Is making art bad or sinful? I would not be writing this if I had another way of knowing the answer. Unfortunately, I cannot talk to anyone due to quarantine. Even though I have thought a lot about it, I am still unsure. My question is this: "Is art bad karma?" To preface, I am a Theravadin woman. As you know, women cannot be ordained. So, I try my best to follow the monastic rules but stay outside of a monastery. I would like to follow the strictest Buddhist teachings. Now, I will write what I have thought about art.
Firstly, the Buddha does not speak much about householders in comparison to monks. However, the popular consensus seems to be that he allows laypeople to have their cultures. Yet, different countries also seem to have different monastic cultures, too, despite being ordained. Secondly, part of this culture is Buddhist art like sculptures and narrative tapestries. Thirdly, since the Buddha allows written works, narrative art may be permitted as a form of visual communication like writing and the Buddha's own speech can be poetic.
Recently, I have promised myself that I would finish an art project and then move onto a fully religious life. However, I have repeatedly been stopped from progressing by a great pain in my heart at the prospect of never doing art again. Music is meant to seduce people with melodies. Likewise, acting is lying to arouse extreme, perhaps negative, emotions in people. Dance is the most lustful artistic field. I took the same attitude to visual art, seeing it as being influenced by lust and anger.
However, in my art (which I have felt guilt for doing due to my opinions of it), I have slowly realised that I do not have lustful or wrathful intentions. My art depicts my culture (Japanese): marriage, funerals, temples, mythological figures, daily life, mountains, etc. I wanted to preserve the cultural narrative for my own peace of mind, rememberance, meditation, and future generations. Considering all that I have said and seen about culture and art and Buddhism and karma, is art bad karma? If someone has a specific quotation on this, please let me know. Any comments, I appreciate.

Art can be a continuation of samsaric inertia, or it can be an expression of the enlightened mind. What message are you sending with your art? What impulse does it carry forward into the future?


What translation variants exist of Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19-20? The verses in question are from Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā chapter 25 on an examination of nirvana.
Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 25:19–20
न संसारस्य निर्वाणात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं
na saṁsārasya nirvāṇāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ
न निर्वाणस्य संसारात् किं चिद् अस्ति विशेषणं। १९
na nirvāṇasya saṁsārāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ| 19
निर्वाणस्य च या कोटिः।कोटिः। संसरणस्य च
nirvāṇasya ca yā koṭiḥ koṭiḥ saṁsaraṇasya ca
न तयोर् अन्तरं किंचित् सुसूक्ष्मम् अपि विद्यते। २०
na tayor antaraṁ kiñcit susūkśmam api vidyate| 20

There are two mainstream Mulamadhyamakakarikas (hereafter MMK). There might be one in manuscript form recently dicovered that I am unaware of, but there are two that I am aware of, and they are the Sanskrit reconstructed from Venerable Candrakirti's commentary (which might actually be from Tibetan), and the Chinese version with the nested commentary by Venerable Vimalākṣa. The Chinese source text to do with the Sanskrit you provided is:

涅槃與世間無有少分別世間與涅槃亦無少分別涅槃之實際及與世間際如是二際者無毫釐差別
(T1564.35c27)

In the following list, "Skt" means "from Sanskrit," "Ch" means "from Chinese," and "Tb" means "from Tibetan."
INADA (Skt):

Samsara (i.e., the empirical life-death cycle) is nothing essentially
different from nirvana. Nirvana is nothing essentially different from
samsara. The limits (i.e., realm) of nirvana are the limits of
samsara. Between the two, also, there is not the slightest difference
whatsoever.

JONES (Skt):

There is not the slightest difference of cyclical existence from
nirvana. There is not the slightest difference of nirvana from
cyclical existence. The full extent of nirvana is the full extent of
cyclical existence. There is not slightest interval between them.

KALUPAHANA (Skt):

The life-process has no thing that distinguishes it from freedom.
Freedom has no thing that distinguishes it from the life-process.
Whatever is the extremity of freedom and the extremity of the
life-process, between them not even a subtle something is evident.

MCCAGNEY (Skt):

There is no distinction whatever between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa. There is
no distinction whatever between nirvāṇa and saṃsāra. The limit of
nirvāṇa is that of saṃsāra. The subtlest difference is not found
between the two.

SPRUNG (Skt):

There is no specifiable difference whatever between nirvāṇa and the
everyday world; there is no specifiable difference whatever between
the everyday world and nirvāṇa. The ontic range of nirvāṇa is the
ontic range of the everyday world. There is not even the subtlest
difference between the two.

STRENG (Skt):

There is nothing whatever which differentiates the existence-in-flux
(samsara) from nirvana; And there is nothing whatever which
differentiates nirvana from existence-in-flux. The extreme limit
(koti) of nirvana is also the extreme limit of existence-in-flux;
There is not the slightest bit of difference between these two.

STCHERBATSKY (Skt):

There is no difference at all Between Nirvana and Samsara. There is no
difference at all Between Samsara and Nirvana. What makes the limit of
Nirvana Is also then the limit of Samsara. Between the two we cannot
find The slightest shade of difference.

ROBINSON (Skt):

Samsara has nothing that distinguishes it from nirvana; nirvana has
nothing that distinguishes it from samsara. The limit of nirvana is
the limit of samsara; there is not even the subtlest something
separating the two.

BOCKING (Ch):

Between nirvana and the world There is not the slightest distinction
Between the world and nirvana There is not the slightest distinction.
The real limit of nirvana And the limits of this world Between these
two limits There is not the least distinction

BATCHELOR (Tb):

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana. Nirvana
does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara. Whatever is the
end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara. There is not even a very
subtle slight distinction between the two.

DOCTOR (Tb):

Cyclic existence is not the slightest bit Different from the
transcendence of suffering Transcendence of suffering is not the
slightest bit Different from cyclic existence. That which is the
condition of transcendence Is the condition of cyclic existence as
well. Between these two there is not The slightest bit of difference.

GARFIELD (Tb):

There is not the slightest difference Between cyclic existence and
nirvana. There is not the slightest difference Between nirvana and
cyclic existence. Whatever is the limit of nirvana, That is the limit
of cyclic existenence. There is not even the slightest difference
between them, Or even the subtlest thing.

GOLDFIELD (Tb):

Samsara is not the slightest bit different from nirvana. Nirvana is
not the slightest bit different from samsara.  The true nature of
nirvana Is the true nature of samsara, And between these two There is
not even the tiniest, subtlest difference.

HAGEN (paraphrase):

Nothing whatever distinguishes samsara from Nirvana. Nothing whatever
distinguishes Nirvana from samsara. Whatever is the limit of Nirvana
is also the limit of samsara. There is not even the subtlest
difference between them.

NISHIJIMA (paraphrase):

Without leaving the process of wandering, it will become leaving
Nirvana. It does never suggest that we have been given up by Nirvana,
Not belonging to Nirvana, is leaving from the wandering. It does never
suggest that we have been given up by Nirvana, What is included by
Nirvana is just Time, And the Time is also belonging to the wandering
life of ups and downs. The two kinds of substances, that is, Time and
the wandering life of ups and downs, Seems to be as if they were
nothing. Then something excellently delicate is recognized very
clearly...

Two of the "translations" that Korin compiles are paraphrases, not translations. All of the above material is from MMK study notes from Venerable Korin available at https://abhidharmakosa.wordpress.com/.
There is one more translation for me to add.
CAOIMHGHIN (Ch)

Between nirvāṇa and the world, there is not the slightest
differentiation. Between the world and nirvāṇa, there is also not the
slightest differentiation.
From the true apex of nirvāṇa to the apex of the world, like this,
there are two apices with not a sliver of difference between them.


Fun teaching techniques for children meditation class Can someone help ?  i am looking for fun teaching of meditation and Buddhist teaching from age 4 ~ 13 old.

Also help with morality, environmental protection, chanting, Buddhist religion's etiquette and meditation would be appreciated.

Here's a video series on how to meditate for children:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB4C918E1E338A6F1

DVDs are also available.


Dhamma - one law, two paths? I was having a debate with a follower of another faith, and during it, this quandary came to me:

Did the Buddha describe one law for sentient beings - that is, the law of intentional action? (I understand he taught 'only suffering, and the end of suffering'...)

And can it be said the Buddha described two paths for this law?

There is the path for the layperson, who embraces intentional action (as the teachings on kamma to laypeople within the Pali canon point to), and aims for a perfection of intentional action - suffering, but 'limited'.

And there is the path of the monastic, who aims to abandons intentional action, for nibbana - 'the end of suffering'. But do they not still embrace the law, by only treading on that part of action that is beneficial to them/others, towards their goal, until that can be put aside?

In other words, is the bodhisattva goal rooted in the same principle as the arahant goal?

(perhaps clearer - is the path towards nibbana in any way outside of the described law of intentional action?)

