Principles of moral conduct For denourishing restlessness and remorse, code of discipline and principles of moral conduct are useful. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html#rest
But what are exactly these principles of moral conduct and code of discipline for laymen?

There are so many codes of discipline(five precepts, eight precepts) and principles of moral conduct. I am somewhat clear about the codes of discipline, but what are these principles of moral conduct? (some principles in my mind are ten skillful actions.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html)

You have correctly identified principles (IMO) of moral conduct in your OP,  @Dewmini  Gunasekera. For the benefit of others may I list them? While the five precepts are usually stated in negative terms they have their positive counterparts. They are the principles of non-injury and loving-kindness, the principles of honesty, the principles of sexual propriety, the principles of truthfulness and the principles of sobriety that a Lay Follower is to follow.

Some Buddhists observe the Eight Precepts once a month. These three additional precepts are:  Abstaining from eating after mid-day; Abstaining from dancing, singing, music and other forms of entertainment; and  Abstaining from garlands, scents, cosmetics and other kinds of adornment.

For those who are desire a greater degree of withdrawal from lay life, and are prepared to make a full-time commitment, there are two more precepts. They are Abstaining from luxurious beds, and Abstaining from accepting money. For lay Buddhists the keeping of the five basic moral precepts of is adequate but is in itself quite demanding.

One of the fundamental Buddhist principles of moral thought and action is kamma. Kamma is the Law of Moral Causation. Kamma, literally, means action; but, in its ultimate sense, it means the meritorious and demeritorious volition (Kusala Akusala Cetana). It is the principle of Kamma that prompts a person to refrain from evil, do good and be good without being frightened of any punishment or tempted by any reward. For Buddhism the relevant kind of action is volitional action, deeds expressive of morally determinate volition, since it is volition that gives the action ethical significance. Thus the Buddha expressly identifies action with volition. In a discourse on the analysis of kamma he says: "Monks, it is volition that I call action (kamma). Having willed, one performs an action through body, speech, or mind."

The Majjima Nikaya Sutta Number 24, Rathavinãta Sutta, shows us the importance of the Purification of Morality (Virtuous conduct). Moral discipline is the foundation for concentration, concentration the foundation for wisdom.  The Pali word for "moral discipline," is Sila. The observance of sila leads to harmony at several levels — social, psychological, kammic, and contemplative. At the social level the principles of sila help to establish harmonious interpersonal relations.

The ultimate moral code taught by the Buddha is beyond the changing conditions of the world. For example a disciple is a person who has submitted to the Blessed One and His Dhamma. To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of Buddha and Dhamma requires real discrimination—the capacity to recognize the necessity of completely opening oneself and letting go. The more one surrenders, the more accountable one will become for ones own choices, ones own practice, and for the terms of one’s engagement in this path. If you find a person who understands submission to authority and you’ll see a person who is humble, full of love, unselfish, accountable, and personally responsible. Find a person who does not understand submission to authority and you’ll see a person who is prideful, full of criticism, selfish, self ruled, and spiritually irresponsible. Such mindful surrender is an opening to a deeper dimension of truth.


Are there canonical texts for secular Buddhism? Does secular Buddhism have a set of texts that are particularly relevant to it. I can imagine that there are texts that won't have any relevance to secular Buddhists such as the twin miracles. But are texts that have particular resonance even insofar as developing in a set of texts that could almost be described as a canon (in the making maybe?)

I think it varies tremendously based on what tradition they are adapting their teachings from. People following a secularized vipassana tradition probably uphold the Satipatthana sutta, and secular Zen practitioners probably take interest in the Heart Sutra, the Diamond Sutra, and the Platform Sutra.

From my interactions with secular Buddhists I get the impression that when they do study canonical texts they don't have a very wide selection, just a few that they consider important.


Is Enlightenment a misleading ideal? Is Enlightenment a misleading goal? Is it more of a thought-form than just an experience? I am asking because there is a lot of discussion of awakening, enlightenment, satori, differences, levels, etc. and I think that this distracts from the simple truth of growing in awareness, which is both individual and collective.

In other words, is it better to stop thinking about "how to get to 'it' " and just get on with life? In any field, we don't try to attain a specific goal, because - then what? Artists don't try to reach a level, they just make more art. So I would say, is it more helpful to not talk about enlightenment and talk instead about simply becoming more aware?

My prompt for this question comes from what I read (long ago) about how people asked the Buddha after his enlightenment something like: "What are you? Are you an angel? Are you a devil? What?" and he said "I am awake." So, his answer was about a condition of being, not an endpoint. Like how a rainbow is an arrangement of circumstances, not a thing that you can touch. This is not coming out right... I think that the word "enlightenment" focuses on a rainbow - something that does not exist. Talking about it prolongs ignorance, perhaps?

Is this addressed specifically in the Buddhist literature? Thank you.

This is a very well know paradox, perhaps the main paradox of Buddhism. On one hand, there is no Enlightenment -- on the other hand, Enlightenment truly occurs! Most of Zen lore revolves around this very pivot point.

You are right in your intuition that thinking and talking of Enlightenment is counterproductive. At the same time, to simply go on with life is not Enlightenment either.

Enlightenment requires getting to the very bottom of things. Once you get to the bottom of things, you're no longer fooled with words such as "Enlightenment" -- instead, you directly see what is being referred to. And then in the practical sense, Enlightenment means mastery of skillful action rooted in the right understanding.

When such a master acts, the skill is quite obvious to everyone. Because the master is in harmony with all things, her action is very efficient. Needless to say, the master knows how to act as to avoid hurting herself or others.


Why did Buddhism nearly become extinct in Sri Lanka? I read when the British came to Sri Lanka (Ceylon) during the colonial era, Buddhism was virtually extinct in Sri Lanka and has degenerated into very low forms of superstition. However, because some Sri Lankans wanted to stop British Christianity, they requested the Burmese Sangha to reinstate a Sri Lankan monastic Sangha. I read some intellectual Sri Lankan laymen had debates with Christians, where both sides (logically) accused the other side of superstition.

Why did Buddhism become virtually extinct in Sri Lanka? Was that 'extinction' somehow related to the form of Buddhism or how it was practised, or something else?

I have quoted 3 sources below on this topic.

Basically, it says that in Sri Lanka and other Theravada countries, people who lived over 150 years ago, thought that even stream entry was no longer possible because in-depth understanding of meditation had been forgotten. They felt that it's better to practise virtues and make merit, while waiting for the next Buddha, Meteyya or Maitreya to come and show them the path to Nibbana. Supposedly, even Buddhaghosa, who authored the Visuddhimagga around the 5th century CE in Sri Lanka, held this view.

However, Buddhist meditation practices (based on the Satipatthana Sutta and Visuddhimagga, as well as other suttas) started to be revived in Burma as a popular movement, over a hundred years ago, and then spread to other countries including Sri Lanka. This seemed to have reinvigorated the faith of Theravadins (both monks and lay people) in the possibility of stream entry and enlightenment.

Here, Buddhism did not become extinct in Sri Lanka, but people simply lost faith in the possibility of attaining even stream entry, until Buddhist meditation was reintroduced to them from Burma.

In the Broken Buddha book, S. Dhammika wrote:

  In Sri Lanka it is widely believed that it is not possible to become
  enlightened anymore and it’s not just simple folk who believe this
  either. I once attended a talk by the famous Narada Thera of
  Vajirarama in Colombo during which he said that it is  even
  impossible  to  become  a  sotapanna  today.  Richard  Gombrich  found
  this  same  idea  to  be widely  held  in  Sri  Lanka.  ‘The
  comparative  rarity  of  meditation  is  closely  connected  with  the
  widespread belief in the  decline of  Buddhism. A  village  girl said
  that in a Buddha-less period one must  keep  trying,  but  only
  limited  progress  is  possible.  It  is  further  believed  by  the
  majority  of monks,  at  least  those  whose  general  attitudes  can
  be  described  as  traditional,  that  the  sasana  has already
  declined  so  far  that  it  is  no  longer  possible  for  men  to
  attain  nirvana.  This  opinion  is  very prevalent  among  the
  laity...One  monk  even  specified  that  till  (Metteyya)  comes  it
  is  not  even possible to become a sotapanna. The last arahat is
  commonly said to have been Maliyadeva (1st cent B.C.E).  Others  say
  that  there may  still  be  human  arahats,  but  it  is  unlikely
  and/or undiscoverable ....

  I have heard these same views expressed a thousand times in Sri Lanka.
  Even Buddhaghosa did not really believe that Theravada practice could
  lead to Nirvana. His Visuddhimagga is supposed to be a detailed,  step
  by  step  guide  to  enlightenment.  And yet  in  the  postscript  he
  says  he  hopes  that  the merit  he  has  earned  by  writing  the
  Visuddhimagga  will  allow  him  to  be  reborn  in  heaven,  abide
  there  until  Metteyya  appears,  hear  his  teaching  and  then
  attain  enlightenment.

In Encyclopedia of Buddhism (editor: Robert E. Buswell, Jr.), it is written:

  By the tenth century C.E., vipassana meditation appears to have fallen
  out of practice in the Therevada school. By that time it was commonly
  believed that the religion of Gautama Buddha had so declined that
  liberation  through  insight  could no longer  be  attained until the
  advent of the future Buddha Metteyya (Sanskrit,  Maitreya)  many  eons
  from  now.  In  the  early eighteenth  century,  however,  renewed
  interest  in  the Satipatthana Sutta (Discourse on the Foundations of
  Mindfulness)  led  to  a  revival  of  vipassana meditation in Burma
  (Myanmar). After encountering initial resistance,  the  practice  of
  vipassana was  endorsed  by  the Burmese sangha and embraced by the
  royal court.

  By the late nineteenth century, a distinct praxis and organizational
  pattern  had  emerged  that  set  the  stage  for the modern vipassana
  movement of the twentieth century.  Led  chiefly  by  reform  minded
  scholar-monks,  a variety  of  simplified  meditation  techniques
  were  devised based on readings of the Satipatthana Sutta, the
  Visuddhimagga (Path to Purification), and related texts. These
  techniques  typically  follow  the  method  of  bare insight.

