to help others after being reborn in Pure Land. But has anyone claimed to be that particular kind of person? I am not talking about those who claimed to have visited Pure Land in meditation or dreams. But those who was a human, rebirthed in a Pure Land, instructed by Buddhas and bodhisattvas in that Pure Land, then chose to rebirth back as human on earth to help other beings.

Usually the Bodhisattvas who vows to be born back to Earth to guild others will do so with the means appropriate to the culture, time and age.  In this age of Dharma descend, they would not display enlightenment or supernatural powers, but instead would display mindfulness of Amitabha Buddha and recitation of His name.  They would show signs that they obtain rebirth to Pureland.  And they will never reveal their true identity.  Master Chin King often said if the Buddha or Bodhisattva identity is revealed they would immediately depart from this world.
Namo Amita Buddha.


Despairing About Meditative Regularity I have set the amount of time I meditate (focused attention/shamatha) at merely 15 minutes per day. Despite this, despite all my best efforts, I seem to still skip a day or two now and then.

Why is this? Would changing the type of meditation help?

I had read positive emotions help develop a habit. When I meditate mindfully on the breath, there are no such emotions; doing compassion meditation, positive affect arises. Would this affective benefit motivate a meditative practice?

Having spend a mindful day with dana, a day having begone with refuge, spend with Sila, one is able to rejoice:

Buddhanussati, 2 min remembering the Buddha
Dhammanussati, 2 min remembering the Dhamma
Sanghanusati...

Remember ones Generosity
Remember ones Virtue
Remember/reflect ones virturs equal the Devas

Having given causes, one gains concentration. Not having given causes, trying to concentrate by effort will always be just developing wrong concentration.

Useless to invest in a roof when foundation is not given.

Duties first: this is not a path for lazyness's fruits. Not the path of demanding and claims.


Sutta Question about 4 ways of debating There is a sutta where the Buddha discusses four ways a debate can go between two people: a person could be hard to convince, causing either torment to the speaker but not the listener, torment to the listener but not the speaker etc.. the Buddha makes the final point that it is always worth undertaking the discussion so long as there is a possibility of coming to an understanding, if not, heed mindfulness. What is the reference please?

There are 4 related suttas, but they may not fit your description precisely.

Pañhapuccha Sutta (AN 5.165) describes 5 types of motivations for asking questions:

Stupidity and bewilderment
Evil desires and greed
Contempt
Desire for knowledge
'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well & good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'

The last type of motivation for questioning usually applies to the Buddha and Arahant teachers toward their students.

Pañha Sutta (AN 4.42) describes 4 ways of answering questions:

There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that].
There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms].
There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question.
There are questions that should be put aside.

Kathavatthu Sutta (AN 3.67) describes 4 types of persons who are fit and unfit to talk with:

A person who does not answer a question with the type of answer that is fitting to it (based on AN4.42), is unfit to talk with.
A person who, in his answer, does not stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn't stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn't stand by teachings known to be true, doesn't stand by standard procedure, then he is unfit to talk with.
A person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then he is unfit to talk with.
A person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then he is unfit to talk with.

A person who is fit to talk with, is the opposite of the above.

The Buddha concludes the purpose of teaching and discussing, as quoted by Samana Johann in his answer:

  For that's the purpose of discussion, that's the purpose of counsel,
  that's the purpose of drawing near, that's the purpose of lending ear:
  i.e., the liberation of the mind through no clinging.

The Kesi Sutta (AN 4.111) describes the four approaches the Buddha has towards a student:

Gentleness or mild training.
Harshness or harsh training.
Both gentleness and harshness, or both mild and harsh training.
Give up teaching the student for whom the 3 methods above do not work.


Trolley problem and its variants in Buddhist ethics What choice does Buddhist ethics recommend when faced with the moral dilemmas present in the trolley problem? The problem has quite a few variants, here are the most important ones:

  you are the driver of a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks toward five workmen who cannot get out of the way. To prevent their deaths, your only option is to divert the trolley onto a side track, but diverting would kill one worker on the side track.

Do you divert the trolley or not?

  you are a surgeon, and five of your patients will soon die unless they receive organ transplants. The only way to save the five is to fatally harvest the organs from a sixth, healthy patient, who is unwilling to donate any organs

Do you kill the sixth patient or not?

  As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, a very fat man is right next to you. The only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

  The further development of this example involves the case, where the fat man is, in fact, the villain who put these five people in peril.

Do you kill the villain to save five lives or not?

The trolley is running down the tracks towards five workmen, as in the first scenario. You can divert the trolley to a side track, but diverting would kill your mother, who is on the track. Do you divert the trolley or not?

Traditionally, worrying about this kind of speculative problems is classified as  a form of delusion. Consider the following Zen story:

Huineng's Flag

  Two Zen monks saw a flag wavering in the wind, and could not help having a philosophical debate:
  -- "It is the flag that is wavering," argued one monk.
  -- "No, it's the wind that is wavering!" insisted the other monk.

  Huineng, who happened to pass by, overheard the two monks and remarked, "It's not the flag nor the wind that is wavering. Your minds are wavering!"

In this vein, the most enlightened way to solve the trolley problem would be to stop worrying about it.