Its two laws with two paths (MN 117). Standard Theravada. Dhammaniyama vs kammaniyama.
Kamma niyama is a general rather than absolute law. Do good, get good. Do bad, get bad. But there can also be do good, get bad and do bad, get good (MN 136).
For example, you are a perfect husband & father but your wife & children die in a car accident, from which you suffer greatly, even become suicidal. Here, you do good but reap bad.
Or you ignorantly perform a bad deed, such as get a girlfriend, without commitment. Eventually, she falls in love with you but you are not interested in getting married and you break her heart. You learn such heedless Cultural Marxist relationships are wrong & Satanic. You give up this Cultural Marxist sexual misconduct, enter the stream and become an Arahant. You do bad but get good.
MN 117 says the general kamma law includes attachment/acquisition (upadhi). In other words, ordinary kamma law is about "I do good, I get good. I do bad, I get bad". Since 'self-view' is always part of ordinary kamma law, suffering will always be inevitable in ordinary kamma law, even when only good is done. Eventually, suffering will come to the most good person who has not realised the Four Noble Truths (SN 56.102).
For example, you spend your whole life believe in good reincarnation or Eternal Life with Jesus for doing good. But when you are actually dying, you start to have doubts these beliefs are true. You die in fear & confusion. Your widow wife stops believing in god and loses her mind. Note: I have witnessed this with the most devout Christian couple I have ever seen, where their son is a mystic.
Dhamma Niyama is the absolute Dhamma Law of Dependent Origination (SN 12.20), as follows:

Whether Realized Ones arise or not, this law of nature persists, this
regularity of natural principles, this invariance of natural
principles, specific conditionality.
Uppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva sā dhātu
dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā idappaccayatā.
SN 12.20

Whenever there is attachment & becoming, there will always be suffering.
In addition, the Three Characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self are also Dhamma Nikaya (AN 3.136).

The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of natural law or niyama. They are:

Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way
flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and
nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and
decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by
heat or temperature.

Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."

Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental
reactions to them.

Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this
is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds
bring bad results."

Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and
then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of
affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.

Laws of nature.


Interspacing Meditation Practice I have been practising breathing meditation for some time. Now, I feel compassion meditation would benefit me more. I was thinking of practising 30 min of each every day.

Would such interspaced practise (one session breathing, one session compassion, etc.) be beneficial, or discouraged?

In other words, is it better to stick to the same practice on the long term?

While it is sometimes said that Brahmavihara leads to jhana, but I can't find canonical evidence of it. In most Buddhism, compassion practices don't lead to factual acts of compassion, but merely to creating a mind filled with compassion and loving kindness. While I think compassion practices are a good idea, translating the mentally felt compassion is more of a problem. Personally, I find that breathing practice leads to compassion which I can act on. (Chris edit as you like)

Here is a study concerning mindfulness meditation not making a difference in terms of prompting compassionate actions:
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/05/17/mindfulness-training-does-not-foster-empathy-and-can-even-make-narcissists-worse/

Here is an article saying more empathy isn't what we need:
https://www.fastcompany.com/40483014/actually-we-dont-need-more-empathy


Where to do a 'Rains Retreat' in South Korea? I would like to attend a 3 months "rains retreat" (Kyol-Che), in a Zen (Seon) temple in South Korea. I would have to go to a temple where they give instructions in English, though.

'Mu Sang Sa' Temple  (which I hope is way cheaper for monks) seems to organize two 3 months retreat a year. Do you know other places?

In his book, "Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist", Stephen Batchelor, Spiegel & Grau, Random House, 2010, describes his experience of doing just this in 1981.  Batchelor's first Zen retreat was at Songgwangsa, under the guidance of Kusan Sunim, and he stayed until 1984, a year after Kusan Sunim's death.


Vijñāna and Śūnyatā... How are they seen as different? Consciousness is often used to describe Śūnyatā by some teachers but in Buddhism consciousness is one of the aggregates.

The way these relate, according to instructions I received, and my limited understanding:

In ontological reality nothing exists by itself; everything is part of some process and relationship; In fact in Mahayana Buddhism we say that delineating these processes and relationships into distinct entities is a function of the mind. Same processes and relationships can be delineated in a multitude of ways, even though most of the time we assume there is only one, or only one right way to delineate them. Entities do not have (are empty of) inherent existence and are delineations made by the mind. We call this situation "Emptiness" (Śūnyatā).

The mind itself exists as (informational) phenomenon emerging from interaction of processes and relationships. So mind itself is not something fixed that has essence - it's fluid and ephemeral. We say, mind itself is empty.

Since "entities" do not exist as anything apart from the mind, and mind itself does not exist apart from the interaction of processes and relationships, we can see that mind and entities are of the same emergent nature. In other words, the latent regularities inherent in the interaction of processes and relationships give rise to mind as reflection and representation, culminating in delineation of entities.

So mind and its delineated entities emerge as virtual aspect of regularities inherent to the ontological reality. Mind and entities are virtual. This virtuality is what we call Emptiness. In this sense we can roughly say that mind is emptiness and emptiness is mind. Or, more precisely, that the nature of mind is emptiness. So in the absolute sense they are inseparable.

However, when we speak in the conventional sense, mind refers to representation, and when we speak about vijnana we specifically mean representation that develops in the case of sentient beings. The capacity for representation is one of the five components making up the subjective realm of the so-called sentient being, along with stimuli, imprints/tendencies, concepts of entities, and feelings. Vijnana is that which emerges from imprints/tendencies in response to stimuli and underlies the process of delineation and evaluation of entities, as well as the feelings that fall out of that. So in conventional use the meaning of "Vijnana" is rather specific.

While Emptiness (Śūnyatā) is a much more broad concept. It refers to the global situation that ontological reality does not have any sort of absolute point of reference, whether local or global, and that whatever virtual stuff that emerges, emerges from relationships and interactions, and that therefore all phenomena, including the ones we deal with in our human realms do not have any sort of inherent solidity.


What should I be mindful of in everyday mindfulness? I am not sure what to focus on when practicing everyday mindfulness. For example, when washing dishes due we focus on what we notice in our current experience; like as I wipe the dishes I can focus on the feel of my hands on the plate or the view or sound of the wiping.
Or do I decide to pick one thing(sense) and focus on that purpose for a few seconds?
Or do I try to focus on everything in the now which seems like information overload?

This is a good question.

Always the mindfulness should be in the 4 foundations of mindfulness. One objective of mindfulness is to remove defilements or letting go. Pahāna Sutta gives an outline in brief. Another is to keep you on the path as outlined in Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta. Any sensation is unsatisfactory this is the link to understand the 4 Noble Truths and also with sensation, according to dependent origination, arises craving. If you miss this link you miss the path.

That is the when taking the 1st foundation of mindfulness, the body, feel the elements like the temperature of the water, the texture of the plate, etc. and you reaction. The water is too hot, my hand is burning or water is too cold, etc., i.e., evaluation you give as this is desirable, undesirable or neutral and satisfaction, dissatisfaction and neutral feeling that follows. The look at the posture and position. The pain and resulting dissatisfaction from standing a long time near the sink, pleasure from changing postures when the previous posture becomes uncomfortable, the pain for wariness from hard work (movement - scrubbing), and the pleasure of rest, etc. [Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Dīgha,nakha Sutta]

The examin feelings in general. Are you evaluating something as favorably, unfavorably, or neutrally and the resulting feelings of pleasure, displeasure and neutral feelings. [Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta, Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta, Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Dīgha,nakha Sutta, Cūla Vedalla Sutta, Mahā Vedalla Sutta, Samma Ditthi Sutta]

Also mental analysis of the situation. Plates are dirty hence displeasure. I have better things to do then displeasure. Or whatever else that might arise either pleasure, displeasure or neutral by your evaluation of liking, disliking or do not care. For more detail refer the 18 investigation in Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta & Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta and also see Cha Chakka Sutta. Also note the feeling arising from whether you like it, hate it, what kind of thoughts are aroused (my friends are at a party while I am washing dishes) etc. and thinking pondering and planning that follows and what you feel about it.

Also see if you are transgressing any moral principles. There is an ant in the sink, I should not kill it and perhaps save it. [Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta]

Ultimately whatever feeling that arises you should be aware of its arising and passing nature.

Also see The Satipaṭṭhāna Suttas: An introduction and Vedanā (Feeling) by Piya Tan

In general situation, regarding the body, when you see a body you perceive as beautiful hence pleasurable and so on. Again in these situation you should be mindful of the perceptional evaluation beauty / smart, ugly, plain and the feelings that arise with it. [Maha Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta] You can also go to the extent of cemetery contemplations if you are very lustful to overcome Vipallasa. [Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta, Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta, Maha Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta, Vipallasa Sutta]. Maha Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta more detail on the mechanics than the Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta.

Also when wanting to answer a call of nature the feeling of tightness and the displeasure before and the subtle pleasure of release. [Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta]

Also you can be mindful of the breathing. Is it deep or shallow. If you are displeased what happens and what happens when you are pleased and what is it like when you are neutral. [Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta, Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta, Ānâpāna,sati Sutta]

Also the aggregates, the faculties and their experiences, phenomena, etc. all having the universal characteristics. Expecting something positive as permanent gives disatisfaction when it happens to be impermanent and likewise for other combination. [(Anicca) Cakkhu Sutta, Cūla Vedalla Sutta]. Also see: Nibbida by Piya Tan which has more ferences of relevant Suttas towards the end of the essay.

  For example, when washing dishes do we focus on what we notice in our current experience;

Your current experience is what you sense or feel. So concentrate on what is felt like in the Pahāna Sutta. This is one of the simplest forms.

  like as I wipe the dishes I can focus on the feel of my hands on the plate or the view or sound of the wiping.

Focus on both. Sounds may trigger other things. You may be irritated by the sound. Also it may trigger memories. Whatever sense door body (hand) or ear just be mindful of the evaluation and sensation. (18 evaluations above.)

  Or do I decide to pick one thing(sense) and focus on that purpose for a few seconds?

In normal work no need to pick. Just keep a check that your awareness is present on some sensation or the other.

In simple terms, your focus should be on the arising and passing of sensations like in the Pahāna Sutta.