  The
  teaching  of  vipassana also  prompted  the development   of   new
  Buddhist   institutions   called wipathana  yeikthaor  insight
  hermitages.  Initially  attached to monasteries, these evolved into
  independent lay oriented meditation centers. A related development was
  the rise of personality cults devoted to the veneration of
  prominent   meditation   teachers   as   living arhats. In terms of
  impact, the popularization of vipassana represents  the  most
  significant  development  in Burmese Buddhism in the twentieth
  century.

  Thailand has also witnessed a revival of vipassana practice in the
  modern  period,  and  both  Burmese  and  Thai  meditation  teachers
  have  been  instrumental  in  propagating vipassana in Sri Lanka,
  India, and the West.

In Meditation en Masse, Erik Braun wrote:

  These days many assume that Buddhism and meditation go hand in hand -
  sometimes they are even considered to be one and the same. But even
  counting Theravadins, progenitors of the massively popular insight
  meditation (Vipassana) movement, relatively few Buddhists historically
  have ever understood meditation to be essential. On the contrary,
  instead of meditating, the majority of Theravadins and dedicated
  Buddhists of other traditions, including monks and nuns, have focused
  on cultivating moral behavior, preserving the Buddha’s teachings
  (dharma), and acquiring the good karma that comes from generous
  giving. To be sure, such folks have recognized the critical role
  meditation plays in awakening—in the Theravada view, you cannot become
  enlightened without such practice—but they have not doubted that one
  can live a worthwhile and authentic Buddhist life without meditating.
  Aiming not toward awakening but toward a good rebirth, many
  Theravadins have even argued that meditation is inappropriate in our
  degenerate age, except perhaps for a rare few living in the isolation
  of jungles or mountain caves. Where, then, did this now pervasive idea
  come from that meditation lies at the heart of Buddhist life?

  This question brings us to Burma just over a century ago. Prior to
  this time, no trend toward widespread meditation had developed
  anywhere. It is true that Thai forest masters, above all Ajaan Mun
  (1870–1949) and revivalist figures in Sri Lanka such as Dharmapala
  (1864–1933), played an important part in the establishment of insight
  practice and sounded the call for lay meditation. But they did not
  spark any broad-based movements. One must look instead to Burma to
  account for the ascendance of meditation to a popular
  practice—specifically, that of insight meditation. The Vipassana view
  understood meditation as the logical and even necessary application of
  a Buddhist perspective to one’s life, whether lay or monastic. The
  rise of this practice, however, was not strictly an indigenous
  development. It came into being specifically through colonial
  influence. (In fact, no current tradition of insight practice can
  reliably trace its history back further than the late 19th or early
  20th century.) Though now a global movement, insight practice had its
  start in a moment of interaction between a Western empire and an
  Eastern dynasty. Indeed, one could go so far as to pinpoint its
  origins to a particular day: November 28, 1885, when the British
  Imperial Army conquered the Buddhist kingdom of Burma.


In meditation, should one pursue tranquility first, prior to looking for insight? On the one hand this question has been asked to death on the internet (and yuttadhammo's videos even try to handle it). On the other hand, I personally still don't feel I have a clear answer (and I don't think that's because I'm an idiot.)

From my overall reading, the commonest answer seems to be that while the primary aim in meditation is insight, it is not only useful, but advisable (and maybe even essential) that one first achieves some degree of tranquility or quiescence before moving on to insight. Specifically, it is advised that one attain at least access concentration, if not full-blown first jhana, before moving to insight work.

However, there appears to be an important exception to that rule, coming from (at least) the Mahasi tradition, wherein the idea of "bare insight" arises.

From the existence of those apparently different positions, I am confused in two ways.

First: if the bare insight thing is valid -- i.e. if it is possible to go straight to Vipassana without going via Samatha -- then why wouldn't everyone just do that? Insight is The Point, after all, (isn't it?) so why waste time with what seems to be mere training wheels?

Second: OK, suppose access concentration or first jhana is necessary, but is also sufficient a level of samadhi as preparation for vipassana. Then, again, why would anyone then continue on to "samatha" jhanas 2 through 4? My understanding is that while those jhanas may be cool and blissful, not only are they not The Point, they carry the danger of attachment. So why bother with them?

To pre-empt any "it doesn't matter" style answers, I really think it does. There are several apparently good teachers out there whose approach is, to paraphrase, "No, don't note yet. We're not doing that until we've got a bit of focus", while there are others who get you noting from day one. So overall it may not matter, but it matters to beginners (like me) as part of deciding on a teacher (and on how to meditate while I look for a teacher).

I will try to answer from my point of view as a Vajrayana practitioner.

I've been taught that one needs to have a relatively stable mind in order to practice insight meditation. But this doesn't mean that one has to spend years in Samatha meditation before trying Vipassana.

In Mahayana and Vajrayana tradition too much tranquility and so-called 'inert peace' is considered as an obstacle on the way since it is not a full enlightenment and it can easily prevent a practitioner from pursuing next stages of realisation. To avoid that, practitioners can take a Bodhisattva Vow to remind them that they want to pursue happiness not only for themselves but mainly for all the sentient beings.

One Vajrayana Lama was asked whether we need to calm down and bring our energy down in order to practise insight meditation. He replied that we don't have to calm down at all, we just have to transform this energy into something useful. I found it very liberating, since, personally, I found it somewhat boring to sit in peace for hours. When I got introduced to insight meditations which involved visualising Buddha forms and receiving lights from them, I liked them straight away. Then I met some more experienced practitioners and indeed, they weren't particularly calm, rather lively, very joyful and stable at the same time.

I would say that choosing the right practice and teacher is very individual. If you already think that attachment to blissful state might be an obstacle for you, maybe it is a sign that you are ready for insight meditation. It seems that you know enough theory so it is high time to put it into practice. Try not to overthink, just give it a try and when meeting a teacher or other practitioners, just ask yourself - do I want to become like them? Do I want to behave like them in 5 years time? If your answer is an honest one, soon you should find the right teacher.


What are the requirements or preconditions for someone to ordain? Can a person ordain at any age? Can he or she have children? In a nutshell, what are the things that will not allow someone to ordain?

Disclaimer: This is the current knowledge I have on the Theravadin tradition.
Here is a summary that answers your question:

  Becoming a Novice

  The first part of the ordination procedure for bhikkhus is known as
  the Going Forth into Homelessness (pabbajjaa). If it finishes with
  just that — without going on to the Questioning of the candidate and
  the Acceptance of him by all the gathered bhikkhus into the Bhikkhu
  Sa"ngha — the candidate is known as a saama.nera or novice. This is
  usually the case when the candidate is less than the twenty years of
  age necessary to become a bhikkhu. A very young boy is not allowed to
  become a novice either, but the minimum age will vary according to
  place.

  A saama.nera wears the 'yellow robe' like a full bhikkhu — except he
  does not have the sa"nghaa.ti (double-thickness robe) — and leads a
  very similar life. In some places a period as a novice forms part of
  the preliminary training to become a bhikkhu, while some men decide to
  remain saama.nera for various reasons. The saama.nera keeps the Ten
  Precepts and the 75 Training Rules (sekhiya) and some other rules of
  the bhikkhu. Later, when he is ready and if he is old enough, he can
  ask the bhikkhu community for full ordination (upasampadaa).

  Becoming a Bhikkhu

  In the Pali texts, when a man decided to become a bhikkhu, he is often
  quoted as saying: "Confined is the household life, a path of dust; the
  going forth is open and spacious. Not easy is it living in a house to
  lead the religious life absolutely fulfilled and purified, as polished
  as mother-of-pearl. Suppose I were to shave off my hair and beard,
  clothe myself in ochre robes and go forth from homelife into
  homelessness?" (HS ch.19)

  However, anyone wishing to become a bhikkhu must fulfill certain
  conditions about which he will be questioned during the actual
  ordination procedure. The candidate must be male and at least twenty
  years old. He must never have committed any grievous crimes and, if
  previously ordained, he must not have been guilty of any Defeater
  (Paaraajika) offences or have entered some other religion without
  disrobing first. He should also be of good
  reputation; fit and healthy enough to carry out the duties of a
  bhikkhu; not in debt; not subject to government service; and have
  permission from parents or guardian.

  The Ordination ceremony requires a prescribed boundary (siima), a
  preceptor (upajjhaaya) and a quorum of bhikkhus to validate the formal
  Sangha Act. In the formal procedure the candidate is examined as to
  the necessary qualities and, if all the bhikkhus are satisfied,
  they receive him into the Sangha, the Community of Bhikkhus.

  It is in this way that yet another link is added to the
  bhikkhu-lineage. Henceforth, the new bhikkhu can participate (and make
  up the necessary quorum) in future assemblies and help receive other
  new bhikkhus — as bhikkhus have continued to do for two and a half
  thousand years. (See EV,I,p.4; OP)

  When a candidate requests full admission to the Community (after
  the saama.nera ordination) he does not make any 'lifetime vows' but
  offers himself for training and instruction under his Preceptor's
  guidance. At the end of the ordination ceremony, the Preceptor will
  immediately instruct the new bhikkhu (or arrange that he is properly
  taught) about the Paa.timokkha Rule and the other principles that all
  bhikkhus should follow and observe.

  For the first five years a bhikkhu is called navaka ('new one') and he
  must live 'dependent' (nissaya) on a senior bhikkhu — either his
  preceptor or teacher (aacariya) — training in the ways of a bhikkhu.
  The preceptor and the new monk should be kind and helpful to each
  other, in almost a father-and-son relationship. A new bhikkhu who no
  longer lives under his preceptor must take another senior bhikkhu as
  his teacher and depend on him instead.

  For the next five years after his navaka period, the bhikkhu is called
  majjhima, ('one in the middle') and he is allowed to live by himself
  if he is accomplished in certain qualities.

  When a bhikkhu has completed ten Rains he is called Thera, which can
  be translated as 'an elder who is worthy of respect.' If he is also
  accomplished in certain extra qualities, he is allowed to give
  ordination as preceptor, to be a teacher, and have young monks live in
  dependence on him.

  -The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople

Note: Requirement of being male is not always necessary and is dependent on the specific monastery in which the ordination takes place.

For a more in-depth answer, see the chapter on Ordination in the Buddhist Monastic Code by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Here's a chart of the procedure in some western monasteries (in Asian monasteries the ordination can be immediate):

Some references:

Ordination at Santi Forest Monastery
General Information for Potential Anagarikas in UK Monasteries


How can the sixth channel of dhatus be understood? Could someone help clarifying the sixth channel of the eighteen dhatus - that is -  the mental objects (dharma-dhatu), the mental faculty (mano-dhatu)  and the mental consciousness (mano-vijñāna-dhatu)?

I’d be grateful for a more detailed description  of their nature and relationship, and if possible the relevant suttas that mention these.

OP: Could someone help clarifying the sixth channel of the eighteen dhatus - that is - the mental objects (dharma-dhatu), the mental faculty (mano-dhatu) and the mental consciousness (mano-vijñāna-dhatu)?

Here is a good explanation:

The element which is mano-dhatu or mind-element is nama. Mano-dhatu comprises the panca-dvaravajjana-citta (five-sense-door-adverting-consciousness) and the two types of sampaticchana-citta (receiving-consciousness) which are kusala vipaka and akusala vipaka. Thus three kinds of citta are mano-dhatu.
Dhamma-dhatu comprises both nama and rupa. Dhamma-dhatu is the cetasikas, the subtle rupas (sukhuma-rupas) and nibbana.
Mano-vinnana-dhatu or mind-consciousness-element is nama. It comprises all cittas which are not the dvi-panca-vinnanas and not mano-dhatu. For example, santirana-citta (investigating-consciousness), mano-dvaravajjana-citta (mind-door-adverting-consciousness) and the cittas performing the function of javana such as lobha-mula-citta are mano-vinnana-dhatu.
Panca-vinnana-dhatu (seeing-consciousness-element, etc.), the mano-dhatu (mind-element) and the mano-vinnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness-element) are: vinnana-dhatu (consciousness-element).
Dhamma-dhatu is not identical with dhammarammana (mind-objects). Cittas are included in dhammarammana, but not in dhamma-dhatu, since dhamma-dhatu is: cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. When cittas are classified as elements they are the seven classes of vinnana-dhatu, namely:
Panca-vinnana-dhatu (which are five classes), mano-dhatu (mind-element), mano-vinnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness-element).
Concepts and conventional terms (pannatti) which are included in dhammarammana are not dhamma-dhatu, because they are not paramattha dhammas. Only paramattha dhammas are classified as elements.

Abhidhamma in Daily Life by Nina Van Gorkom, Chapter 18 - Elements

OP: if possible the relevant suttas that mention these

This is found in:

Vibhanga
Dhatukatha


Did Buddha explain Dependent Origination as an upaya or skillful means? If so, why? Inspired by this answer...

Is the specific formulation of Dependent Origination in the early buddhist texts an upaya and/or skillful means?

If so, how approximate is it? Are there other conceptual elaborations that improve upon it?

If it is an upaya, what is the purpose or motivation of teaching it originally thousands of years ago?

Is it different today?

Has our modern conception of physics and psychology led to the development of other upayas that may or may not share some of the motivation or benefits of the original?

There are parts of the early buddhist texts that include teachings on the Four Primary Elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Wind. Was this an upaya? Has modern physics provided an update to this upaya that has the same benefits as a better conceptual elaboration of the underlying truth? If not, in what way is the original better?

If you think the teaching on Four Primary Elements was an upaya or skillful means, but one that has been succeeded by a better modern version in physics and chemistry... do you think Dependent Origination is also something that could or should be updated... or one that even has been already been updated/replaced?

Thanks!

If so, how approximate is it?

If by "DO" you mean "the 12 nidanas", I found the exposition of that in the suttas barely intelligible -- little more than a dry list of the 12 items, saying that each depends on the previous.

So for that and other reasons I think of those as like chapter titles (without the text), or items on a powerpoint -- i.e. I expect they're the topic or outline of (innumerable) more-or-less detailed dhamma talks.

This site (for one) has many questions about what each nidana is and how it relates to others.

And doctrine about specific nidanas and their near neighbours, is of course important (e.g. the four noble truths).

I think though that the basic principle of DO is central and crucial -- i.e. that conditioned things arise, perpetuate, and cease depending on conditions.

If not, in what way is the original better?

I think of "earth" for example as representing "solidity".

Physics analyses that in more detail -- "why and when and how and to what extent is a substance solid?"

IIRC the context in which it's taught in Buddhism is to have some understanding of what form is -- just enough of an understanding to not get enchanted by it.


How to develop compassion while avoiding attachment? The Buddha stressed compassion in his teachings. It seems that the more one tries to be compassionate towards people, a natural tendency of attachment develops. For example, it seems that if I try to practice compassion towards my close family (and focus my mind on helping them), then I develop more attachment for them, and I feel closer to them and the pain of separation increases. Is it wrong that I want to feel closer to them? Did the Buddha have any advice about developing compassion while avoiding attachment (and other side effects like pride) ?

I am personally not aware of any direct advice the Buddha gave about developing compassion without attachment since the majority of the Buddha's teachings are about developing non-attachment & the minority of teachings are about developing compassion. In general, the compassion teachings are generally related to cultivating non-harming, non-hatred & non-cruelty and also about teaching the dhamma to others. In other words, the compassion teachings are generally not about how to help others in more worldly or mundane ways.

The teachings of the Buddha are generally separated as: (1) teachings for monks; and (2) teachings for laypeople. The teachings for monks focus on non-attachment where as the teachings for laypeople rarely mention non-attachment.

In general, the Buddha encouraged laypeople to do good so they develop personal pride or self-respect in relation to their good actions (eg. Anana Sutta & Samajivina Sutta).

For example, in With Brahma (Itivuttaka 4.7) and in the Sigalovada Sutta, the Buddha discusses the compassionate role & duties of parents & family members but does not mention non-attachment. In the Piyajatika Sutta, the Buddha says to a man his grief towards his dead son comes from his love but does not teach non-attachment.

In SN 42.12, the Buddha eventually refers to a man who uses his wealth to help his family without being attached to it, "seeing the danger in it, understanding the escape" but does not go into any details. That said, "seeing the danger & understanding the escape" are a stock teaching for monks in the suttas, where the "danger" (ādīnava) is attachment & the "escape" (nissaraṇa) is the non-attachment of the eightfold path.

Therefore, I think non-attachment can be developed by comprehending the danger or suffering of attachment. As the Buddha taught about the 1st noble truth: "This suffering (of attaching to the five aggregates) is to be comprehended".

In the Udayi Sutta, it is mentioned teaching others with compassion & without harming oneself.

In the Attavagga in the Dhammapada, it is again mentioned doing good without hurting oneself.

The Attavagga holds the principle that each individual must help themself. The Maggavagga has the phrase: " You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way".

These accord with the practise of equanimity (upeka), where it is reflected each individual is the owner of their actions.

Compassion (karuna) is one of the 4 brahma vihara, which also include metta, mudita & equanimity (upeka). Here, helping others (compassion) is balanced with the understanding (upeka) that we try to help others to help themselves; thus ultimately, others are responsible for their lives.

This old booklet may be helpful for you:

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/4sublime_states.pdf
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel006.html


What is the Buddhist Way to Reform and Correct People? In early Buddhism we see that characters like:

Angulimala
Ajatasatru
Ashoka

In recent times we have seen S.N.Goenka doing prison courses. Also there are new perspectives in correction discussed in talks like: The neuroscience of restorative justice.

So how can Buddhism be used for the correction of people, and how does this compare with other developments in this area using lessons and teachings from within the Tripiṭaka?

I didn't down vote! I would say that the Buddha and the Buddha's system are not ways to reform people, they are ways for people to reform themselves.

What the Buddha did in cases like Angulimala was to perceive the particular approach which would be met with a comprehension that lead to their change or understanding of the goal. And this also usually under circumstances of compassion specific to the individual.

The idea of reforming people involves ambition, desire, wanting, etc. I think the distinction applies especially in cases such as prison reform. The lack of a specific target and certainty that one is providing an approach that will lead to attainment of the reform tells me that what is at work in a case like that is personal ambition rather than compassion.

When the Buddha speaks of the good man being of benefit to gods and men, he is speaking about the example they set. From the good example people reform themselves.

So, I suppose I would give as answer to this question: the best method for providing an opportunity for people to reform themselves is by being a good example.


In which context did the Buddha say this, about ordaining women? A quote:

  " in whatever religion women are ordained, that religion will not last long. As families that have more women than men are easily destroyed by robbers, as a plentiful rice-field once infested by rice worms will not long remain, as a sugarcane field invaded by red rust will not long remain, even so the True Dharma will not last long."

In which context did the Buddha say this?

The context of this quote was the proposed ordination of women: Gotamīsutta (AN 8.51).

Since men established Buddhism around the world the quote is obviously true.

For example, even today, women who want to ordain also want to take advantage of the community & facilities established by men.

When Buddhism declined in India, it was men who took Buddhism to other places, such as to Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, etc. When this happened, the order of nuns was broken because women could not flee to & survive in foreign & often hostile lands.

It is a plain reality that it is difficult for women to establish & spread a religion, particularly in hostile places.

Many monks were killed in their efforts to spread Buddhism. Walking around the world with only robes & a begging bowl is not easy.

The women asked to be ordain after the Buddha was famous; after the Buddha had benefactors who provided land for monasteries, etc.

It is very difficult for women to do what Jason The Walking Monk did.


Is Nibbana a state of mind or an element (dhamma)? I have four parts of this question,

Is Nibbana a state of mind or a dhamma?
If Nibbana is a state of mind, is it merely the uprooting of craving?
If the answer for the second question is "Yes", then why it's said "Nibbana is the object of eight super-mundane consciousness? Or simply, how would a stream winner experience/see Nibbana with the existence of craving?
"One attain Nibbana by uprooting craving" or "One uproots craving by attaining Nibbana" Which one of the aforesaid is correct?