  Or do I try to focus on everything in the now which seems like information overload?

Your focus should be on what is felt (feelings / sensation) and their impermanence as in the Pahāna Sutta.


Eternalism and Mahayana Buddhism In this Wikipedia article on Arhat in Mahayana Buddhism, it is written:

  Instead of aspiring for arhatship, Mahayanins are urged to instead
  take up the path of the bodhisattva and to not fall back to the level
  of arhats and śrāvakas. Therefore, it is taught that an arhat must go
  on to become a bodhisattva eventually. If they fail to do so in the
  lifetime in which they reach the attainment, they will fall into a
  deep samādhi of emptiness, thence to be roused and taught the
  bodhisattva path, presumably when ready. According to the Lotus Sutra,
  any true arhat will eventually accept the Mahāyāna path.

In this Wikipedia article on the Eternal Buddha, it is written:

  In east-Asian Buddhism, the Buddha of the Lotus Sutra is regarded as
  the eternal Buddha. "The Tathagata´s Lifespan" chapter (ch 16) of the
  Lotus Sutra portrays the Buddha as indicating that he became awakened
  countless aeons ("kalpas") ago. The sutra itself, however, does not
  directly employ the phrase "eternal Buddha".

  In China the Lotus Sutra was associated with the Mahaparinirvana
  Sutra, which propagates the tathagatagarbha-doctrine, and with the
  Awakening of Faith. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra presents the Buddha as
  eternal, and equates him with the Dharmakaya.

If the Arahant in Mahayana Buddhism goes into a deep samadhi after death, till he wakes up and continues the path towards Buddhahood, and if after becoming a Buddha, his personality can persist as an Eternal Buddha, then this shows eternalism in Mahayana teachings.

An Arahant who can go into deep samadhi after death (without a body) only to reanimate later implies the existence of a soul.

Furthermore, the story of Buddha Prabhutaratna from Wikipedia also has elements of eternalism:

  "Great-Eloquence Bodhisattva" wants to see the Buddha in the stupa but
  Prabhūtaratna's vow makes it a prerequisite for showing his body that
  the Buddha who proclaims the Lotus teaching collects all his
  manifestations. At this point Shakyamuni summons from around the
  universe countless Buddhas who are his emanations, lifts the entire
  assembly into the air, and opens the stupa. Prabhūtaratna praises
  Shakyamuni and invites him to sit next to him. Shakyamuni then
  continues to preach the Dharma. In the 22nd "Entrustment" chapter of
  the Lotus Sutra, Prabhūtaratna and his stupa return to under the
  earth.

Eternalism (sāśvata-dṛṣṭi in Sanskrit) was rejected by the Buddha's original teachings on the Middle Path, as described by Ven. Dhammananda Mahathera's article (from here) excerpt below:

  Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we
  understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find
  anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and
  continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they
  depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we
  cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the
  eternalist view is considered wrong or false.

My question is:

Does Mahayana Buddhism teach eternalism? If this is not the case, then what is the right interpretation of the Mahayana teachings on Arahant and the Eternal Buddha above?

In the question above, when I wrote "Mahayana Buddhism", I mean particularly in the context of the Lotus Sutra and the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

Several thoughts...

Mahayana is not a homomorphous teaching. It's a bunch of different schools, the only common theme of which is attempting to express The Truth in whatever crazy language that the recipient can understand. So you will see some Mahayana schools speaking about Eternal Buddha, or about Buddha Law, or about "True I", or a number of other topics that have some meaning for someone, and can turn into practice that will increasingly approximate "It", until they hopefully break through. All these different metaphors approach the truth in one way or another, they all have some sense in one way, and are false in another way. That's just the way with language unfortunately - any conceptual construct is always limited and onesided.

Another thought. Eternalism is a bad translation imho. I think a better term would be "transcendental substantionalism", as in, assuming that there is some magic substance or essence separate from the aggregates that lives on from one life to another.

If we assume, in modern terms, that material world, the world of energy transformation, and the world of information - are three ways to see the same world, and that as material forms arise and perish, energy and information transforms and fluctuates -- we can see that energy/information does not really "die" but it's not like it is "eternal" either. Then we can see how all these different metaphors were trying to point us to this truth, using whatever expressive means at their disposal, in the absence of better language we have today, like "information". Again, this is just yet another explanation, limited and onesided in its own way.

So when Lotus Sutra or Nirvana Sutra is speaking about Eternal Buddha - they just mean the Dharmakaya -- meaning, the information about Dharma latent in the world and spread around in little pieces, both as formal Dharma, as well as other sorts of hints and wisdoms. When this information accumulates in a single being in sufficient amount, and manifests itself as their way of living, we call that being a (Nirmanakaya) Buddha, and for the sake of explaining the nature of the phenomena we may employ the language of this being a reincarnation/manifestation of Eternal Buddha, and this can be useful to some people and confusing to others - but as long as we know what we are talking about, we will not be confused.

Can we call Dharmakaya eternal? Well in one sense, sure, it is not destroyed by individual deaths, and because it has its roots in the very nature of things, after all it's a teaching about how things work, it's inevitably "built-in" and is being discovered piecemeal by people in all times, even if formal Teaching is lost. In another sense, it's just a bunch of fragments, plus a potential to discover more fragments, so it's not even a "thing" to speak about, just a principle.


How to avoid Tattling Hurting someone physically, Mentally, Verbally is a sin according to Buddhism. As I believe no matter we love or hate each other, anyhow we don't have any ownership of any others lives.

So how about Gossiping or the tattling about others lives ?
How does Buddhism explain specifically about TATTLING ??
How one should practice not to Gossip about others lives ?
In the other way how one should practice to face others Gossiping about
himself/herself ?

So how about Gossiping or the tattling about others lives ?

You are wasting your time and others time. Talk that is productive towards betterment of oneself, which lacks proper reasoning (mud slinging), if you are monk not connected with the goal, the pratice, the Dhamma or Vinaya.

  How does Buddhism explain specifically about TATTLING ??

If it is to divide people then it is not right speech. Also it should not be with malice, but say you are a witness of a wrong doing then perhaps might have a social or legal or moral obligation to report it but even this case some aversion arises as you are averse to the fact that something does not fall to your moral, social or legal idea but in society, work and as a householder you have to do these things sometimes.

  How one should practice not to Gossip about others lives ?

If it can be an example to others then maybe it is OK. Otherwise change the topic to something productive or something you can learn from.

  In the other way how one should practice to face others Gossiping about himself/herself ?

If you can learn something from it then try to. Sometimes in Business and Work situations you have to promote or market yourself and also engage in chatting to a maintain cordial relationships. This is not unproductive endeavour or killing time by chatting.

Even in a personal situation you what you have to see if the chatting is directed at achieving something productive to yourself and listeners. Does it help you understand something better. Is there something listener can lean by a situation some one else has been in. If it is wasting time try changing the topic or move on it it is not inappropriate or rude. For a householder trying to build relationships, networking and friendships is productive and endeavor, even at a personal level, hence may not be idle chatter.


Who am I? Who am I without past memory? Who am I? Am I my memory? For example, I am hindu. I am engineer. I am Rajput.

Who am I without past memory? Am I my past memory? I am engineer. I am hindu.

I think that Theravada Buddhism teaches that there isn't a good answer to this question, that it's not a good question to ask.

See this description of Right View especially where it talks about "a thicket of views".

Also that things you might consider "self" (e.g. body, feelings, etc.) are impermanent -- and also (impermanent) is every put-together thing -- and so it's better not to view those as "self" ("self-views" are unsatisfactory or lead to suffering).

See also How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?


Finding the balance of thinking and working Today I realized that I am an overthinker. I postpone things because of thinking, planning. I missed lot of time due it.
But by thinking I found lot of new stuff. Those thinking is the main cause for the posts in this forum.
I think there should be a balance. Without thinking, we may go in the wrong path. With overthinking, work won't complete.
What are the suttas which states this balance? I know the story of Arahant Sona about effort. I really like to know about balance of thinking and working?

Thinking is an essential activity, of course, and it's impossible to avoid doing any thinking.  The key is balance between being centered in the activity of your mind and being centered in your body.  The more time you spend feeling the feelings of your body, gradually the thinking activity will settle down a bit.


I have been meditating by myself since 2015 but nothing worked for me Please help me, what to do. I've been meditating but not working for me anything. I get only tingling sensation on my forehead & constant buzzing sound. Besides, I have not gotten any slight improvements in my behavior.
Would be helpful if someone suggests me following things.

How to meditate finally? That one method that can bring peace and calmness to me.
When to do ? Prerequisites.
How much to do?

I get only tingling sensation on my forehead & constant buzzing sound.

Do not give too much importance to this for the moment, i.e., do not consider it as good and crave for it or do not consider it bad and be averse towards it. Just keep your equanimity knowing they arise and pass.

Besides, I have not gotten any slight improvements in my behavior.

Behaviour doesn't change overnight. In the past, given 10 situations you react in an unwholesome way. If this changes to 9 out of 10 or 8 out of 10 situations, this is an improvement. So if there is a slight improvement also, this is immaterial, so just keep doing what you are doing.
Also there could be no improvement because you are practicing wrong or the techniques you are practicing might not be suitable to you.

How to meditate finally? That one method that can bring peace and calmness to me.

When you meditate calmness and insight grows. So do both:

Anapanasati, and
Satipatthana

When to do ?

Whenever possible. But this might help:

5 - 10 minutes after waking up (awake but just not yet out of bed)
until you fall asleep (in bed but not yet fallen asleep)
1 hour session in the morning
1 hour session in the evening / night

Prerequisites.