Nibbana is asankhata dhatu (unconditioned element or unconditioned dhamma) therefore it is not a state of mind (MN 115).

Insight wisdom (vipassana) into the three characteristics uproots craving (SN 22.59).

Nibbana is a sense object (ayatana) of mind consciousness (Ud 8.1) but it is not a type of consciousness. This is why 'mind-objects' are called 'dhamme'; because they also include Nibbana.

It is because Nibbana is not a state of mind that a stream winner can taste the peace of Nibbana; even though their mind is not completely pure. This can be compared to feeling a cool breeze on a warm sunny day. Because the breeze is one thing & the sun is another thing, both the cool breeze & warm sun can be experienced together. Similarly, the cool peace of Nibbana (experienced from non-attachment) can be experienced by the stream-winner, even though the mind is not completely pure & cooled.

This said, when a stream-winner is in the stream, their mind is without asava (MN 117). In other words, it is inaccurate to say a stream-winner has craving; as though they always have craving. A stream-winner only has craving when their mindfulness has lapsed.

In conclusion, the mind attains Nibbana by using Path concentration & insight wisdom to uproot craving. The suttas say the Path (of concentration & insight) is conditioned. Therefore, the mind does not uproot craving by attaining Nibbana. First craving is uprooted using wisdom and what remains leftover is experiencing the peaceful element of Nibbana. SN 22.59 says:

  Seeing thus [with insight wisdom], the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
  perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
  consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate [uproots craving]. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released [Nibbana]. With full release, there is the
  knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the
  holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
  world.'


Buddhist views on talking with the dead? Is it possible? In Tibetan Buddhist teaching it is stated that we will be in bardo state for 49 days before rebirth. So during this period we can still communicate with the dead?
What is the Buddhist view on this? Can the dead communicate with the living, for example via chimes (making sound notes that only the family member will know)?
Is it possible or just a joke?
In Tibetan Buddhism it's still possible, because i read their system on how to find the dead Dalai lama via a dream.
But based on my research, all experiment to communicate with the living one, which done by many famous people is failed.
For example:

Ian Stevenson promised will tell a code of the safebox to all the worker colleagues. Failed!
Houdini promise to do everything possible to communicate with his wife Bess Houdini. Also failed!
The Beatles also doing this experiment: they promise whoever die first will contact the living one. Also failed.
And many others

According to Theravada, you will be reborn immediately after your death. So if you communicate, you are communicating with the new being.


Dealing with food craving During sleeping I experience strong food urges.. luckily I am most of the time aware of these acts but I still usually eat something but less (which is an accomplishment). It happened today again and before eating I rehearsed internally "I am the owner of my actions,heir to my actions..." which switched my focus more to a long term perspective because I knew that I would perpetuate a craving so I better tolerate the pain now then to go the old pathway which would maintain the kamma..

Now any recommendations what I could do? I think I have to meditate more on the disadvantages / short nature of food and even on the kamma thing (which is important anyways to keep in mind). Suggestions?

Please see this answer about a video talk by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu on addiction to pornography and addiction in general. That answer also states:

  The other technique he proposes is to watch your mind for triggers and
  observe how lust arises in the mind and recognize it (basically
  insight meditation). You can find more info on this in his chapter
  entitled "Daily Life" of his booklet "How To Meditate".

I would say that the same technique could be applied to food craving as well.

The Donapaka Sutta may also be helpful for the case of gluttony:

  Once when the Buddha was living at Savatthi, King Pasenadi of Kosala
  ate a whole bucketful of food, and then approached the Buddha,
  engorged and panting, and sat down to one side. The Buddha, discerning
  that King Pasenadi was engorged and panting, took the occasion to
  utter this verse:

  When a person is constantly mindful,
  And knows when enough food has been taken,
  All their afflictions become more slender
  — They age more gradually, protecting their lives.

  Now at that time the brahman youth Sudassana was standing nearby, and
  King Pasenadi of Kosala addressed him: "Come now, my dear Sudassana,
  and having thoroughly mastered this verse in the presence of the
  Buddha, recite it whenever food is brought to me. And I will set up
  for you a permanent offering of a hundred kahaapanas every day." "So
  be it, your majesty," the brahman youth Sudassana replied to the king.

  Then King Pasenadi of Kosala gradually settled down to [eating] no
  more than a cup-full of rice. At a later time, when his body had
  become quite slim, King Pasenadi stroked his limbs with his hand and
  took the occasion to utter this utterance:

  Indeed the Buddha has shown me
  Compassion in two different ways:
  For my welfare right here and now,
  and also for in the future.


What does buddhism say about bodybuilding (and weights training)? Bodybuilding and powerlifting are making us stronger and more manliness, body can produce more testosterone and we're generally healthier. Yes, there are some bad things about this like anabolics or synthol, but in general - can someone who trains with weights become buddhist? Are they too agressive in eyes of buddhists?

These practices are seeing just like any other sport that does not involve morally problematic activities like killing or hurting other beings: it's just a sport. I don't think power lifters et al. are seen as aggressive -- not like, say, bullfighting or any other blood sport.

But things might be different for a buddhist body builder or power lifter. In the buddhist training, there is a spectrum from lay to monastic, and in that spectrum, the inclination to engage in certain activities change.

For example, a lay buddhist might take to heart five buddhist precepts:

I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.
I undertake the training rule to avoid sensual misconduct.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

These are among the most basic buddhist training rules that enables one to practice buddhism and none has anything to say about body building  -- or sports for that matter (but drugs that cause heedlessness are breaking the fifth, which may obstruct the person's practice). So, lay buddhists can normally practice sports like body building etc. One of the main points of evaluation is ethical conduct and many sports do not present an ethical problem.

Now, a more committed lay buddhist might take some extra precepts, like:

I undertake to abstain from singing, dancing, playing music, attending entertainment performances, wearing perfume, and using cosmetics and garlands (decorative accessories).

Taking that vow likely conflicts with watching and participating on competitions. Even though, strictly speaking, it might not be a problem if one just wants to practice the sport, a person more committed to buddhist training might be less inclined to partake in activities that might hurt his or her buddhist training progress.

In the end of the spectrum there's the monk or nun. They are unlikely to devote themselves to activities that require too much (of time, energy, money, etc) and that do not benefit / or creates obstacles to their buddhist practice.


During insight meditation, what does the meditator note in-between the rising and falling of the abdomen? I practice insight meditation (Theravada tradition), noting the rising and falling of the abdomen. It was suggested that one should make a mental note once per second, neither too frequently, nor too slowly. However, there are moments between the instances of rising and falling, when the abdomen does nothing. What should the practitioner note in these moments?"Not moving"? "Resting"? I note "touching", as I become aware of the sensation of my T-shirt touching the skin on the abdomen. Is this right practice?

If you find yourself noticing the gap between the breath, then you are no longer focussed on the breath, which is fine, but you should then note "knowing, knowing" or "noticing, noticing". Some also suggest to insert "sitting" in between to avoid having to do this, as in "rising, sitting, falling, sitting". My teacher doesn't, but it's certainly a reasonable suggestion.


Information requested on Buddhist monks self-immolation mental technique Thích Quảng Đức was a monk who immolated himself to protest against the repression by the Vietnamese government in 1963. It was filmed how he adopted the full-lotus posture an fire was set on him. The picture which was awarded the Pulitzer was known worldwide.

In that video he does not show any signs of pain at all and he doesn't seem to be under the effect of any drug. It is said this is some sort of deep meditation or self-hypnosis technique nevertheless Hypnosurgery lacks of scientific evidence.
Plenty of other monks even younger have committed self-immolation  in Tibet to protest against the Chinese occupation. A lack of fiscal pain is a common trait. Is there more information on how this technique is done, it's difficulties and knowing that some Buddhist organizations are collaborating with modern neuro-science is there a scientific explanation for this and its possibilities or medical potential to treat chronic pain diseases?

Video here watcher discretion advised

Picture here watcher discretion advised

From the question I assume you are new to Buddhism so will answer accordingly.

There is no scientific explanation for feeling pain let alone not feeling it. However, there are explanations. Indeed, the whole of Buddhist doctrine might be seen as an explanation of how to transcend suffering. You would need to study the 'Four Noble Truths'.

A very famous case is the horrific crucifixion and torture of the Sufi sage Al Hallaj. It seemed not to bother him and he expresses disappointment when one of his students sheds tears for him, for it gives away his lack of understanding that there is nobody there to suffer.

The explanation would be the ability of human beings to discover that the self that suffers is not real and to stand apart from their thoughts, feelings, sensations and emotions. We can all do this to some extent and find ourselves forced to do it situations of great pain. Many people come to Buddhist practice and that of other traditions by way of lengthy painful experiences. They discover that the pain may be viewed objectively without any sense of ownership such that they can say 'There is pain', and not 'I am in pain'.

A full explanation would require delving into the nature of consciousness and personhood and this would take us beyond 'scientific consciousness studies' and academic philosophy, while an understanding of the explanation would require a lot of practice and personal research.

This ability to transcend suffering is in the nature of consciousness. The comment by Aurobindo below indicates that it is a recognition that only our 'surface being' suffers, and this allows practitioners to display great feats of suffering. But it cannot be a theory. It has to be a reality for us or it is not the case for us. Thus practice is required for such feats, not book-learning.

"One might almost say that our surface being is only the deeper eternal self in us throwing itself out as the adventurer in Time, a gambler and speculator in infinite possibilities, limiting itself to the succession of moments so that it may have all the surprise and delight of the adventure, keeping back its self-knowledge and complete self-being so that it may win again what it seems to have lost, reconquering all itself through the chequered joy and pain of an aeonic passion and seeking and adventure." (Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine)

Thus to overcome suffering would mean realising that our surface being is a construction, much as Dennett describes it, and not our true being. For a truly realised being there would be no suffering and no person to suffer, and this is the meaning of the Four Noble Truths.