The main thing is morality hence contemplate on morality and make a determination to be moral. In addition the following may would be helpful:

Develop some faith in the practice so you would be earnest in the effort you put into it
Develop gratitude towards the Triple Gem, otherwise you will not have got the chance to practice
Develop a sense of urgency to practice, think this might be the last chance
Develop Metta

How much to do?

Generally do 2 session of about 1 hour or more formally. Use this as a booster to continue the practice during daily activities. Ultimately it is being mindful during daily activities that gives the real results.
In doing 2 sessions, if one session is not productive then the other might be more productive. At the start of the session, you might not be meditating much hence it should be long enough to settle down and put some solid practice.

This little plant of Dhamma requires service now. Protect it from the criticism of others by making a distinction between the theory, to which some might object, and the practice, which is acceptable to all. Don’t allow such criticism to stop your practice. Meditate one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. This regular, daily practice is essential. At first it may seem a heavy burden to devote two hours a day to meditation, but you will soon find that much time will be saved that was wasted in the past. Firstly, you will need less time for sleep. Secondly, you will be able to complete your work more quickly, because your capacity for work will increase. When a problem arises you will remain balanced, and will be able immediately to find the correct solution. As you become established in the technique, you will find that having meditated in the morning, you are full of energy throughout the day, without any agitation.
...
When you go to bed at night, for five minutes be aware of sensations anywhere in the body before you fall asleep. Next morning, as soon as you wake up, again observe sensations within for five minutes. These few minutes of meditation immediately before falling asleep and after waking up will prove very helpful.
...
Daily meditation of two hours and yearly retreats of ten days are only the minimum necessary to maintain the practice. If you have more free time, you should use it for meditation. You may do short courses of a week, or a few days, even one day. In such short courses, devote the first one third of your time to the practice of Anapana, and the rest to Vipassana.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N.Goenka


Animals: why did the Buddha remain silent? I know there have been discussions about vegetarianism, but my question is not exactly that.

I know that:

The Buddha allowed eating meat for monks, if it is clear that the animal was not killed on purpose (Majjhima Nikaya 55.5), especially to provide the meal. The main premise behind the three-fold rule is to graciously accept what one receives in your bowl when going for alms round. This rule was meant and spoken to monks and nuns, not to lay people. “Beggars can’t be choosers” in modern terms. The Buddha's diet was more likely a vegetarian diet who ate meat "out of pity" on rare occasions.
On various occasions, the Buddha denounced the professions of fisherman and fish merchant as well as butcher. These professions are not part of a just livelihood (fifth of the eight stages of the Eightfold Path), nor is the trade in arms, intoxicants (alcohol) and the trafficking of living beings, human or animal. The ahimsa therefore covers for the laics the idea of not killing animals as well.
The Buddha banned the religious sacrifice of animals.

Knowing this, I don't understand why he didn't ban meat from the laics, or at least recommend a reduction in consumption?

We can clearly see that the Buddha considers meat consumption to be at least an indirect violation of the first precept of not killing, since he forbids monks to eat meat killed for them. Why does he allow meat that has not been directly killed for the monk? I have the impression that the Buddha considers that if the relationship of evil is not directly causal then it is less serious (that is why he allows the monk to eat meat that has not been directly killed for him). This can be understood: kamma is the intention and the one who eats meat doesn't intend to hurt an animal even if that's what he causes more or less directly by supporting the butcher's market.  But then, why not at least say to limit your meat intake?

When we see the horrors of the meat and dairy industry, I don't understand why the Buddha was silent on this subject. Even more if we consider that he was omniscient, so he saw all the suffering that this industry has inflicted, is inflicting, and will inflict in the future.

I understand all the less this silence precisely because, contrary to the Abrahamic religions, there is a form of equality between man and animal in Buddhism in the sense that each man can be reborn as an animal within samsara, and that each animal is surely a human being in the making. Animals are beings in their own right, not resources that man can dispose of as he pleases (Genesis 9:2-3).

I understand the logical reasoning that the Buddha must have had:

kamma is intention.
the one who eats meat has no intention of hurting a sentient being.
eating meat is still indirectly causing the death of the animal, so he forbids consumption in the first degree (if the animal was killed directly for us).

I understand that every action creates suffering, that you have to put an arbitrary limit somewhere so that you don't end up wondering how not to hurt the bacteria? But even if we eat meat that hasn't been killed directly for us, we are supporting a gigantic industry of suffering by doing so; in his compassion, wisdom, and possibly omniscience, I really don't understand his silence, he could have at least asked us to reduce our consumption, I don't know. I find it a bit easy to clear oneself because the animal was not slaughtered for us personally.

So:

Is the ethics of the dhamma incomplete?

This is mere speculations from me, but turning down meat was probably not a viable option during buddhas lifetime, for the sake of survival. A layperson would likely run the risk of starvation without meat, and making vegetarianism a decree could possibly put a lot of peoples health at jeopardy.

Again, i am guessing now, but my point is that we can probably only understand a set of beliefs by understanding the context of that time. It could explain the "why" of buddhist ethics. (We could for instance compare this to the muslim decree on abstaining from eating pork, which at least partially is assumed to be for health reasons to my understanding).

You also seem to ask what ethics regarding vegetarianism should be in order to be consistent, which is a bit different than the question why.

Your argument regarding today's meat industry seems anachronistic, since the premises of meat production in those times was presumably a lot different than the large scale meat industrialization of our times.

In summary, the choice of eating meat is likely more feasible today, and therefore the ethical aspects of that choice becomes more salient, compared to buddhas time. Back then, it's possible that the ethical conundrum could be sufficiently solved by deriving karma from our intentions.

Applying this ethic in todays world, with the meat industry that goes with it may make a much stronger and convincing case for vegetarianism, compared to buddhas time.


What is the middle way? When there is reduced  thinking in a one door out of five sense doors ,which means if you have seen a pleasant thing and if no thoughts arise regarding them,Whether that apply to the other doors as well?what is that samadhi?in that case what is the middle way of it?

If I understand correctly what you are talking about... You are talking about the process of grasping a sign(mark) at one of the sense doors, and then automatically interpreting it into an desirable/undesirable object ==> harboring corresponding desire/aversion attitude ==> engaging in purposeful action towards that object ==> feeding craving, confusion, and illusion of self.
When we are able to catch ourselves at the moment when the sign(mark) is interpreted into an object of desire (or aversion), and stop that automatic reaction, we begin to get free from impulsive behavior -- and that eventually leads to freedom from confusion and the illusion of self.
Having learned to catch ourselves at that moment when automatic interpretation of sign happens on one sensory modality (=door), we can then more easily (NOT) do the same on all the other sensory modalities.
From this perspective, the Middle Way can be explained as not taking a stand on any single sign - and being sort of "in between" (or "balanced") with regard to all signs (as well as the signless).
Is this what you are asking about or not?


Peculiar Experience of Shamatha / Vipassana I'm currently attempting to do shamatha and vipassana meditations in alternation, even though I'm unsure this is the best way to proceed. I noticed that generally, as a person, I am somewhat repressed in the sense that few thoughts, images or sensations seem to emerge.

There are a few other peculiarities I experience, and I'm unsure if people could help me with that. I remember vaguely as a child having odd sensations / visions which arose without reason, in mandala form usually. And since a while now, I seem to be gaining insight randomly, sporadically. I've been happy for years, not in a strong pleasant sensation but in experiencing equanimity generally or lack of attachments.

Yet, I'm feeling stuck in my practice because I don't seem to realize where I'm at. I don't know whether I have good or bad concentration, or whatever else. I seem to be unaware of my own mental states. Since I feel repressed and few images or feelings arise, I think perhaps vipassana would help, but ultimately, I dunno.

Any kind of help on what I'm experiencing would aid me greatly, and I'd be willing to supply more details if necessary.

Your question gives the impression that you have not developed meditation within a certain teaching/practise tradition for a prolonged period but have been learning theory from different random sources. If that is true, your question thus gives the impression the various theories of meditation have confused you.

In the West, there is a popular form of 'meditation' from Burma that is erroneously called 'vipassana', where practitioners are preoccupied with noting thoughts, images or sensations. This is so because practitioners have many distractions so this method accommodates & attracts those kinds of practitioners.

In formal Buddhist theory (such as in the old scriptures) having few thoughts, images or sensations is a good thing. In formal Buddhist theory, samatha & vipassana are developed in tandem (concurrently), with samatha predominating in the beginning & vipassana developing naturally as samatha deepens.

In formal Buddhist theory, 'vipassana' does not mean noting thoughts, images or sensations. 'Vipassana' means 'seeing clearing' the impermanence & selflessness of phenomena.

For example, on a very basic level, the mind can develop samatha by continuously observing the breathing in a balanced equanimous way. As the mind is continuously observing breathing, it will naturally notice the breathing is impermanent; in that the breathing comes & goes; that it becomes short & long; that the various breaths have different textures & qualities, such as being smooth, rough, agitating, soothing, etc; ultimately to the point of seeing clearly it is the body that breathes (rather than "I" or the "self" that breathes). Seeing clearly the impermanence & selflessness of the various breathing ins & breathing outs is real vipassana.

Then as samatha develops & deepens, certain feelings of rapture & joy will predominate in the mind. When these feelings predominate, they will also be objects of vipassana, in that the rapture & joy will be seen as dependently arising, impermanent & selfless.

Then as samatha deepens, more profound vipassana will occur in different ways.

Therefore, in my opinion, you should consider developing samatha more because this leads to calmness & non-confusion. You should forget about thoughts & images because these are actually hindrances to meditation.

The 'sensations' that are ideally observed are the subtle sensations within the breathing; the sensations of the breathing being smooth, rough, etc. Then later, as samatha is profoundly developed, the mind observes the sensations of rapture & joy that arise from the calming of the breathing.

After this, the mind will be very clear & can discern the 'dependent origination' of thoughts, consciousness, other mentality & sense objects.

The classic original Buddhist path is based on developing samatha. Further, based in what you described in your question, the impression is your mind is predisposed or inclined to develop samatha, since it has equanimity & few attachments.

  [And] for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana).

  Maha-salayatanika Sutta


Bodhicitta and the path of knives? Is cutting off the "path of knives" (i.e. avoiding rebirth into lower realms) not the ultimate?

I mean, obviously it's unlikely any Buddhist seeker would affirm that. But, given life on earth can be improved for humans, is it not very like the ultimate, to never again accrue evil karma and rebirth into hell or animal or ghost realms?

Also, do any of the schools which say some sentient beings lack a seed for buddhahood, self enlightenment, and arhatship, claim that those sentient beings can forever avoid rebirth into the evil destinies?
And in what way can they work for bodhicitta?

The aim should not to be to avoid reincarnation in 'lower' realms, but to alleviate suffering for all sentient beings. Please do keep that in mind. Focusing on reincarnation encourages selfish thinking.


Word that refers to a "second chance" or redemption? Is there a specific word in Buddhism that refers to a "second chance" or perhaps redemption?

Skill in offenses and skill in rehabilitation from offenses.
Āpattikusalatā ca āpattivuṭṭhānakusalatā ca dn33

I think this is close to redemption from wrongness.
As i understand it, the semantics are close to 'rising up & emerging' as a recovery from wrong-doing.
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/vutthana


Different ways one can understand / realise the Dhamma? I have heard in a Dhamma talk in which different ways of understanding / realising the Dhamma was discussed. One way that was mentioned was meditation. I am wondering which Suttas this has been referenced from. Up to then my understanding was Vippasana / meditation was the one and only way.

With regard to the other ways, how does the understanding / realisation happen?

This was sometime back so I cannot remember the exact content.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html

"I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana... the second jhana... the third... the fourth... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness. I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception."


Perception (saṃjñā) and discrimination How do perception and discrimination relate?

I remember thinking (when reading) that they were near synonyms

Discernment (wisdom; panna) & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns.
Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes.

Mahavedalla Sutta


Help! I'm in love with enlightened man Pardon my English .I was lucky enough to meet this man . This man is living Buddha . He is not a monk. Lives simple life. He is such a mystery.  I'm in love with enlightened man.

It's not recent ... it's been years and years... He never claimed that but it's absolutely obvious to me.  He is extremely handsome intelligent and more , so much more. I can feel when he enters the room, there is so much heat or fire. He is shining and he makes everyone around him smile. He has big beautiful eyes they are so sharp it's like he can see through appearances . He is absolutely perfect.  I think about him day and night all the time I cannot forget him. It's my attachment to pleasure or is this real love??? When i think of him i just melt. On the other hand i know he is not interested in me as a woman and will never be. And it drives me nuts. I feel stupid. What to do?

I was planning to tell him that, but am so scared that i'll feel stupid. I suppose it's obvious on my face anyway. But it's been so long and the feeling gets stronger. I should move on i know it, but he is such a perfection... I have no word to describe this man . Just ''ahh''.  How to let go?? or should i keep?

If he is really enlightened, he will not be interested in you (romantically). If he is interested in you (romantically), he is not enlightened. The Pali suttas state:

It is impossible for... whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse.
Sutava Sutta

However, he could show friendship (metta) towards you. True spiritual friends (kalyanamitta) are difficult to find in the world.


Most beneficial Buddhist organizations and monastic orders? My understanding is that, in order to hear the correct dhamma, one must hear it from somebody who displays the outward marks of humility, generosity and selflessness.  Otherwise, one cannot be sure one is hearing the correct dhamma.

Are there any Buddhist organizations or monastic orders that teach dhamma to lay believers, and do humanitarian work, either in poor countries, or for the general public where they are based?  I'm thinking things like refugee resettlement, addiction treatment and recovery, fundraising for medical research or vaccination drives, tutoring special needs children, etc.  Can you recommend/provide links for your "favorite" organization?

And secondly, is there a "better" or different karma for donating to Buddhist humanitarian work conducted by celibate monks, vs donating to Buddhist humanitarian work conducted by lay followers?  Is there a better or different karma for hearing the dhamma taught by celibate monks, vs hearing the dhamma taught by experienced and intelligent lay followers?

(Having been raised an evangelical Protestant, I was taught to believe in the "priesthood of believers" and that, for example, bread for communion can be consecrated by any Christian, not by priests only.)

My understanding is that, in order to hear the correct dhamma, one must hear it from somebody who displays the outward marks of humility, generosity and selflessness. Otherwise, one cannot be sure one is hearing the correct dhamma.

The correct dhamma is related to the teaching rather than to the quality of the speaker. For example, Christianity often preaches about humility, generosity and selflessness but obviously has a different dharma (teaching) than Buddhism.

  Are there any Buddhist organizations or monastic orders that teach dhamma to lay believers

Yes. Buddhism Stack Exchange and Dhammadhatu is most beneficial.

  and do humanitarian work, either in poor countries

My impression of Buddhist countries (such as Thailand & Burma) is, prior to Western contact, there was relatively little need for 'humanitarian work' because, despite inequities, most people had sufficient requisites of life. For example, Thailand is not a country historically known for poverty and it is well-documented Burma was a country of great domestic abundance before the British raped & pillaged it economy & politically.

I think an examination of history might find 'Christian humanitarian charity' goes hand in hand with Western (Christian) colonialism & exploitation. For example, while I know little about if  British colonialism contributed to poverty in India, I do know the British created a man-made famine in Bengal during WW2, which killed around 2 million Indians. Even my own father immigrated to Australia because of the poverty Britain created in his country of birth.

  I'm thinking things like refugee resettlement

Despite your obvious good intentions, refugee resettlement is generally the addressing of a symptom rather than the addressing of a cause. For example, in my lifetime, there have been Vietnamese, Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi & Syrian refugees in my country of birth, each caused by American wars (directly or indirectly) towards those peoples.

It is well-known in Western history Christian missionaries quickly followed Western conquerors, which includes in the recent Iraq War.

Despite your obvious good intentions, you appear to be imputing a Christian Western Semitic paradigm onto Buddhism.

Unlike Judaism, Christianity & Islam, Buddhism has no doctrine of imperialism, conversion, world salvation & world conquest.

  addiction treatment and recovery

In Thailand, there are lots of traditional addiction treatment and recovery using traditional herbal medicine, where monks are involved (even though Vinaya appears to forbid this), such as Wat Thramkrabok

  fundraising for medical research or vaccination drives, tutoring special needs children, etc. Can you recommend/provide links for your "favorite" organization?

Again, despite your obvious good intentions, you appear to be imputing a Christian Western Semitic paradigm onto Buddhism.

Each nation has evolved, slower or quicker, technologically in its history and each nation obviously does its best to advance what Buddhism calls the "four requisites" of food, clothing, shelter & medicine. This said, while Buddhism clearly teaches medicine is a human life requisite, it is not the role of Buddhist monks to develop medicine and medical technology.


What is the authority of the Kathavatthu (points of Controversy) and the 3rd counsil? I'm slowly collecting Buddhist books and started with the Khuddaka-Nikaya, and am researching if I want the rest as well of Theravada Canon. So I was curious about the the place and authority of the Kathavatthu?

Is it considered canon by all or most of Theravadan schools?

How did the post-theravadan schools regard the texts?

"Is it considered canon by all or most of Theravadan schools?"

 A few Evidences on the Age of the Kathavatthu showed that an examination  of some of the materials  of
        the  K.  V.  and the Asokan  edicts  shows  that  the
        compilation of the K. V.  was made, at least in part,
        somewhere in the reign of king Asoka.

Kathavatthu‘The Book of Disputed Points’, being a canonical book belonging to the Abhidharma Piṭaka of the Pāli Canon.

"How did the post-theravadan schools regard the texts?"

Below are quotes on the Kathavatthu from wiki: (*I added bold to show emphasis)

  Each chapter contains questions and answers by means of which the most diverse views are presented, refuted and rejected. The form of the debates gives no identification of the participants, and does not step outside the debate to state explicitly which side is right.

  The debates are understood by the tradition, followed by many scholars, as disputes between different schools of Buddhism.

  However, L. S. Cousins, described by Professor Gombrich as the West's leading abhidhamma scholar,[6] says:

  "In spiritual traditions the world over, instructors have frequently employed apparent contradictions as part of their teaching method – perhaps to induce greater awareness in the pupil or to bring about a deeper and wider view of the subject in hand. The Pali Canon contains many explicit examples of such methods. (Indeed much of the Kathāvatthu makes better sense in these terms than as sectarian controversy.)"[7]
  See also

Seen in this light it is not a book on points of controversies but a teaching manual!


A good monastery to ordain? I am looking for a monastic community that fits these criteria;

Abhidhamma compliant
Vinaya compliant; one meal a day, no afternoon snacks, not using
money etc
Analytical attitude towards the commentaries;
Westerners can receive ordination and stay for the nissaya

No geographic preference.