On a personal note, aged seventeen I suffered a lot of intense pain for a period due to an operation that went wrong. I had no choice but to distance myself from it and found that this is possible. It was only four decades later that I discovered Buddhism and found an explanation. There is more to human being (or perhaps less) than the natural sciences are able to discover. Hence the placebo effect may be effective in reducing pain. For a full reduction the Buddha's medicine would have to be ingested. A truly skilled monk may self-immolate without the slightest worry about pain and death. They are past all that nonsense.

Whether we believe this is not important since believing it isn't going to help. But even if we know nothing about Buddhist teachings the next time we're in great pain it may be a good chance to perform some experiments. In practice it is said that we discover not simply that we do not suffer but that there is nobody to suffer. Regrettably this knowledge is not easily won, but even a little familiarity with the skills required will help us when we are in pain.

The natural science may be able to verify that the behaviour of some people indicates an ability to transcend pain but is not able to study consciousness so cannot provide an explanation. The science of Yoga, however, as described by Patanjali, or Buddhist practice allows us to know the explanation and make it our reality.

Aurobindo (ibid) also says this.

"In our ordinary life this truth is hidden from us or only dimly glimpsed at times or imperfectly held and conceived. But if we learn to live within, we infallibly awaken to this presence within us which is our more real self, a presence profound, calm, joyous and puissant of which the world is not the master - a presence which, if it is not the Lord Himself, is the radiation of the Lord within. We are aware of it within supporting and helping the apparent and superficial self and smiling at its pleasures and pains as at the error and passion of a little child."

You may find some interesting youtube videos on this topic but I don't know of any on this exact topic. Any decent book on meditation ought to cover the main points and explain the abilities of these self-immolating monks.

Here are some suttas about giving up pleasure and pain.


Teachings vs self experience As my mind willed I visited my local temple for a chat with the monks .
Surprised to learn,  this time I was advised to independently seek out my emancipation from suffering and only use the dharma for a guide !! Then arose this question ...are other peoples  experience etc on this path valid for my own personal path ( if u could call it so as mind has no beginning or end nor an owner , but the ego claim !!)
So why read up on Buddhism at all ? If my inner being is not compatible with the author of the book/ books ?

If you want to build a house, it is easier done having read a book about it than without. It will guide you through the process, hint you at problems that may arise and give possible solutions. But then, there may be other solutions around, no problem with that.

On the other hand, reading the book alone will not be much beneficial; without actually building your house, you will not be able to sleep under the protecting roof.

As for "being not compatible" - I think this is rather unlikely, as long as you are open-minded. Of course, one has to be careful not to take laziness as incompatibility, i.e. it would be too easy to give up meditation after 30 seconds, labelling it "frustrating, my mind isn't built for that".

So I take the literature as a wealth of wonderful ideas I can ponder on.


Are there Theravada meditation retreats that allow one to work for room and board? Practicing meditation in South Mississippi, USA, without easy access to a sangha or teacher, and reading Buddhist literature (primarily Theravadan), I feel a need to attend a week to ten day meditation retreat in accordance with Theravadan practices. I am retired, so my typical daily practice comprises sitting for at least an hour in the wee hours, and occasionally another 1hr+ sit in the evening. I would like to attend a retreat that lasts at least a week. However, I can't afford to pay much money. Are there Theravada meditation retreat opportunities in the USA that offer a visitor the option to work for room and board?

Here you can see the US locations for the 10-day S.N. Goenka Vipassana Meditation Retreat.

This retreat is free and is solely dependent on donations from past students. So a retreat is a gift from a past student.

You can read more about the tradition and the course here.


I don't like people but I like buddhism I'm a bit confused. I had a rather crappy childhood. Very disfunctional family and lots of bullying and abuse both at home and at school. It kind of made me very distrusting of people. I learnt at a young age that people would hurt me, let me down, abandon me and could not be trusted.

Many people seemed to not like me for no particular reason other than that I was not a stereotype of how a boy should be in the culture in which I grew up. It really knocked any confidence out of me and I ended up hanging out with other misfits, fell into the wrong crowd and had a drug habit for many years from my teens to my late 20s.

I had a string of failed disfunctional relationships and seemed to have an inability to form healthy supportive ones not only on an intimate level but also friendships. I eventually met someone who stuck around for longer but they left in the end which really broke my heart.

Half way through that relationship I started practicing insight meditation the kind that Joseph Goldstein and others of that ilk teach. Its been approx 7 years now I think. So anyway I thought that buddhism might help me to be a happier person, more compassionate, more kind, more accepting etc but the truth is I don't feel any of those things.

I'm actually a recluse now at 50 years old as I cannot tolerate most people. I've cut out any friends I had and I can't stand my family at all. My niece is getting married  but I'm not even going because I don't want to be around people and all the crap that is involved. I'm actually very lonely and think about how nice it will be to die sometimes. I hate my work because I feel im capable of so much more but because of my lack of confidence and self belief I don't try to do something else. I have been this way for so long that it's virtually impossible to get any decent work now because I have this really sketchy work history and people don't give me a go and so I never can get anywhere financially. No money, no friends and hate my family. So what is the point really in continuing on. It's all just this never ending uphill struggle and I'm sick of it.

What im confused about is how I can appreciate the teachings of Buddha and practice meditation but at the same time be this miserable lonely misanthropic person. I realise I have created these conditions but they are the result of my reactions towards people and how I felt and still feel so unsafe because of abuse etc. I have lived with maladaptive coping mechanisms that have protected me on the one hand but ruined my life on the other.

I wish I could leave the city and live on some beautiful land somewhere surrounded by nature but it's not possible because of money. I feel like a caged animal just waiting for my time to end.  I do have some nice calm moments and feelings during sitting sometimes but I don't feel free.  I don't even want to practice metta etc because I just don't like people. Only being honest. I feel completely different about animals. I love animals and feel very kind and compassionate towards them but people just annoy me with their egotism, vanity, superficiality, stupidness, ignorance, need I go on.   So my question is how can I utilise buddhism and meditation to effect some real positive change because so far it's not working. I seem to be getting worse.

The topic is too big to do proper justice in one response, but to summarize my thoughts very briefly:

Every crappy childhood is unique and every dysfunctional family is dysfunctional in its own way - but believe me or not, these type of issues are a lot more common than you realize. Pretty much every Russian person I know had alcoholism and violence issues in their childhood families. Many were subjects of bullying at school. I was one of them. Not saying mine - or others' - problems are equal to yours, we are all "unique" - but just like with snowflakes there are many similarities for sure.
Surprisingly, much real-life Buddhism (not the Buddhism you read about but the Buddhism you come to face when you talk to live Buddhist teachers) is dedicated exactly to solving these types of mental/emotional/circumstantial issues that come from messy karma passed on through generations. All this stuff you're talking about is completely normal, completely standard, and is bread and butter of Buddhist teachers. This is good, because it means there is a whole system in place for 2600+ years that was designed exactly to deal with these issues.
Of course the problem is with you, or rather, with bad karma you inherited - so the difficult part is meeting a teacher you can connect with. This basically means, meeting a teacher that your bad karma will feel good about. A teacher whose manner of expression will make sense to you (and to your bad karma), a teacher you (and your bad karma) will trust enough to hang around for a long time. And of course, the issue with bad karma is - it shapes your life in such way that you can't possibly get in touch with a teacher let alone establish a long-term relationship. Who knows, it may never happen - or it may happen tomorrow, it is useless to worry about this, another source of dukkha.
So meanwhile, start where you are. There is absolutely no way to jump somewhere where you are not. The only way to get somewhere is to work with what you have and then slowly slowly it will build. So start by learning to feel good about what's already good. You're a recluse? Fine! Buddha said, "enlightened person's mind inclines towards seclusion". You don't like people? Fine, most yogis did not. See? I just rotated your coordinate system in such a way that you can feel good about these things. That's the trick. Feelings depend on perspective. When you feel bad, that's because you're stuck in a perspective that says that something is wrong with you. Stop letting it chew you. Learn to be in control of perspective. First, learn to feel good about where you are. Stop comparing your present moment with some imagined life in the mountains etc. Stop worrying about friends, money etc. We only worry about this stuff because we heard it must be so good and now we compare ourselves with that idea. Stop doing that to yourself. You are here. The biggest achievement, the sweetest Nirvana, the highest Goal, the purest happiness - is to learn to be happy wherever/however you are. There is nothing, nothing, NOTHING higher than that. If you can do that - you are much better off than living in the mountains, or having friends, or money, or anything else you can think of.
The skill of feeling good about the present moment is called "standing on your two feet". It is something you must learn, like a baby learning to walk. Then, once you can stand on your own and walk around without losing the balance - only then can you start interacting with other people.
Most problems you list with people (egotism, vanity, superficiality, stupidness, ignorance etc.) are absolutely real. The world is pretty messed up. It's not you, it actually is a mess. However, as others pointed out, it is not because those people are awesomely strong and super intelligent and just chose such a life as their ideal way of living - no, not at all. It is exactly because we are weak and ignorant and are desperately trying to survive and get on top of each other - that we created and are maintaining this messy world. So once you can stand and walk, and keep your balance when pushed - then perhaps you can go and help some of them, so going forward there is a little more harmony and a little less mess.

I know it's hard. I am just like you, I was just like you, and now I'm just a bit ahead of you in that I can (mostly) stand and (sometimes) walk on my own. I know it's possible to learn this skill. I know and see it directly, from my own experience. If it weren't possible to learn this skill, I wouldn't say it's possible. So try to stop your head spinning with all these thoughts about the world, the people, your life, your childhood, what's wrong about all that - and try to focus. Drop all that, and learn to be stable and happy with nothing special. Learn to be happy when lying in bed, when taking shower, when eating, when sitting and doing nothing. This Peace is unsurpassable. If you master it, you win. Then slooowly, slooowly start moving around while learning to keep that peace. If there are any doubts/questions/confusion - ask here. There is nothing else that you need.