If you know of a suitable community please do let me know.

Thanks

While it's hard to find such a monastery that meets all the requirements that you have laid out, it's likely that the Thai Forest Tradition monasteries founded by Ajahn Chah and his students (see Forest Sangha for worldwide monasteries) could be credible. The main monastery for this lineage is Wat Pah Nanachat in Thailand. Bhikkhus Sujato and Brahmali who are scholars of the Pali Canon and located in Australia, are affiliated to this tradition. The famous Youtube speaker Ajahn Brahm, who is a student of Ajahn Chah, is the abbot of the Bodhinyana Monastery in Perth, Australia.

In California, you can consider the Metta Forest Monastery. The abbot of this monastery was or is Thanissaro Bhikkhu, another well-known translator and scholar of the Pali Canon. Thanissaro Bhikkhu is also of the Thai Forest Tradition. The main monastery for this lineage, founded by Thanissaro Bhikkhu's teacher Ajaan Fuang Jotiko, is Wat Dhammasathit in Thailand.

According to the Wikipedia page on Metta Forest Monastery (which quotes a book):

  Ajaan Ṭhānissaro stresses the importance of strict adherence to the
  Vinaya or Buddhist monastic code which teaches relying only on
  donations from the lay community as well as living in the wilderness,
  a key feature of the Thai Forest Tradition of which he is a part.

It is also likely that some monasteries and some teachers lean towards Vipassana more than Samatha (jhana) or vice versa. For example, Ajaan Tong Sirimangalo and his student Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu may lean more towards vipassana, while Ajahn Chah and his student Ajahn Brahm may lean more towards samatha.

If you haven't read it already, the book "Broken Buddha" by S. Dhammika would help you to avoid romanticizing life in Theravada monasteries, especially in Asia. However, at the same time, you should not let it discourage you, as there are bound to be a mix of good and bad experiences when it comes to monasteries and life in monasteries.


Are all of the five aggregates saṅkhāras? Are the five aggregates all saṅkhāras -- are they impermanent and dependently originated?

I guess that "perceptions" and "feelings" are perhaps dependent on sensual contact. Is there anything else they're dependent on?

Are "form" and "consciousness" dependently originated, and what (conditions or causes) do they depend on?

Does "eye consciousness" exist when there's no contact? In a blind person, for example?

If all five aggregates are indeed saṅkhāras, then what is the aggregate called "formation" (saṅkhāra)? What is the difference in the meaning in the word "saṅkhāra" when it's used to identify that one aggregate, as opposed to when it's used to characterise all aggregates?

Is it right to call e.g. the doctrine of the "four noble truths" a dhamma instead of a saṅkhāra? Is the doctrine unconditioned and not subject to decay ... or is this a theory about Dhamma (i.e. a meta-dhamma) proposed by some schools and not others? Is awareness of (e.g. perception of) the dhamma a saṅkhāra, which depends on contact (e.g. contact between mind-object and mind-consciousness), and impermanent?

If all five aggregates are indeed saṅkhāras, then what is the aggregate called "formation" (saṅkhāra)?

Please read this answer for more info on sankharas based on Bhikkhu Bodhi's essay "Anicca Vata Sankhara". I quote the TL;DR version from that answer:

  Sankharas are "co-doings," things that act in concert with other
  things, or things that are made by a combination of other things. Ven.
  Bodhi uses "formations" or "volitional formations" as his preferred
  translation.

  There are 3 uses of the term Sankhara in the scriptures:

  Second link in dependent origination - when ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our volitional actions
  of body, speech, and mind become forces with the capacity to produce
  results, including "rebirth".
  The fourth of the five aggregates - volition regarding forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, and ideas. Also covers all
  factors of mind except feeling and perception.
  All conditioned and compounded things including mountains, fields, and forests; towns and cities; food and drink; jewelry, cars, and
  computers.

  The only thing which is unconditioned and uncompounded is Nibbana.

Are the five aggregates all saṅkhāras -- are they impermanent and dependently originated?

Yes, in all the different meanings of sankhara, they are always impermanent and conditioned (depend on other things for their arising and ceasing).

Are "form" and "consciousness" dependently originated, and what (conditions or causes) do they depend on?

MN 148 explains the arising of consciousness:

  "Dependent on the eye & forms there
  arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there
  arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there
  arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors
  there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body &
  tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent
  on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect.
  'The six classes of consciousness should be known.'

Meanwhile, form as one of the five aggregates refers to body, and it being conditioned and compounded is explained in MN 74:

  Now, Aggivessana, this body — endowed with form, composed of the four
  primary elements, born from mother & father, nourished with rice &
  porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and
  dispersion — should be envisioned as inconstant, stressful, a disease,
  a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration,
  an emptiness, not-self.

Does "eye consciousness" exist when there's no contact? In a blind person, for example?

According to SN 12.44:

  Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The
  meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition
  comes feeling.

"Contact" in this quote refers to mental contact and not physical contact. When there is physical contact between eye and forms (in this context, "form" means visual objects), eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three would result in mental contact.

This is only my speculation, but presumably, a blind person can see darkness or black.

Is it right to call e.g. the doctrine of the "four noble truths" a dhamma instead of a saṅkhāra? Is the doctrine unconditioned and not subject to decay

According to AN 3.134, the Dhamma does not depend on the coming of a Buddha:

  "Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this
  property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness
  of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant. ... All processes are
  stressful. ... All phenomena are not-self.

According to this essay by Ajahn Sumedo:

  Akalikadhamma means that Dhamma is not bound by any time condition.
  The word akala means timeless. Our conceptual mind can’t conceive of
  anything that is timeless, because our conceptions and perceptions are
  time-based conditions, but what we can say is that Dhamma is akala,
  not bound by time.

Is awareness of (e.g. perception of) the dhamma a saṅkhāra, which depends on contact (e.g. contact between mind-object and mind-consciousness), and impermanent?

While the Dhamma (teachings) may not be sankhara, the mental concepts built around it definitely is sankhara, which is why seeing it through wisdom (through vipassana) is needed, as compared to intellectualizing it.


Is a starving person justified in stealing food? In Germany it is not illegal to steal food when  you're about to starve. Would someone who does this still would have to face negative consequences because of  this stealing in the future?

In general, in Buddhism taking without asking would still be considered unskilful. The relevant precept is adinnādānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi "I undertake the training principle of not taking the not given". There is nothing to stop someone asking for food if they are hungry. Indeed by stealing one also deprives the other of the opportunity of gaining the merit of generosity.


Are we taught to try to understand our fears? On page 13 of Good Questions, Good Answers it says,

  The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change.

Is it true that we're taught to try to understand our fears?

Assuming it's true, do you suppose it means nothing more or less than the first noble truth: i.e. that dukkha is fear and vice versa?

Or does it mean something else?

Are there techniques to "understand our fear"?

Yes, we are taught to understand our fear and see where it comes from.

It comes from the projections of our mind.

  As fear is based on something that we think may happen in the future, it is clearly a mental process which tries to predict the future - in that sense, the reason of fear is a projection of our mind.
  We can be afraid to fall, but once we are falling, we are afraid to hit the ground, once we hit the ground, we may fear we have a bad injury, once we know we have a bad injury, we may fear the pain and the consequences of not being able to work for some time or become disabled etc. So one could say that fear is always based on something that has not happened yet, and is therefore a fantasy of our mind rather than fact.

There are some fears which are wholesome:

Hiri and Otappa which are fear of shame and fear of unwholesomeness are called "Guardians of the world":

  "Two lucid things, o monks, protect the world: moral shame and moral dread. If these two things were not to protect the world, then one would respect neither one's mother, nor one's mother's sister, nor one's brother's wife, nor one's teacher's wife ...." (A. II, 7).

There is another fear which results from the practice of vipassana as pointed out by eudoxus:

Knowledge of fear - bhaya-nana

  This gives way to the knowledge of fear, (bhaya-nana). In the disappearance of everything examined, the mind at some level begins to realise: there is nothing beneath this parade of changes. There is no foundation. At a fundamental level, there is nothing at all. The result is existential anxiety. In its strong form this can manifest as panic. In its weak form, it can be merely a sense of existential unease, a sense of nothing going right, a sense of helplessness, a sense of loss of control. At this stage of the practice, the meditator’s insight into anatta, not self, usually takes the form of a sense of loss of control. The realisation that "I am not in control of ‘my’ life".


Compassion vs the invisible hand and capitalism Compassion and empathy encompassing all beings seems to be the Buddhist ideal. How do Buddhists reconcile this today with Adam Smith's invisible hand? I.e., the idea that following our self-interest will lead to the best (economic) results? Was Buddha wrong or was Smith wrong?
Note: It is clear that self-interest and the invisible hand are qualified and moderated in today's capitalist societies. On the other hand, it is still the core of their economic mechanisms and our daily economic behavior. And the communist experiment based on the idea of sharing everything ended up as a large tragedy (not the least for Tibetan Buddhists).
UPDATE:
Thanks for the interesting spectrum of answers so far.
Let me expand:
Buddha empathizes with the whole universe and takes decisions that
benefit the whole universe most. Extreme altruism based on extreme
knowledge leading to the optimal result. While Smith says that
following one's egoistic self-interest leads to the optimal (economic)
results. And no knowledge of the rest of the universe is needed - just
follow your own self-interest. Both are recipes for the behavior
of the masses, but Smith's is much simpler to implement.
Example 1: If I follow my self-interest and buy a product from the
cheapest supplier, I support the most efficient allocation of
resources (in an ideal market), the most talented businessmen and
managers, etc. Others are incentivized to improve or learn another
skill. Should I instead empathize and support them too?
Example 2: Communism/socialism tried to replace Smith by planning
across the whole economy.  An attempt at global empathy and selfless
maximization of the common benefit. But it did not work and the result
was much worse than Smith's approach. The road to hell was paved
with good intentions.
Example 3: Google avoids paying taxes in the EU via the Irish
trick. Eric Schmidt once commented that they are "proud
capitalists". So he/Google believes in doing good via
Smith/self-interest. Many other people (in the EU in particular) think
that using such loopholes is unethical and bad for the EU economy.
What would be the Buddha/Buddhist views in these cases?

I think it is clear that Buddhism does not concern itself with capitalism, or any other economic “ism,” except to the extent that one should occupy oneself with a “right livelihood.”
And I want to point out that modern ‘capitalism’ bears little resemblance to Adam Smith’s use of the word. He had nothing good to say about corporations, and his use of the term “free trade” referred, not to to the ‘right’ of multinational corporations to move their capital freely around the world in search of cheaper labor pools, but rather to the right of each individual to freely move about to ply their trade. This is clearly not the case today.
Modern capitalism cannot survive without captive labor, who necessarily suffer, in order to keep costs as low as possible. This—modern corporatist capitalism—is not “right livelihood” in Buddhist terms, but people today are stuck within a system that is oblivious to the needs of the majority of people, spiritual or economic, or even sustainable in any sense. Capital can move on, after destroying an area, impoverishing the captive populations. Thus, we face the continuing crisis of global ecocide for ‘profit’.
The only “invisible hand” evident in today’s economy is one that pops out to sweep whatever is on the table into some private pocket. Quant-trading firms are only the most recent and efficient example of this, in the financial trading markets.
Compassion towards all sentient beings is more than an “ideal” in Buddhism, it is the path to accomplishing everything else, including our survival as a species.

Update to the OP’s update:
I’d like to correct some of your assertions. I am doing this because you are making assumptions about the Buddha and Buddhism as if they operated under the same understanding as economists, which is not the case.
The Buddha does not ”empathize with” anything. The Buddha manifests what is known as “Great Responsiveness” (Mahakaruna), which is often translated as “great compassion.” It is different though, than the compassion that unrealized humans can manifest, as it is not a feeling of compassion towards the suffering of others.
It is, instead, a mode of being in which all actions are directed spontaneously towards the benefit of all beings in each context (moment). This does not exclude the one manifesting the responsiveness, but includes all, thus it is not altruism—in its normal sense—either. (By that I mean that in Buddhism, “selfless” (Anatta) means something totally different than “selfless” in economic theory.)
Thus, when the Buddha taught, for example, his answers were always slightly different, just as his questioners’ understanding was always slightly different, and just as yours and mine are slightly different. This difference in teachings was not something planned, they arose spontaneously. I want to emphasize that because it is so different from the world we believe we live in, unless you happen to be an engineer who has to deal with the stochastic nature of electronic components on a micro-scale, where the spontaneity is something one has to always design for.
So, think of Mahakaruna as the great Market in the sky, making sure everyone involved goes home comfortable with what transpired, only really, and not just in some abstract, in the best-of-all-worlds, kind of academic hypothesis. Because, while Smith could assert “that following one's egoistic self-interest leads to the optimal (economic) results” he could never prove such a thing, and our experience to date is strongly indicative that no such thing is true.
I’d also like to point out that Smith’s “recipe” is only simple if you exclude the monetary system, banking system, communications technology, shipping capabilities and the infrastructure all that needs, storage facilities, corporate transnational legal structures, blah, blah.
In short, Smith’s “recipe” is only simple because all of the hard work has already been done. Unfortunately, it all got sold at a steep discount by corrupt politicians to greedy—as opposed to just ”self-interested”—people, who have undermined the proposed elegance and positive benefits of such a system, in order to aggrandize their own wealth, no matter how destructive (i.e. costs foisted off on the public) their activities are.
It may be true that communism and socialism (not the same things in theory, just in historical practice) have failed, but corporate capitalism is in the end months of ecocidal destruction of the world.
And whatever corporate capitalism actually is, it is lightyears away from anything Smith ever envisioned—but more to your question, it is anathema to what the Buddha taught.


Can a Buddhist monk use social media for his teaching? As far as I understand, there are sets of rules to be observed as a monastic monk and I'm not sure if TV, radio and other source of media is allowed?

Just curious to know, no offense.

A monk can appear in all social media, but there are, according to the Navakovada, some things he cannot talk about, if certain conditions are not met. Since he does not know whom is out there doing what, he might choose not to teach the Dhamma.

This is a bit of a grayzone, so it is up to each monks own evaluation whether he will do it or not.


Is it even possible to attain Nirvana? Sorry, I've just read Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) and feel a bit overwhelmed.

As far as I understand, this is some sort of instruction on how to attain enlightenment. It teaches, that one has to develop the perfect mindfulness of the body, feelings and mind; to observe all the hindrances and be sure that they won't arise anymore; to develop the ending of the aggregates; to abandon the fetter of the senses; to develop all the awakening factors; to contemplate all the arising dharmas considering their relationships with the Four Noble Truths.

Beats me, even if one devotes all their life to the perfection of all of these things, can they really perfect these? Attaining Nirvana seems to be really complicated, and there are many conflicting points (both within and between major schools) on what are more important objects of meditation & techniques out there.

Beats me, even if one devotes all their life to the perfection of all of these things, can they really perfect these? Attaining Nirvana seems to be really complicated, and there are many conflicting points (both within and between major schools) on what are more important objects of meditation & techniques out there.

There sure are many conflicting points within and between schools, but more important meditation objects isn't one of them, for there's no such thing as the best meditation object. The best meditation object is one that is the most suitable to solve a problem due to the personality, shortcomings, and orientation of the practitioner. Full of lust? then meditate on the foulness of the body thru its 32 body parts; full of hatred or anger? meditate on loving kindness and joy; full of drowsiness or torpor? meditate on light or various kasinas, etc.

Regarding the possibility of Nibbana, there's no doubt it's no trivial pursuit. But one can see it in a more positive light, if the road to Nibbana is like a marathon which would take millions of steps forward, as long as one puts in the time and effort slowly and consistently, any step s/he puts forward would mean it's one step closer toward the finish line. But if s/he doesn't put their foot forward, s/he won't go anywhere.


What is intellect-consciousness and why is it different from intellect itself? In SN 35.93 quoted below, it reads intellect-consciousness arises in dependence on the intellect and ideas, but if this consciousness is also a thinking about the work of intellect on ideas then it in itself is an intellect. and if so we have to look for another consciousness which higher and the search continues ad-infinitum.

This, of course, is not my own though it's a classic platonic thinkers response to Descartes's misguided saying Cogito ergo sum ( I think, therefore I am),  quoted below is from Plotinos Ennead Book Nine explaining the relation of intellect and consciousness.

SN 35.93 Dvaya Sutta: A Pair

  "In dependence on the intellect & ideas, there arises
  intellect-consciousness. The intellect is inconstant, changeable, of a
  nature to become otherwise. Ideas are inconstant, changeable, of a
  nature to become otherwise. Thus this pair is both wavering &
  fluctuating — inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise.

PLOTINOS: - SECOND ENNEAD, BOOK NINE.

  Though there be a difference between thinking, and thinking that one
  thinks, these two nevertheless constitute a single intuitive
  consciousness of its actualizations. It would be ridiculous to deny
  such a consciousness to veritable Intelligence. It is, therefore, the
  same Intelligence that thinks, and that thinks that it thinks.
  Otherwise, there would be two principles, of which the one would have
  thought, and the other consciousness of thought. The second would
  doubtless differ from the first, but would not be the real thinking
  principle. A mere logical distinction between thought and
  consciousness of thought would not establish the (actual) differences
  between two . Further, we shall have to
  consider whether it be possible to conceive of an Intelligence which
  would exclusively think, without any accompanying consciousness of its
  thought. If we ourselves who are entirely devoted to practical
  activity and discursive reason were in such a condition, we would,
  even if otherwise considered sensible, be insane. But as true
  Intelligence thinks itself in its thoughts, and as the
  intelligible, far from being outside of Intelligence, is Intelligence
  itself, Intelligence, by thinking, possesses itself, and necessarily
  sees itself. When Intelligence sees itself, it does not see itself
  as unintelligent, but as intelligent. Therefore in the first
  actualization of thought, Intelligence has the thought and
  consciousness of thought, two things that form but a single one; not
  even logically is this a duality. If Intelligence always thinks what
  it is, is there any reason to separate, even by a simple logical
  distinction, thought from the consciousness of thought? The absurdity
  of the doctrine we are controverting will be still more evident if we
  suppose that a third intelligence is conscious that the second
  intelligence is conscious of the thought of the first; we might thus
  go on to infinity

This is just bad translation. "Consciousness" is the common word for vijnana. A better translation of vijnana is "(subjective) experience". Meaning, you see something => you recognize it => you make sense of it => you experience it.

"Intellect" is how they usually translate manas or mind.

So "Intellect-consciousness" or mano-vijnana, is therefore the subjective experience of what's going on one's own mind. It's when you "see" what you're thinking about etc. I think it's called re-representation in modern cognitive science.

It does not require a higher mind or anything like that. Based on my meditation experience, it works as a cycle. Normally the input from sense organs goes to memory to find matching associations, this is how recognition happens, the basis of vijnana. With manovijnana, instead of the sensory organs, our attention grabs data from short term memory, finds matches in long term memory, puts that back in short term memory - voila, manovijnana.