Lord Buddha and Chakravartin Are they the same person? Or a previous incarnation before the Buddha was a human?
Is there any Sutras that mentions/reference about this? (Pali Canon)

Not exactly from the Pali canon but hope it helps, since it contains comparable references to the Pali canon literature. (fyi. the Pali canon has suttas, Mahayana has Sutras)
The following dialogue provides a nice overview of the differences between them. It is an extract of the 2nd-century Maha-prajnaparamita-sastra, a key text of the Prajnaparamita literature (which was allegedly practiced by all past Buddhas and Bodhisattvas):

Chapter IV part 1: Why is the Buddha called Bhagavat?
...
Furthermore, bhāga means glory (yaśas-) and vat indicates its possession. Thus this word means “the one who possesses glory”. No-one else has as much glory as the Buddha.
The noble cakravartin kings, Indra, Brahmā, the lokapālas, are inferior to the Buddha. What then could be said of ordinary men (pṛthagjana)? Why? The noble cakravartin kings are fettered by bonds (bandhanasaṃyukta): the Buddha has broken the bonds.
– The noble cakravartin kings are sunk in the mire of birth (jāti), old age (jarā), sickness (vyādhi) and death (maraṇa); the Buddha has transcended them.
– The noble cakravartin kings are enslaved (dāsa) by their passions (anunaya); the Buddha has eliminated them.
– The noble cakravartin kings dwell in the womb of the calamities of the human jungle (lokakāntāra); the Buddha has escaped from it.
– The noble cakravartin kings dwell in the shadows of ignorance (avidyāndhakāra); the Buddha lives in the supreme light.
– The noble cakravartin kings often reign over the four continents (caturdvīpaka); the Buddha reigns over countless universes (apramāṇalokadhātu).
– The cakravartin kings have mastery over wealth (pariṣkāravaśitā); the Buddha has mastery over mind (cetovāśita).
– The noble cakravartin kings covet heavenly bliss (devasukha); the Buddha covets nothing, having reached the well-being of the summit of existence (bhavāgrasukha).
The cakravartin kings seek their happiness from others; the Buddha rejoices in his own heart. This is why the Buddha surpasses (abhibhavati) the noble cakravartin kings.
He also surpasses all the other beings, Indra, Brahmā, the lokapālas who are even inferior to the noble cakravartin kings.

That should be enough right? The note says:

Compare the explanations of the Mahāniddesa, p. 142; Cullaniddesa, p. 466; Sumaṅgala, I, p. 33–34; Visuddhimagga, I, p. 210–212; Hôbôgirin, Bagabu, p. 46.


Why doesn't Mara suffer? Everyone born in this world is bound to suffer.
Mara tempted Buddha so many times to abandon his quest which he did not. Yet Mara herself never suffered due to her own Karma or due to her belief system. Mara is alive even today.

My question is why not Mara, the tempter, suffers or suffered due to her belief system and actions ?

Mara (a psychic that decides to harass Buddhists) does suffer according to the suttas:

  Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there. SN 5.10

  ‘Get out, Evil One, Evil One, get out. Do not annoy a Tathāgata or a Tathāgata's disciple, lest for a long time there be woe and sorrow for
  you.’...While he was looking around, Evil One, Dūsin the Māra deceased from that place and arose in the Great Niraya Hell. What was that Niraya
  Hell like where Dūsin the Māra was boiled, For striking the disciple Vidhura
  and the brahman Kakusandha? It was that of the hundred iron spikes,
  all suffered separately. This was the Niraya Hell where Dūsin was
  boiled, For striking the disciple Vidhura and the brahman Kakusandha. MN 50


What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? Among the many schools and traditions, what core teachings are shared by all Buddhists?

There is an existent reference to the similarities between Theravāda & Mahāyāna which I will cite:
(I think it also applies to Vajrayāna although I may be wrong in this regard.)

  Whatever our sects, denominations or systems, as Buddhists we all accept the
  Buddha as our Master who gave us the Teaching.
  We all take refuge in the Triple Jewel: the Buddha, our Teacher; the Dhamma, his
  teaching; and the Sangha, the Community of holy ones. In other words, we take
  refuge in the Teacher, the Teaching and the Taught.
  Whether Theravada or Mahayana, we do not believe that this world is created and
  ruled by a god at his will.
  Following the example of the Buddha, our Teacher, who is embodiment of Great
  Compassion and Great Wisdom, we consider that
  the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without
  discrimination and to work for their good, happiness and peace; and to develop
  wisdom leading to the realization of Ultimate Truth.
  We accept the Four Noble Truths taught by the Buddha, namely, Dukkha, the fact
  that our existence in this world is in predicament, is impermanent, imperfect,
  unsatisfactory, full of conflict; Samudaya, the fact that this state of affairs is due
  to our egoistic selfishness based on the false idea of self; Nirodha, the fact that
  there is definitely the possibility of deliverance, liberation, freedom from this
  predicament by the total eradication of the egoistic selfishness; and Magga, the
  fact that this liberation can be achieved through the Middle Path which is eight-
  fold, leading to the perfection of ethical conduct (sila), mental discipline
  (samadhi) and wisdom (pañña).
  We accept the universal law of cause and effect taught in the Paticcasamuppada
  (Skt. pratityasamutpada; Conditioned Genesis or Dependent Origination), and
  accordingly we accept that everything is relative, interdependent and interrelated
  and nothing is absolute, permanent and everlasting in this universe.
  We understand, according to the teaching of the Buddha, that all conditioned
  things (samkhara) are impermanent (anicca) and imperfect and unsatisfactory
  (dukkha), and all conditioned and unconditioned things (dhamma) are without self (anatta).
  We accept the Thirty-seven Qualities conducive to Enlightenment
  (bodhipakkhiyadhamma) as different aspects of the Path taught by the Buddha
  leading to Enlightenment, namely,

  Four Forms of Presence of Mindfulness (Pali: satipatthana; Skt. smrtyupasthana);
  Four Right Efforts (Pali. sammappadhana; Skt. samyakpradhana);
  Four Bases of Supernatural Powers (Pali. iddhipada; Skt. rddhipada);
  Five Faculties (indriya: Pali. saddha, viriya, sati, samadhi, panna; Skt. sraddha, virya, smrti, samadhi, prajna);
  Five Powers (bala, same five qualities as above);
  Seven Factors of Enlightenment (Pali. bojjhanga; Skt. bobhyanga);
  Eight-fold Noble Path (Pali. ariyamagga; Skt. aryamarga).

  There are three ways of attaining Bodhi or Enlightenment according to the ability
  and capacity of each individual: namely, as a Sravaka (disciple), as a
  Pratyekabuddha (Individual Buddha) and as a Samyaksambuddha (Perfectly and
  Fully Enlightened Buddha). We accept if as the highest, noblest and most heroic
  to follow the career of a Boddhisattva and to become a Samyksambuddha in order
  to save others. But these three states are on the same Path, not on different paths.
  In fact, the Sandhinirmocana-sutra, a well-known important Mahayana sutra,
  clearly and emphatically says that those who follow the line of Sravaka-yana
  (Vehicle of Disciples) or the line of Pratyekabuddha-yana (Vehicle of Individual
  Buddhas) or the line of Tathagatas (Mahayana) attain the supreme Nirvana by the
  same Path, and that for all of them there is only one Path of Purification
  (visuddhi-marga) and only one Purification (visuddhi) and no second one, and
  that they are not different paths and different purifications, and that Sravakayana
  and Mahayana constitute One Vehicle One Yana (eka-yana) and not distinct and
  different vehicles or yanas.
  We admit that in different countries there are differences with regard to the ways
  of life of Buddhist monks, popular Buddhist beliefs and practices, rites and
  rituals, ceremonies, customs and habits. These external forms and expressions
  should not be confused with the essential teachings of the Buddha.

  -One Vehicle for Peace by Ven. Walpola Sri Rahula, (December 1–7, 1981)


Mindfulness during sleep I have heard that monatics in many cases sleep as little as 4-5 hours per night. In what way do they train, to reduce the amount of sleep needed for nightly restitution?

Are there methods of training to remain (increasingly) mindful while sleeping?

Once the practitioner attains certain level of mastery in meditation and mindfulness, their sleep acquires a character of meditation. It's not like they don't sleep at all, but they do retain certain level of deep awareness during their sleep.

Specifically, when they see a dream, they know it's a dream. They remain aware of their body lying down on the bed. They remain aware of the content of their consciousness no matter how disjointed it gets during a deep sleep. If something happens around them, they wake up easily to provide their help if needed.

From my personal experience I can say this has gotten increasingly true for me over the years of practice.

As far as specific methods, stopping internal dialogue and mental gossip really helps mindfulness.


Is there a thought in Buddhism which stand for the thinker itself as a thought? Usually our thoughts have a certain content or object, but in some way one can say that it is the person who has the thoughts. But is there also a mental thought involved of this thinker as a thought? How is this named in Buddhism? Is that 'ego', also as a thought possible? I hope it is clear what I mean....

Perhaps you're thinking of various words which are translated as "mind" or "consciousness".

I think it's said that the mind is aware of thoughts -- or if not "mind" then "consciousness of mental activity" ... in the same way that "eye consciousness" is aware of sights, and "ear consciousness" is of sounds.

Western philosophy has theories like "I think, therefore I am"; but I think that Buddhist doctrine includes statements such as, "I am not these thoughts, these thoughts are not mine, and are not me."

Because you're constantly aware of them, though (in the same way that a dog who is tied to a post will be constantly aware of the post), you might be inclined to view them as "me".

Or the word you're asking for may be "self-view" or "identity-view", which is a view (or thought) that the "self" exists. Or if it's not a fixed/permanent view, it might be called "pride" or "conceit". See ...

What are examples of identity-view? and
How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

... for some further answers about these topics.


Looking for a Buddhist story about trust I heard a Buddhist story about trust some time ago and am trying to locate it.

The story goes, there are some men travelling (I think) to a temple or monastery and on the way they get swindled and lose all their belongings to a con (or something, somehow are tricked)

When they get to the temple or monastery they are asked what they have learned.  The first man says 'not to trust anyone' and is not admitted.  The 2nd (or 3rd) man says that he has learned to be careful who he trusts and so is allowed entry.

Does this sound familiar?  Does anyone know of a Buddhist tale that is similar to this?

Thanks!

The Pali Canon has some good ones on the "Trust, but verify" theme, like the "Four Great References" in DN 16, the Gotami Sutta, or the famous Kalama Sutta of AN 3.65


Does Buddhism have a significant notion of justice Owen Flanagan in this podcast argued while Buddhism has an extremely well developed notion of compassion, it doesn't have a significant notion of justice. He contrasts this with ancient Greek philosophies which he states have a strong notion of justice and weak or absent notion of compassion.

So is this correct? Does Buddhism really not have decent (or any) notion of justice. Can anyone perhaps provide examples of justice from the texts (Pali Canon, Mayahana etc..). Or is Owen right - no justice in Buddhism?

While I can relate to this somehow, it overlooks one striking and most basic fact of Buddhism: that justice is a law of nature.

In contrast to Greek thought, this means, that the Greeks, since their concept of "the world" or "the universe" was rather empiro-scientific and unrelated to moral (=human) values, had to look for "human" justice or even "define" justice.

In Buddhism (and India in general), the very law of nature is a moral law, the law of kamma/karman. Consider for example the Paṭiccasamuppāda/Pratītyasamutpāda, which can be viewed as a formulation of the Buddhist law of nature or the kosmos, the universe etc.: everything here is treated as subject to cause/condition and effect, without beginning and end. The important thing to notice is that causation is moral causation by good and bad deeds.

To conclude: since the kosmos is just and takes care of retribution, the religio-philosophical thinkers did not have to elaborate differing visions of justice. It is not the humans, that have to take care of it. Seen from this angle, justice is (implicitly maybe) at the very core of Buddhism.


Nirvana & the fall of the 5 Hinderances What more is Nirvana than the perminant fall of The Five  Hinderances? Could one perform bad karma with all the hinderances eradicated? What about neutral or even good karma?

5 Hindrances can be suppressed in Jhana. As one is not yet fully liberated when in Jhana though the 5 Hinadraces are suppressed, one accumulates both positive and negative karma.


SN 12.51 Why are meritorious formations rooted in ignorance? SN 12.51 says:

  Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates a meritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the meritorious; if he
  generates a demeritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on
  to the demeritorious; if he generates an imperturbable volitional
  formation, consciousness fares on to the imperturbable. But when a
  bhikkhu has abandoned ignorance and aroused true knowledge, then, with
  the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge, he
  does not generate a meritorious volitional formation, or a
  demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional
  formation. Since he does not generate or fashion volitional
  formations, he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging,
  he is not agitated. Not being agitated, he personally attains Nibbāna.
  He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived,
  what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of
  being.’

Why are meritorious formations rooted in ignorance?

Also, since MN 117 says the Noble Eighfold Path and its Two Noble Fruits are "kusala", are meritorious formations "wholesome" or "skilful" ("kusala"? Or is there a difference between the words "meritorious" ("puññā") and "skilful" ("kusala")?

  So there are twenty on the side of the skillful, and twenty on the side of the unskillful.

  Iti kho, bhikkhave, vīsati kusalapakkhā, vīsati akusalapakkhā—

  MN 117

It seems to me that meritorious formations would be rooted in ignorance because wisdom would see the emptiness of such formations. If ignorance is abandoned then such formations and their karmic functions cease to play a role. They have been transcended.

Perhaps one could see this as progressing from the teachings of the first 'Turning' to the fundamental teachings of the third.

EDIT: In the third Turning of the Wheel of Dharma the Buddha "taught about the Buddha nature, the enlightened essence of luminous clarity that is the true nature of the mind of every sentient being."

This is the stage of thorough analysis in which, "in order to help his disciples abandon their clinging to non-existence, the Buddha taught that genuine reality transcends the conceptual fabrications of existence and non-existence, appearance and emptiness, and any other notion of what it might be."

Quotes are from The Sun of Wisdom by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso


How do monks live with medical conditions that require regular meals? Theravada monks are supposed to eat only one or two meals per day, only between dawn and noon. For the rest of the day, they can drink water or fruit juices. The exception to this rule is if they are temporarily ill.

But what about monks who have Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) or other chronic diseases, who may need to eat regularly every 4 hours or so, till usual dinner time?

Furthermore, people with GERD may not be able to consume acidic drinks (e.g. citrus fruit juices and tomato juice), especially on an empty stomach.

Also, consider that according to this article, up to 28% of Americans and up to 26% of Europeans, may be suffering from GERD. So, theoretically, this could affect 1 out of 4 monks.

How do they cope with this condition? Are they permanently exempted from this rule?

How do they cope with this condition?

By following a doctor's recommendation, presumably.

For arguments sake, we could apply a relativistic approach to the meaning of "coping". Buddhist practice can be and is a valid coping strategy in certain medical conditions, provided that a medical paradigm has ran out of answers (A strictly hypothetical example: certain conditions of chronic pain).

  Are they permanently exempted from this rule?

One way to look at this is that buddhism is about making people function/feel better for the sake of themselves and their surrounding. If a dogmatic adherence to religious principles worsen a persons health, then it can't be considered kusala.

The exempt is likely permanent for as long as health conditions remains permanent. So, if conditions changes, perhaps a new take on buddhist practice could be relevant.


How to chant the mantra Nam Myoho Renge Kyo? I am a Hindu by birth. I am a huge devotee of Lord Buddha as he is considered a god in Hinduism. I wanted to know more about the Buddhist mantra Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. What is the best way to chant it? Can I chant it anywhere and at anytime? I have previously been chanting the mantra at least 108 times a day for the past 4 months but I have yet to see any of my desires fulfilled. Is there a specific count when desires are fulfilled? I apologise, I am new to Buddhist methods of worship, but I want to do so with Buddha. How can I have my desires fulfilled by that mantra?

Thank You.

What is the best way to chant it?

I think that:

Chanting that mantra is a characteristic of a form of Buddhism (a school, a tradition of Buddhism) called "Nichiren" (see Nichiren).
There aren't many users on this site who know about Nichiren, so it might be difficult to answer your question.
The most widespread Nichiren-oriented society outside Japan is called SGI
(Soka Gakkai International) -- I expect you can find more from their web site and/or by finding a group of SGI people near you.

For example:

  Daily Practice

  The core Buddhist practice of SGI members is chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo and reciting portions of the Lotus Sutra (referred to as gongyo), and sharing the teachings of Buddhism with others in order to help them overcome their problems.

  The practice of chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo was established by Nichiren (1222–82), a reformist Buddhist monk who identified the Lotus Sutra as the core teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha.

  Applying the Teachings

  Practice is supported by faith and study. SGI members study the teachings of Nichiren in order to deepen their understanding of the principles of Buddhism and the processes of inner transformation. Study strengthens faith and conviction, which finds expression in practice.

  Faith, in Nichiren Buddhism, is grounded in  the experience of applying Buddhism and seeing improvements in the quality of one’s life. Faith could be described as the ongoing effort to orient one’s heart toward the ideal of Buddhahood—the continual unfolding of one’s inherent potential for good, the ability to transform any negative circumstance into a source of growth and benefit, and a life dedicated toward helping others do the same.

  (etc.)

Their web site in India seems to be https://www.bharatsokagakkai.org/

My experience (in Canada) was that they are happy to have you join them their group, to meet to chant with them, and to explain their doctrines to you.

How can I have my desires fulfilled by that mantra?

I'd like to (but I'm not sure I can) explain that, in a way that's simple and accurate -- perhaps someone else will, who knows more about that form/school of Buddhism than I do.

I suppose it's easier to practice than it is to teach.

Or you may find an answer by reading the web pages I referenced -- see also for example Buddhist Concepts.
I'm referencing SGI's web site, because I think they're the biggest organisation of practitioners outside Japan whose practice depends on the mantra that you asked about.
There are other forms or schools of Buddhism too, which don't use that mantra. It's said there's a unity, that all schools of Buddhism have a lot in common with each other, perhaps it is all relevant to the "Buddhist method of worship".

I also recommend these topics, on this site:

What "technically" happens when we chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo?
Question about Nichiren Buddhism
What is meant by Namu Amida Butsu and also Nam-myoho-renge-kyo?
How does chanting work in Nichiren Buddhism?

I suppose that it's important to hear, understand, and practice Buddhist doctrine (i.e. "dhamma" or "dharma"), possibly with other Buddhists -- and that mantra is connected with that, part of that.


Do the Abhidharma texts exist online in original format? I just learned of the Abhidharma. What was their original or early language they were written in, and do they exist online in copy/pastable (non-PDF or image) format anywhere for free? Is this of any use?

You can find Theravada Abhidhamma, all Pali, only some translations, at Sutta Central:
https://suttacentral.net/ds
https://suttacentral.net/vb
https://suttacentral.net/dt
https://suttacentral.net/pp
https://suttacentral.net/kv
https://suttacentral.net/ya
https://suttacentral.net/patthana


Pressing palms together in respect for the lotus sutra - a boddhisattva? I listened to the lotus sutra as an audiobook. There I heard that when one presses the palms together in respect for the lotus sutra, it means that one has paid already homage to myriads of Buddhas in the past. Does that mean if I do this I am eligible to become a Buddha?

The greeting with joined palms is mentioned throughout the suttas. In general, the entire Sangha is worthy of such greeting:

  DN33:1.11.105: ‘The Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples is practicing the way that’s good, straightforward, methodical, and proper. It consists of the four pairs, the eight individuals. This is the Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples that is worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods, worthy of hospitality, worthy of a religious donation, worthy of greeting with joined palms, and is the supreme field of merit for the world.’

Note the clarification about four pairs and eight individuals. The fourth pair comprises those perfected or practicing for perfection. But it takes more than simply paying homage. All of these eight individuals have undertaken the Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Immersion.