What is the difference between householder and renunciation equanimity? The thirty-six states (6 x 6 classes of contact) to which beings are attached are described in Salayatana-vibhanga Sutta; I have made a caricature while reading each state as below, states 1, 2, 4 & 5 are easy to understand, however, I'm straggling to clearly identify the two type of equanimity and how they differ.

Quoted below is the definition given for each equanimity states in the Sutta, but it’s not clear to me how the foolish deluded householder equanimity is any different from the other. How do these two people react to a given situation?

I will give an example for the householder equanimity and If possible please try to use the same situation to represent the state of the renunciation equanimity and if possible beyond renunciation equanimity (atammayata) in which there is no act of intention, not even the intention underlying equanimity is said to be present.

For example, a householder loses his beloved son or a wife he could reason and say ‘I know I was only in love with a mortal and what has happened is natural’ and he remains calm without suffering. This equanimity, I take it, doesn’t go beyond form. With a wide open eye as I caricatured his state, he looks into pain and pleasure even death with equanimity without reasoning beyond form. Let them change he is just looking.

Many thanks.

  "And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity
  that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill,
  untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results
  of action 2 & who is blind to danger [3] — sees a form with the eye.
  Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called
  household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile
  sensations, & ideas.)

  "And what are the six kinds of renunciation equanimity? The equanimity
  that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms,
  their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as
  it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant,
  stressful, subject to change: This equanimity goes beyond form, which
  is why it is called renunciation equanimity. (Similarly with sounds,
  smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)

  "And what is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on
  multiplicity? There is equanimity with regard to forms, equanimity
  with regard to sounds...smells...tastes...tactile sensations [& ideas:
  this word appears in one of the recensions]. This is equanimity coming
  from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity.

  "And what is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on
  singleness? There is equanimity dependent on the dimension of the
  infinitude of space, equanimity dependent on the dimension of the
  infinitude of consciousness... dependent on the dimension of
  nothingness... dependent on the dimension of neither perception nor
  non-perception. This is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent
  on singleness.

It's good to get aware of issues of different kind of equanimity not only because most modern, especially lay teacher, even whole "schools" actually teach the dangerous "household-equanimity". The differernt is btw. actually drawn out in the notes and also in the translators intoduction of the sutta:

A person who "has not conquered his limitations or the results of action": this passage seems related to the passage in AN 3.99, which defines a person of limited mind, prey to the results of past bad actions, as one who is "undeveloped in contemplating the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in concentration, and undeveloped in discernment; restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering." As AN 3.99 points out, such a person suffers more intensely from the results of past unskillful actions than does one whose awareness is unrestricted. SN 42.8 recommends the practice of the four sublime attitudes as a way of developing an unrestricted awareness that weakens the results of past unskillful actions.

A person who is "blind to danger" is one who does not see the drawbacks of sensual pleasure or attachment to the body. For such a person, moments of equanimity are usually a dull spot in the midst of the quest for sensual pleasure. This is why such moments do not go beyond the sensory stimulus that generated them.

Ordinary equanimity is based on gross ignorance/moha.
The two illustrations here might also provide for an understanding:
Ignoring the truth & Bhaṅgañāņa and bhayañāņa.
Some "provoking" questions for an understanding in this regard may be also found here: Freed of Fivefold Fear.
Typical outwardly indicators for people dwelling in household-equanimity is total lack in basics like gratitude, goodness, generosity and virtue. Once such states a reached, people are merely hopless lost which is one reason the Buddha often nearly "fighted" against teachers leading in such directions while other teachings, even if not much of benefit have been merely tolerated as current wishes for certain destinies of others.
The immense danger of giving rise to firm household-equanimity is also the reason why in Bodhisatta-vehicles the teaching of emptiness of immature people is a grave fault and breach of the root vows, knowing that they are walking on a tiny edge and althought propably even understood as encouragement to act wrong.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, given for release, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]


Where does utilitarianism sit with Buddhism and vice versa? My understanding of utilitarianism is that value is the result of an action e.g. which actions provide the most happiness.

There appears to be an overlap between Buddhism and utilitarianism however am unsure how these come together or grow apart in the actions we perform as well as the value of the results.

EDIT

The answer posted to the question is a good candidate for the commonalities as well as differences.

(Theravada) Buddhism is absolutely utilitarian... that's a pun, see, it's both absolute and utilitarian. I guess the more accurate contrast is moral absolutism and consequentialism (of which utilitarianism is a type).

In Buddhism (again, Theravada, at least), it is certainly the consequences of the action that are important, though only for the actor - the consequences to others (or society, etc.) are, at least technically, discounted:

  Ill done is that action of doing
  which one repents later,
  and the fruit of which
  one, weeping, reaps with tears.

  Well done is that action of doing
  which one repents not later,
  and the fruit of which
  one reaps with delight and happiness.

  -- Dhp. 67-8 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

and

  Let one not neglect one's own welfare
  for the sake of another, however great.
  Clearly understanding one's own welfare,
  let one be intent upon the good.

  -- Dhp. 166 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Of course, it is also understood that actions that one performs knowing they will harm others are generally not in one's own best interest, as they tend to sully the mind. By helping others, one helps oneself, and vice versa.

At the same time, Buddhism is also clearly absolutist on the level of ultimate reality; whereas it acknowledges that physical and verbal acts are morally variable, the mind states that initiate them are not. Since the acts themselves are merely conventional terms describing a sequence of mental states and their physical consequences, it is the nature of the individual mental states themselves that determine the ethical value of the acts.

  katame dhammā akusalā? yasmiṃ samaye akusalaṃ cittaṃ uppannaṃ hoti ... tasmiṃ samaye aññepi atthi paṭiccasamuppannā arūpino dhammā — ime dhammā akusalā.

  What dhammas are unwholesome? At whatever time an unwholesome mind has arisen ... at that time, whatever other dependently arisen immaterial dhammas there are - these dhammas are unwholesome.

In brief, acts are only bad because of their consequences, but the consequences are dependent on the nature of the acts (on an ultimate level), so morality is both absolute and utilitarian.


What are the catalysts in eightfold path which speed up our endeavor? I want to know how one can speed up his spiritual practices (8 fold path). For- Example, How one can improve his samādhi or prajñā quickly? And what are the things or acts which helps one to improve these quickly.

In my opinion, the best catalyst is meeting highly realized people in real life to see how they behave. In a day of that you get more teaching than in a year of reading books.


Looking for a quote from Johannes Bronkhorst I recall, years ago, reading about Buddhist treatises on rebirth, composed some long time after the Buddhas death.
It was a very brief reference of Johannes Bronkhorst's, probably in a footnote. I've searched various of his big works looking for it, and numerous papers. If anyone happens across a likely candidate, would you please let me know?
It seemed to indicate there was a period in which one faction was trying to convince another that the Buddha taught rebirth. I'm interested in learning anything I can about how far back the debate that lives on today goes.
Thanks for any and all help.

I haven't found a quote about disagreement between Buddhist schools on rebirth, but I found this 1998 lecture by Johannes Bronkhorst entitled "Did the Buddha Believe in Karma and Rebirth?".
Perhaps you're thinking about Pudgalavada.
From the Atman (Buddhism) wikipedia article:

According to Johannes Bronkhorst, it is possible that "original
Buddhism did not deny the existence of the soul", even though a firm
Buddhist tradition has maintained that the Buddha avoided talking
about the soul or even denied its existence.

The linked footnote reads:

Johannes Bronkhorst (1993). The Two Traditions of Meditation in
Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 99 with footnote 12. ISBN
978-81-208-1114-0.


Secularized Buddhism I've been reading some of Stephen Batchelor's ideas, and find them quite interesting. Does anyone have references to further reading of secularized Buddhist ideas and literature?

I think one of the major proponents of 'Secular Buddhism' was S.N.Goenka, although I doubt if he himself would call his lineage that.

First, let me give a brief idea of the tradition. S.N.Goenka's lineage could be traced back to Ven. Ledi Sayadaw, a Buddhist monk who was instrumental in reviving the practice of Vipassana. In his retreats, S.N.Goenka emphasizes on how the pain and suffering we face is universal irrespective of one's religion. And hence, he stresses, that the path of liberation from this suffering is also universal and not based on one's religion. He famously said at the UN's Millennium World Peace Summit that the only conversion involved in Vipassana is from misery to happiness, from bondage to liberation and from cruelty to compassion. You can also watch him introduce meditation to an audience at the Harvard Business Club here.

A very primary book on Vipassana written by William Hart, one of his students is 'The Art of Living'. In this, he talks about basic Buddhist ideas like suffering, its cause and the path of coming out of it in a very secular fashion. You may look at some other books and CDs here.

At his 10 day retreat, he gives discourses which are also very secular in nature. You can register for the retreat here.


What is appropriate usage of medicines that are intoxicating? What is appropriate usage of medicines that are intoxicating?

I know that cannabis has been used for pain relief but if the use of the cannabis is intoxicating then what is the right view of what is appropriate regarding the use of the cannabis as a medicine?

Are there any suttas which seem like they might be helpful in answering this question?

My impression is medical cannabis does not have an intoxicating effect.

Regardless, the precept on intoxicants refers to heedlessness. If a person has a serious medical condition and must use ordinary intoxicating cannabis for relief then it is expected they would be morally mature enough for the cannabis to not lead to heedlessness.