Even Gautama Buddha had to be encouraged to pay homage to a living Buddha. He had to be grabbed by the hair:

  MN81:8.16: Then Ghaṭīkāra grabbed Jotipāla by the hair of his freshly-washed head and said, ‘Dear Jotipāla, the Buddha Kassapa’s monastery is not far away. Let’s go to see the Blessed One Kassapa, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. For I regard it as holy to see that Blessed One.’

It is good that you are paying homage to the Buddhas already. But perhaps more attention to the entire Noble Eighfold Path would be more effective than such simple observances?


Would a wise person avoide situations where other could perform lot of demerits? Would a wise person avoide situations where other could perform lot of demerits?

Or different asked: Would a wise person go out only if meritorious reactions are suspected?

What do you think, or know about the Buddhas view on such?

(Note that this has been not asked for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment that binds here in this world, but as means of release)

The general Buddhist advise is to associate wise people. There are many Buddhist stories that Buddha encountering unwise people. It appears that Buddha did not have much time for those people. You find stories such as Angulimala. But they appeared to be intelligent people.


Which Pali suttas describe the Buddha & monks demonstrating psychic powers to laypeople? The suttas about the 32 marks of a great man, such as MN 91, appear to describe the Buddha used psychic power towards Brahmins however they do not appear to say the Brahmin layperson was cognizant of the fact the Buddha used psychic power. For example:

So the Buddha used his psychic power to will that Uttara would see his retracted private parts.
Then Uttara thought, “The ascetic Gotama possesses the thirty-two marks. Why don’t I follow him and observe his deportment?”
MN 91

In SN 41.4, a layperson discovers a monk has psychic powers. The monk later performs a demonstration of psychic power to the layperson but then, as a result, decides to leave that locality of the layperson that became enamored by his psychic powers.
In MN 37, Moggallāna performs an act of psychic power to Sakka the Ruler of the Gods but it is not clear whether Sakka can be classified as a "layperson", as follows:

Then Moggallāna used his psychic power to make the Palace of Victory
shake and rock and tremble with his big toe. Then Sakka, Vessavaṇa,
and the Gods of the Thirty-Three, their minds full of wonder and
amazement, thought, “It’s incredible, it’s amazing! The ascetic has
such power and might that he makes the god’s home shake and rock and
tremble with his big toe!”

Please list any other Pali suttas that describe the Buddha & monks demonstrating psychic powers to laypeople. Thank you.

In MN 86 (quoted below), we find the lay bandit Angulimala cognizant of the psychic power displayed by the Buddha.

Then Aṅgulimāla donned his sword and shield, fastened his bow and
arrows, and followed behind the Buddha. But the Buddha used his
psychic power to will that Aṅgulimāla could not catch up with him no
matter how hard he tried, even though the Buddha kept walking at a
normal speed.
Then Aṅgulimāla thought, “It’s incredible, it’s amazing! Previously,
even when I’ve chased a speeding elephant, horse, chariot or deer,
I’ve always caught up with them. But I can’t catch up with this
ascetic no matter how hard I try, even though he’s walking at a normal
speed.”

In the Vinaya chapter Cammakkhandhaka (Pli Tv Kd 5) quoted below, we find the example of the Buddha asking a monk to perform wonders of psychic power for eighty thousand villagers to see.

Then those eighty thousand village overseers approached the Lord;
having approached, having greeted the Lord, they sat down at a
respectful distance. Then those eighty thousand village overseers paid
respect only to the venerable Sāgata, not likewise to the Lord. Then
the Lord, knowing by reasoning of mind the minds of those eighty
thousand village overseers, addressed the venerable Sāgata, saying:
“Well then, do you, Sāgata, abundantly show a state of further-men, a
wonder of psychic power.”
“Very well, Lord,” and the venerable Sagata, having answered the Lord
in assent, having risen above the ground, paced up and down in the
air, in the atmosphere, and he stood, and he sat down, and he lay
down, and he smoked and he blazed, and then he vanished.
Then the venerable Sagata, having shown in the air, in the atmosphere,
various states of further-men and wonders of psychic power, having
inclined his head towards the Lord’s feet, spoke thus to the Lord:
“Lord, the Lord is my teacher, I am a disciple; Lord, the Lord is my
teacher, I am a disciple”. Then those eighty thousand village
overseers, saying: “Indeed it is marvellous, indeed, it is wonderful,
that even a disciple can be of such great psychic power, of such great
might. What must the teacher be?” paid respect only to the Lord, not
likewise to the venerable Sagata.

The story in the commentary to Dhp 124 (quoted below) has a demonstration of psychic power by the Buddha to Kukkutamitta and his family, but it's not clear if they were cognizant of it.

When the hunter came, he saw no animal in the trap; he saw the
footprint and surmised that someone must have come before him and let
cut the animal. So, when he saw the Buddha under the shade of the
bush, he took him for the man who had freed the animal from his trap
and flew into a rage. He took out his bow and arrow to shoot at the
Buddha, but as he drew his bow, he became immobilized and remained
fixed in that position like a statue. His sons followed and found
their father; they also saw the Buddha at some distance and thought he
must be the enemy of their father. All of them took out their bows and
arrows to shoot at the Buddha, but they also became immobilized and
remained fixed in their respective postures. When the hunter and his
sons failed to return, the hunter's wife followed them into the
forest, with her seven daughters-in-law. Seeing her husband and all
her sons with their arrows aimed at the Buddha, she raised both her
hands and shout: "Do not kill my father."
When her husband heard her words, he thought, "This must be my
father-in-law", and her sons thought, "This must be our grandfather";
and thoughts of loving-kindness came into them. Then the lady said to
them, ''Put away your bows and arrows and pay obeisance to my father".
The Buddha realized that, by this time, the minds of the hunter and
his son; had softened and so he willed that they should be able to
move and to put away their bows and arrows. After putting away their
bows and arrows, they paid obeisance to the Buddha and the Buddha
expounded the Dhamma to them. In the end, the hunter, his seven sons
and seven daughters-in-law, all fifteen of them, attained Sotapatti
Fruition.

In the Vinaya chapter Mahākhandhaka (Pli Tv Kd 1) quoted below, the Buddha used his psychic power to temporarily hide Yasa from his father, both of whom were laypersons at the time. However, it appears that they were not cognizant of the fact.

The Lord saw the (great) merchant, the householder, coming in the
distance; seeing him, it occurred to the Lord: “Suppose I were to
perform such a psychic wonder that the (great) merchant, the
householder, sitting here, should not see Yasa the young man of
family, sitting here?” Then the Lord performed such a psychic wonder.
Then the (great) merchant, the householder, approached the Lord;
having approached he spoke thus to the Lord: “Lord has the Lord not
seen Yasa, the young man of family?”
“Well, householder, sit down. Perhaps, sitting here, you may see Yasa,
the young man of family, sitting here.”


Form is not worth considering as self but is it worth considering as non-self? Namo Buddhaya.

This question is regarding Anatta. Form is not considered worth identifying as Self because Form is impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering.
But can we identify Form as non-self ?

This question is regarding Anatta. Form is not considered worth identifying as Self because Form is impermanent , changeable and cause of suffering. But can we identify Form as non-self ?

"Not-self" (Anatta), is together with Anicca and Dukkha, known as the Three Characteristics of Existence (of Conditioned Phenomena).
The Five Aggregates, wherein Rupa (material form, physical phenomena) is listed, are subject to the Three Characteristics of Existence.
The uncontrollability of the Aggregates is experientially visible through direct seeing, ie. the practice of Vipassana Meditation. Here it can be seen with ones own eyes, how the Form-aggregate arises and ceases incessantly, based on impersonal causes and conditions.
In the Anattalakkhana Sutta, the Buddha explains how form can be regarded as not-self:

"... Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus..."
"...What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir...”
-- SN 22.59


Can meditation change your hormone and neurotransmitter system? Meditation can cause a lot of rest and peace. But can it also change the levels of hormone and neurotransmitters? Do they increase or decrease? I tend to think that fe your adrenaline is getting down and perhaps your testosteron. So can you become less 'male' or 'female' of it?

So far I have only one first-hand report of a practitioner diagnosed with ADD due to dopamine re-uptake problems, who says meditation helps him regulate the levels of dopamine.

From buddhist theory we know that the Four Jhanas meditation is intended to produce joy, which should correlate with the functioning of the reward mechanism of the brain, which is primarily dopamine-based. So another way to see the Jhanas, esp. the first and second one, is as mastery over one's dopamine levels by taking control of the reward mechanism.

As far the levels of other hormones and neurotransmitters, I can only assume they get "better", but there is nothing I know first-hand. A nice book on the topic seems to be Zen and the Brain: Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness but I have not read it.


How to inculcate metta in me? Metta was natural to me when I was young. I didn't give much thought to it then.

Now I find it difficult. So many thoughts come when I want to donate to charity like,
is it a recognized charitable institution? how is it run? if they are adequately funded, should I donate to an institution which does not do marketing? or whether I should give the part to the homeless person?   All these thoughts makes metta a mental process of deciding who is worthy and who is not with limited funds I have for donation.

How does one inculcate metta? Is it influenced by skandhas ? Can metta itself become an attachment leading to mental craving for that feeling when one can observe on giving?

If funds are limited and the opportunities to donate are plenty, you should find out which is the best place to donate as in who is genuine, who will benefit the most, who is the most worthy etc. It's an aspect of wisdom which guides Metta to have the best possible outcome.

It's important to note the difference between worrying and looking for the best available option. The former is a consequence of clinging whereas the latter is a form of wisdom.

The Skandhas(5 aggregates) is a different teaching which has nothing to do with Metta, except for Metta bieing an instance of Sankhara-skandha(mental formations).

Metta can never be craving, but craving can disguise itself as Metta.
Ex: Wanting to donate because the collection girl is pretty; wanting to join community service to get a chance to spend time with someone you are  attracted to; wanting to donate to impress someone; wanting to donate to get a heavenly birth etc.

Technically speaking, wanting to help the poor & the afflicted is more Karuna(compassion) than Metta. Metta is simply kindness.